Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Counterfactual history- Does it have a place on the History forum?

13

Comments

  • #62
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    The purpose of the thread was to garner the opinion of forum users towards this type of thread. I did not expect the result to be universally one way or the other and good points have been made on both sides. From a moderating point of view the views of people using the forum help form the basis on which threads are allowed to function. This is also why I have not expressed an opinion. It is absolutely not about 'enshrining, approving' couterfactual threads- in fact they are already a part of the forum.
    I note counterfactual threads are not a new thing on the history forum. For example from 2009 this thread titled 'If Lynch had invaded' http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055669480 or this one from a few weeks time of the first 'Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2' http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055592204 .

    Right...so can you let us know what the decision is going forward based on what results you think this thread has yielded to you?

    I presume the thread had some purpose other than just curiosity or a debate just for the sake of it...


  • #63
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I note counterfactual threads are not a new thing on the history forum. For example from 2009 this thread titled 'If Lynch had invaded' .


    I could be wrong but AFAIR the reason for that topic was in the news at that time was the release of government papers etc and not originality in H & H. So it was in the wider media and not a counterfactual debate originating here..

    MarchDub wrote: »
    Right...so can you let us know what the decision is going forward based on what results you think this thread has yielded to you?

    I presume the thread had some purpose other than just curiosity or a debate just for the sake of it...

    +1


  • #64
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    I could be wrong but AFAIR the reason for that topic was in the news at that time was the release of government papers etc and not originality in H & H. So it was in the wider media and not a counterfactual debate originating here..
    Maybe it was in the wider media- the origin of the idea for that thread is irrelevant to the point being made. That is that counterfactual history threads have been in the forum in the long term (the Lynch thread is an example of this).
    MarchDub wrote: »
    Right...so can you let us know what the decision is going forward based on what results you think this thread has yielded to you?

    I presume the thread had some purpose other than just curiosity or a debate just for the sake of it...

    I don't mean to be avoiding the question. It is not my intention to make a decision and the purpose of the thread is as stated
    Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
    The purpose of the thread was to garner the opinion of forum users towards this type of thread.

    The opinions vary, some people see value in counter factual discussions,
    some people including you MD don't . Points in relation to the quality of information required to make a discussion of this sort work are also noted. The previous counterfactual thread on this forum (before the 1916 one) was at the beginning of March in relation to Hitler and WWII and it was moved to the WWII forum http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056565694 . Previous to that was February which was not moved http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056525022 . These are all I found going back to Novemeber 2011. That is 3 threads in over 6 months so they will be judged on their merits as seems to have been the case in the past. I would suggest that if they crop up in the future forum users can report them if they feel they are better moved to other forums. This is what happened with the Hitler thread in March and I see no reason given the low number of these threads why this would not be adequate in the future. In the mean time this thread has been helpful IMO.


  • #65
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »

    I don't mean to be avoiding the question. It is not my intention to make a decision and the purpose of the thread is as stated

    Well what about this that you posed..?
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »

    Counterfactual history- Does it have a place on the History forum?

    It's not your intention to make any decision?... yet the opening title of this asks specifically 'does it have a place on the History forum?'. So I think you really have to give an answer to the question you yourself asked as a mod.


  • #66
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Maybe it was in the wider media- the origin of the idea for that thread is irrelevant to the point being made. That is that counterfactual history threads have been in the forum in the long term (the Lynch thread is an example of this).



    There is no maybe about it, it was.

    And, there are area's where difference's in factual history don't get addressed too. Sort of essential if approaching this.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Maybe it was in the wider media- the origin of the idea for that thread is irrelevant to the point being made. That is that counterfactual history threads have been in the forum in the long term (the Lynch thread is an example of this).
    CDfm wrote: »
    There is no maybe about it, it was.

    Yes, it was indeed. A point I was going to make myself - I can very well remember Lynch going on TV and suggesting/hinting at an invasion of NI. There was HUGE talk about it at the time amongst just about everyone that I knew. Friends, workplace, family, all taking about a possible invasion by our troops into NI.


  • #68
    Fenian Army
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭Fenian Army


    I think the use of the word "invasion" in relation to Irish troops is funny.


    There may be exceptions but they are few and far between. A thread about Lynch ordering troops across the British imposed border into the six counties (ie, was the threat serious?) is worlds apart from a "what if my Aunt had balls" type discussion. Thats what people dont want, people coming along with "what if x" then pages or arguments and scenarios based on nothing but opinion plucked from god knows were. Thats not history. Maybe have some type of Walter Mitty type sub forum if you feel people dont want to use the history forum for history.


  • #69
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fenian Army wrote: »
    I think the use of the word "invasion" in relation to Irish troops is funny.

    Good point. You are right - I'll have to look up the use of what wording was used at the time. I think it was something like 'crossing the border'...

    Fenian Army wrote: »
    There may be exceptions but they are few and far between. A thread about Lynch ordering troops across the British imposed border into the six counties (ie, was the threat serious?) is worlds apart from a "what if my Aunt had balls" type discussion. Thats what people dont want, people coming along with "what if x" then pages or arguments and scenarios based on nothing but opinion plucked from god knows were. Thats not history. Maybe have some type of Walter Mitty type sub forum if you feel people dont want to use the history forum for history.


    And I think that that is exactly the point about the 'what ifs'....


  • #70
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Yes, it was indeed. A point I was going to make myself - I can very well remember Lynch going on TV and suggesting/hinting at an invasion of NI. There was HUGE talk about it at the time amongst just about everyone that I knew. Friends, workplace, family, all taking about a possible invasion by our troops into NI.

    OK then.

    Are you saying that this is not a counterfactual thread : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055669480


  • #71
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »

    It's not your intention to make any decision?... yet the opening title of this asks specifically 'does it have a place on the History forum?'. So I think you really have to give an answer to the question you yourself asked as a mod.

    I disagree. I have explained why I asked the question and an answer from me is not the result of the OP.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Fenian Army wrote: »
    There may be exceptions but they are few and far between. A thread about Lynch ordering troops across the British imposed border into the six counties (ie, was the threat serious?) is worlds apart from a "what if my Aunt had balls" type discussion. Thats what people dont want, people coming along with "what if x" then pages or arguments and scenarios based on nothing but opinion plucked from god knows were. Thats not history. Maybe have some type of Walter Mitty type sub forum if you feel people dont want to use the history forum for history.

    I agree with this 100%.

    Counterfactual discussion does have a role in understanding history, but it is quite limited. On an internet forum it could get quickly bogged down in opinions.

    I think it would be best to stick it into a sub forum like the military forum do with Walter Mitty stuff.


  • #73
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
    Maybe it was in the wider media- the origin of the idea for that thread is irrelevant to the point being made. That is that counterfactual history threads have been in the forum in the long term (the Lynch thread is an example of this).
    There is no maybe about it, it was.
    As I said already, the origin of the idea for that thread is irrelevant to the point being made.
    What is your point?


  • #74
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    I think it would be best to stick it into a sub forum like the military forum do with Walter Mitty stuff.
    Fenian Army wrote: »
    I think the use of the word "invasion" in relation to Irish troops is funny.


    There may be exceptions but they are few and far between. A thread about Lynch ordering troops across the British imposed border into the six counties (ie, was the threat serious?) is worlds apart from a "what if my Aunt had balls" type discussion. Thats what people dont want, people coming along with "what if x" then pages or arguments and scenarios based on nothing but opinion plucked from god knows were. Thats not history. Maybe have some type of Walter Mitty type sub forum if you feel people dont want to use the history forum for history.

    That is an option that could be put in the forum request forum- if it got support it could be an outcome that both sides of this discussion would be happy with. I have not yet seen the "what if my Aunt had balls" type thread, i.e. being so far fetched that it was not a likely or possible conclusion being discussed.


  • #75
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    OK then.

    Are you saying that this is not a counterfactual thread : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055669480

    I personally don't give a tinker's what you want to call it, or any other thread - using one past thread as some kind of 'evidence' for going forth is meaningless.

    The question for me is do we want rubbish discussions based on fiction passing as history, and my answer is no, I don't.

    But I detect by your searching the archives for 'evidence' of what you are calling similar threads, that you support the 'what ifs' - otherwise why are you searching and producing long dead threads?

    And if that is your position then fine. But just say so.


  • #76
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    As I said already, the origin of the idea for that thread is irrelevant to the point being made.
    What is your point?

    Well the point that I was making in support of CDfm's comment is that it was not something plucked out of thin air - the issue of Lynch as posed in the thread HAD a firm basis in history and historic reality. He DID consider the issue of using Irish troops and put it out there that this was a possibility - in Lynch's own words in his TV address - of Irish troops crossing the border into NI.


  • #77
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I personally don't give a thinker's what you want to call it, or any other thread - using one past thread as some kind of 'evidence' for going forth is meaningless.

    Of all the forums on boards surely it would be expected on History that what went in past threads could be used help future threads.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    The question for me is do we want rubbish discussions based on fiction passing as history, and my answer is no, I don't.

    I agree as I would imagine do 99% of people who posted on this thread.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    But I detect by your searching the archives for 'evidence' of what you are calling similar threads, that you support the 'what ifs' - otherwise why are you searching and producing long dead threads?

    And if that is your position then fine. But just say so.

    I'm sorry MD but what you "detect" is not correct. It is a fact that this type of thread has cropped up from time to time. The purpose of linking to these was to show just that.

    The reason I had not stated my opinion from the start (in the OP) was so as not to lead people into an answer. The OP text was completely unbiased for this purpose. As you seem to have an issue with that (which is now restated) I will answer you, given that you are one of the forums most consistent supporters.

    I think firstly it is not a very straightforward question as demonstrated by Fenian army post
    A thread about Lynch ordering troops across the British imposed border into the six counties (ie, was the threat serious?) is worlds apart from a "what if my Aunt had balls" type discussion.
    There is a massive difference in the type of thread in this category. What this means to me is that each should be judged on its own merits as it progresses. So a thread about a realistic proposition may have some merit whereas another may not. The OP can lead into this discussion and threads can progress with the original question developing quite quickly. This is shown in the recent 1916 leaders counterfactual thread where a discussion developed some might say despite the content of the title. With this in mind it would seem short sighted to give a definitive yes or no to any counterfactual thread. As a prelude to his I would say that I have no wish for them to become more common than they currently are- 3 threads in 6 months.


    EDIT>
    MarchDub wrote: »
    Well the point that I was making in support of CDfm's comment is that it was not something plucked out of thin air - the issue of Lynch as posed in the thread HAD a firm basis in history and historic reality. He DID consider the issue of using Irish troops and put it out there that this was a possibility - in Lynch's own words in his TV address - of Irish troops crossing the border into NI.

    IMO it is still counterfactual- it is a fact that Lynch did not do this.

    I agree that it has merit in discussing it.

    Which supports my view of it being difficult to be definitive in saying yes or no.


  • #78
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »

    Which supports my view of it being difficult to be definitive in saying yes or no.

    So what was the purpose of posing the question on a thread in the first place? Just to argue about it all - if your view is that there is no definitive answer, therefore no position that the forum will take - no as you say, yes or no answer?

    And if there are no guidelines, no yes or no then what guarantees do you have that we won't have as Fenian so expressed it :
    Fenian Army wrote: »

    a "what if my Aunt had balls" type discussion. Thats what people dont want, people coming along with "what if x" then pages or arguments and scenarios based on nothing but opinion plucked from god knows were. .


  • #79
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.
    Fenian Army wrote: »
    There may be exceptions but they are few and far between. A thread about Lynch ordering troops across the British imposed border into the six counties (ie, was the threat serious?) is worlds apart from a "what if my Aunt had balls" type discussion
    And who has been advocating the latter? Hands up, please

    It's been quite clear, in my posts if nothing else, that there is a world of difference between counterfactual history and alternate history. Nobody has suggested opening the forum to the latter. Yet we still have people conflating the two and dismissing all what-ifs as "rubbish discussions based on fiction passing as history". It's ridiculous. People are apparently fine with engaging in reasoned what if debates that are rooted in history... yet are entirely adverse to counterfactual history. Which is of course that terrible habit of engaging in reasoned what if debates that are rooted in history :rolleyes:
    MarchDub wrote:
    And if there are no guidelines, no yes or no then what guarantees do you have that we won't have as Fenian so expressed it
    How about applying a bit of common sense? Plus having some faith in the moderators, of course


  • #80
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,218 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    So what was the purpose of posing the question on a thread in the first place? Just to argue about it all - if your view is that there is no definitive answer, therefore no position that the forum will take - no as you say, yes or no answer?

    And if there are no guidelines, no yes or no then what guarantees do you have that we won't have as Fenian so expressed it :

    Would you prefer that there to be no such thing as enquiry?

    If we are somehow prevented from examining historiography, (or any other discipline) and reaching conclusions based on the findings of that examination - then that discipline is built on unsteady foundations.

    The OP is a fundamental and invaluable question.
    Any question which makes us reflect on how we arrive at the truth, has immeasurable merit.
    Any legitimate question about the first principles of a discipline, is a vital process in determining and improving the validity of that discipline's methods.
    Conversely, not to engage in such analysis, is to render the discipline's methods suspect.
    Science cannot exist without questioning itself.


  • #81
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Reekwind wrote: »
    And who has been advocating the latter? Hands up, please

    There is always an argument here about the sanitising of Irish history and trying to get some precision from the mods on what's allowed.

    Take the example that jonniebgood1 has used
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    As I said already, the origin of the idea for that thread is irrelevant to the point being made.
    What is your point?

    The thread was a review of a TV programme and the general conclusion was that our regular forces would have been outgunned by the NI irregular forces.
    munsterdevil wrote: »
    Did anyone see the documentary that was on tonight (1 September 2009). Wasn't it just the most ridiculous pile of rubbish that was ever made. It was like asking "If Ireland had invaded Poland in 1939, would they have won WWII?"

    Would you class it as counterfactual history.
    slowburner wrote: »
    Would you prefer that there to be no such thing as enquiry?

    If we are somehow prevented from examining historiography, (or any other discipline) and reaching conclusions based on the findings of that examination - then that discipline is built on unsteady foundations.

    The OP is a fundamental and invaluable question.
    Any question which makes us reflect on how we arrive at the truth, has immeasurable merit.
    Any legitimate question about the first principles of a discipline, is a vital process in determining and improving the validity of that discipline's methods.
    Conversely, not to engage in such analysis, is to render the discipline's methods suspect.
    Science cannot exist without questioning itself.

    That's the theory alright but try getting a nationalist vs unionist or British historiography discussion going and it's "Goodnight Irene"

    And some of us have argued lot's for the use of history as a discipline here on H & H.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    slowburner wrote: »
    Would you prefer that there to be no such thing as enquiry?

    If we are somehow prevented from examining historiography, (or any other discipline) and reaching conclusions based on the findings of that examination - then that discipline is built on unsteady foundations.

    The OP is a fundamental and invaluable question.
    Any question which makes us reflect on how we arrive at the truth, has immeasurable merit.
    Any legitimate question about the first principles of a discipline, is a vital process in determining and improving the validity of that discipline's methods.
    Conversely, not to engage in such analysis, is to render the discipline's methods suspect.
    Science cannot exist without questioning itself.

    Pardon me but I must point out that you are now speaking absolute nonsense - when did I EVER on this forum ask for a shut down on inquiry???? And when did I EVER advocate a non examination of the historic record?

    And when did makey up truths, wild assumptions based on uninformed opinion statements EVER pose a decent inquiry into historiography?

    I don't mind engaging into an open and honest discussion but when you put words in my mouth, twist what the entire issue is about, make false analogies and fallacious statements like the above - then I won't engage any further in this nonsense.

    This thread has turned into a trolling opportunity for those who engage in that sort of thing - and considering that it actually was drawn up to serve no practical purpose, that shouldn't surprise anyone.


  • #83
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    So what was the purpose of posing the question on a thread in the first place? Just to argue about it all - if your view is that there is no definitive answer, therefore no position that the forum will take - no as you say, yes or no answer?

    And if there are no guidelines, no yes or no then what guarantees do you have that we won't have as Fenian so expressed it :

    I answered both these points in post no. 77


  • #84
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Pardon me but I must point out that you are now speaking absolute nonsense - when did I EVER on this forum ask for a shut down on inquiry???? And when did I EVER advocate a non examination of the historic record?

    And when did makey up truths, wild assumptions based on uninformed opinion statements EVER pose a decent inquiry into historiography?

    I don't mind engaging into an open and honest discussion but when you put words in my mouth, twist what the entire issue is about, make false analogies and fallacious statements like the above - then I won't engage any further in this nonsense.

    This thread has turned into a trolling opportunity for those who engage in that sort of thing - and considering that it actually was drawn up to serve no practical purpose, that shouldn't surprise anyone.
    Slowburner asked a question and made some counter arguments to your points. There is no trolling in the past few pages just debate of the issue. The crux of this is that nobody has suggested that any wil assumptions or uninformed opinion should be accepted.


  • #85
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »


    The thread was a review of a TV programme and the general conclusion was that our regular forces would have been outgunned by the NI irregular forces.



    Would you class it as counterfactual history.

    Yes
    counterfactual [ˌkauntəˈfæktʃʊəl] Logic
    adj
    (Philosophy / Logic) expressing what has not happened but could, would, or might under differing conditions http://www.thefreedictionary.com/counterfactual

    Would you not?


  • #86
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,218 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    Pardon me but I must point out that you are now speaking absolute nonsense - when did I EVER on this forum ask for a shut down on inquiry???? And when did I EVER advocate a non examination of the historic record?
    You misunderstand.
    I made no mention about a 'non examination of the historic record'. Nor did I suggest that you requested 'a shut down on enquiry'.
    That Marchdub is a stickler for historical accuracy, and fact, is beyond doubt.
    I doubt that anyone would dispute the value of MarchDub's input, or the depth of his knowledge - I certainly wouldn't :)
    I thought the analysis of Lynch's plan for the North, could have led to an intriguing discussion on how CF could be used as a valid tool.

    But, that is not what I questioned - I questioned your reluctance to tolerate a discussion about an examination of historiography, based on what you said here.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    So what was the purpose of posing the question on a thread in the first place? Just to argue about it all...
    And when did makey up truths, wild assumptions based on uninformed opinion statements EVER pose a decent inquiry into historiography?
    Obviously, never.
    I don't mind engaging into an open and honest discussion but when you put words in my mouth, twist what the entire issue is about, make false analogies and fallacious statements like the above - then I won't engage any further in this nonsense.
    I put no words in your mouth - that is a patent misrepresentation.
    The issue is the validity of a particular form of historiographical method.
    This thread has turned into a trolling opportunity for those who engage in that sort of thing - and considering that it actually was drawn up to serve no practical purpose, that shouldn't surprise anyone.
    Again, I state that the question is of fundamental importance, valid, and thought provoking.


  • #87
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    I think this thread is an excellent example of when you pose a question based on opinions and ask people to just join in with no aim whatsoever at any resolution - we are just going around in circles, with a blatant twisting of what has actually been said in order to what, win debating points? It's pathetic nonsense...

    What I have said about the issue is on the record - trying to turn what I and others said who 'opposed ' the notion of counter factual history ON THE FORUM into some imagined attack on genuine inquiry is patently fallacious - and frankly Slowburner you are being hugely disingenuous in doing so.

    This discussion is a prime example of why I avoid forums which just banter about opinions with no sense of any documented backup - and if this type of toe to toe thread continues on History, I'm off here too.


  • #88
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Slowburner asked a question and made some counter arguments to your points. There is no trolling in the past few pages just debate of the issue. The crux of this is that nobody has suggested that any wil assumptions or uninformed opinion should be accepted.

    Well, you haven't said what will be accepted - that is the point. And I did ask...

    I refer to my post above and also this ;
    slowburner wrote: »
    Would you prefer that there to be no such thing as enquiry?

    This is what jumped out at me - This is a blatant distortion of what I - and others - have said on this issue. And it willfully ignores the finer details of the discussion as it is recorded on the thread.


  • #89
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Well, you haven't said what will be accepted - that is the point. And I did ask...
    Post no 77 is a genuine answer to your question. I do not intend to give an overriding principle on what I find acceptable due to the wide variance in thread types (examples in this thread have represented this where a thread on Lynch invading/ moving troops into NI seems acceptable but other counter factual threads are not).

    You did not answer as to whether you see the Lynch thread as acceptable?


  • #90
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Post no 77 is a genuine answer to your question. I do not intend to give an overriding principle on what I find acceptable due to the wide variance in thread types (examples in this thread have represented this where a thread on Lynch invading/ moving troops into NI seems acceptable but other counter factual threads are not).

    You did not answer as to whether you see the Lynch thread as acceptable?

    Well to quote what you posted:
    Philosophy / Logic) expressing what has not happened but could, would, or might under differing conditions
    I didn't read the entire Lynch thread but the question was not what would have happened under differing conditions i.e. if Lynch had a bigger army by planned recruitment or if Ireland were able to make a deal with overseas help and was that feasible etc. but what would have happened if he decided to go ahead under the exact conditions of the time as he himself actually proposed he might do and many of us were under that impression, so it was a situation based on historic fact. In other words, his decision was the issue, but not the condition or facts of the case. So no that is not a genuine case of counter factual history as none of the supporting facts were posed as changing as far as I can see. It was just a debate about Lynch's decision based on the actual historic conditions of the time.

    But why is this so important to you? Why are we endlessly going around this topic - making points and counter points, with charges of 'you don't like inquiry' etc being thrown in for good measure - as if it were going to impact the Forum when now I learn it's just an exercise in futility....


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Yes



    Would you not?

    No.

    MD explain's on post 90.


Advertisement