New direction of this section

Discussions on other historical eras.
Post Reply
User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

New direction of this section

#1

Post by Marcus » 31 Oct 2010, 21:08

To help move this section into a more historical direction (as was the original intention of the section) and avoid the discussions on present day events this section has now been retitled and is now dedicated only to the Cold War era (1946-1991).

Please note that the Lounge section is the place to discuss present day-events.

We will be moving the non-Cold War topics to the appropriate sections over the coming days.

/Marcus

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: New Direction Of This Section.

#2

Post by Robert Rojas » 01 Nov 2010, 17:51

Greetings to Chairman Wendel, his august lieutenants and the community as a whole. Howdy Marcus! Well sir, in light of your administrative announcement of Sunday - October 31, 2010 - 8:08pm, old Uncle Bob was (and is) curious if ANY level of discussion pertaining to the Russian Civil War of 1918-1920 might be permissible within this latest evolution of the now defunct POST WORLD WAR TWO section of the forum? It has always been the conventionally accepted wisdom that the origins of what would formally become the COLD WAR had its foundations in the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. Along a similar train of thought, given that there is an obvious ideological component involved with ANY aspect of the COLD WAR, will the forum's management establish a unitary parameter which clearly delineates historical discussion from political discussion? After all, why initiate a topic or participate in a thread, only to have the discussion capriciously terminated by the forum's powers-that-be? Finally, at least from some of us anyway, the COLD WAR did not end in year 1991 and nor has it technically ended at all. The Korean peninsula and the island of Cuba are points in case. So, how will post 1991 topics gravitating on China, Cuba, Korea and Vietnam be addressed? There is much to ponder. Well, that's my initial two cents or kopecks worth on this administrative topic of interest - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in the ever bucolic Kingdom of Sweden.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee


User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: RE: New Direction Of This Section.

#3

Post by Marcus » 01 Nov 2010, 21:30

Robert Rojas wrote:old Uncle Bob was (and is) curious if ANY level of discussion pertaining to the Russian Civil War of 1918-1920 might be permissible within this latest evolution of the now defunct POST WORLD WAR TWO section of the forum?
No, those discussions already have a home in the The Soviet Union at War 1917-1945 section.
Robert Rojas wrote:Along a similar train of thought, given that there is an obvious ideological component involved with ANY aspect of the COLD WAR, will the forum's management establish a unitary parameter which clearly delineates historical discussion from political discussion
Our view of political discussions have not changed so it is well known to you.
Robert Rojas wrote:So, how will post 1991 topics gravitating on China, Cuba, Korea and Vietnam be addressed?
Post-1991 events can be discussed in the Lounge, not in this section.

/Marcus

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: New Direction Of This Section.

#4

Post by Robert Rojas » 02 Nov 2010, 09:34

Greetings to Chairman Wendel, his august lieutenants and the community as a whole. Howdy Marcus! Well sir, in light of your installment of Monday - November 01, 2010 - 4:51pm, old Uncle Bob would like to convey his appreciation for your unambiguous reiteration of administrative policy regarding the now reconstituted COLD WAR section of the forum. Your unambiguous retieration of administrative policy should, in theory anyway, end many arguments before those arguments even gain any traction. I guess we'll all see - won't we? Well, that's my latest two cents or kopecks worth on this administrative topic of interest - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic over in ever bucolic Kingdom of Sweden.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

Post Reply

Return to “Other eras”