Originally Posted by Out of the Box (Post 61816)

What's the point of this forum section? Why is there an "alternative history" section when there already is a "history" section? This is a "conspiracy" website, right? Aren't most threads in the "history" section already dealing with a version of history that's somewhat deviant from the mainstream view?!?

Originally Posted by BlueAngel (Post 61896)

There is an existing HISTORY section on Club Conspiracy and an "ALTERNATE HISTORY" section has NOW been added to the forum.

I sssume you would know the difference between both since you are a member of a conspiracy forum.

Originally Posted by BlueAngel (Post 61896)

Who cares if the existing HISTORY section already includes versions that are somewhat deviant from mainstream media.

They can now be separated accordingly.

Originally Posted by Out of the Box (Post 61964)

No, I don't know the different between both. That's why I started this thread. From a conspiratory point of view, "history" and "alternate history" seem to cover pretty much the same topics.



I just see no reason to distinguish "history" from "alternate history" on a conspiracy forum, nor do I see any objective criteria on how to seperate both.

I can't imagine why it would anger you so that the ADMINSTRATOR of this forum has found it prudent to add an "Alternative History" section to the forum. In my opinion, seperating "history" and "alternate history" will only reduce the quality of this forum by decreasing the exposure of some topics.

Originally Posted by EireEngineer (Post 62432)

Talk about splitting hairs, but this way there is a forum for those who want to discuss conventional history, and one for those who want to discuss theoretical or revisionist history. Its pretty basic.

Originally Posted by Out of the Box (Post 62434)

Why seperate sections? It's not like there's so much activity on this forum that topics on conventional history are drowning in topics on revisionist history or something like that....

Further, I stick to my statement that a seperate forum for "alternate history" is just silly on a forum dedicated to conspiracies since the "conspiracy theorist"'s view of history is by default alternate to the mainstream account, whether this "conspiracy theorist" is of the David Icke kind, the Alex Jones kind, the Eric Hufschmid kind, the Texe Marrs kind or just someone who can read between the lines. ;)

Originally Posted by BlueAngel (Post 63027)

Will have to agree that the ALTERNATE HISTORY forum does seem to be somewhat redundant.

Originally Posted by BlueAngel (Post 63027)

That being said, not every conspiracy theorist rejects all written history as false and adopts only alternate history as fact.

Originally Posted by Out of the Box (Post 63036)

If you're referring to "Alternate History" as in fictional history parallel to real history (eg. Nazis winning the WW2, the Iron Curtain still standing), then you would be right. However, this is not the way this sub-forum is currently used or described.



Of course not, but accepted mainstream history is not really an suitable topic for a conspiracy forum.