Saddam Hussein

Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #20 on: January 01, 2015, 10:14:09 PM »
Maybe Daniel should...

Any sentence that begins like this is not a good idea.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2015, 05:04:12 AM by Saddam Hussein »

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 5459
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2015, 04:58:44 AM »
I like this idea. What I would like to do is modify my debating style so that all questions I answer on this forum are answered in the form of a paragraph, intended to be included in a modern edition of Earth Not a Globe. I'm afraid I don't really have the time to both debate and to write a book. If other FE'ers come on board with this idea, where we debate with explanatory paragraphs we can compile our work into a book easily -- perhaps copy-pasting to a wiki for organization. Re'ers can help guide the content by asking questions on the forum for which they would like to see answered.

I don't really feel the chapter format of the original Earth Not a Globe is appropriate for modern version. Ideally this book should be split into four volumes, each containing chapters within the subject-matter:

Volume I: Introduction

This section should be an introduction to FET, a history of RET, and discuss Zetetic vs. Theoretic

Volume II: Terra Firma

This volume and the chapters within it deals with phenomena within the atmosphere of the earth.

Volume III: The Cosmos

This volume and the chapter within it deals with phenomena outside the atmosphere of the earth.

Volume IV: The Conspiracy

This volume and the chapters within it deals specifically with the Conspiracy.

Each chapter within a volume should have the following sections:

Background: This section provides a background on the topic. It should be assumed that the reader knows nothing about earth science and needs to be brought up to speed on what the RET theory states before launching into FET.

Theory: The next section in the chapter should deal with the current theory.

Q&A: After the theory is explained in each chapter, questions and challenges should be asked (perhaps provided by RE'ers on this forum). Under the chapter for the sun, for example, once its place is described and defined in FET under the theory section we can list a series of italicized questions such as "Why doesn't the sun change size over the course of the day?" and "What causes its movement?" We can then list the questions in the glossary for people to reference.

If we can all agree to follow this format, or a similar one, I think this can work.
Tom, are you looking to annotate (add notes to) or completely rewrite ENaG?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8631
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2015, 08:03:47 AM »
I would prefer an entire rewrite which explains the theories presented in Earth Not a Globe from the ground up with its modern adjustments.

If pertinent, the background section can mention any notable differences between the modern theory and the theory in the original Earth Not a Globe. Such as "It was originally believed that.." Additionally, we could always cross-link to the corresponding Earth Not a Globe chapter(s) in a notes or references section at the bottom of our chapter.

The entire written chapter as I've described it can be the "added explanation". I just don't see how adding an explanatory paragraph or illustration to the original chapter can do the subject matter justice. This should be a larger project.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2015, 07:27:04 PM by Tom Bishop »

Thork

Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2015, 03:43:11 PM »
This isn't going to be popular but I'm going to have my say on this.

This is akin to the Catholic church saying "the bible seems a bit out of date, lets rewrite it".

There are a number of reasons why they don't. Any ambiguities are already there. They aren't creating new ones. And "This is the Word of God".

ENaG is the same. It is written by an FES prophet. Someone dead and unable to be held to account. Someone revered and delivering first hand their thoughts on their findings. Not someone 150 years later reinterpreting the text for their own good.

By placing your thoughts of what the text may be saying into an annotated or updated version, you narrow that level of ambiguity and give your enemies specific things to target. Its then harder for you to say, well maybe I misread Rowbotham. I fear all that will come of this, is a narrowed selection of topics around ENaG, focussing on your misinterpretations, not the theory as a whole.

ENaG is a holy book for the flat earth society. There is nothing else like it. We are its guardians, not its editors.

If you have the energy to write a whole new book, write a whole new book ... but distance yourself from replacing the text that founds the society.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12977
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #24 on: January 02, 2015, 04:16:58 PM »
If we have to roll with the religious analogies, it may be worth pointing out that annotated and re-translated Bibles are extremely commonplace, and not at all untouchable as you seem to suggest.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Thork

Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2015, 05:52:23 PM »
If we have to roll with the religious analogies, it may be worth pointing out that annotated and re-translated Bibles are extremely commonplace, and not at all untouchable as you seem to suggest.
Yes, but an Oxford Annotated Bible isn't a Vatican church endorsed version of the Bible. I just think you guys are making it too easy for your detractors. Anyway, those are my thoughts. I'll leave the thread now.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 5459
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2015, 09:16:14 PM »
I would prefer an entire rewrite which explains the theories presented in Earth Not a Globe from the ground up with its modern adjustments.
If you want to rewrite it, then fine.  Just don't call it an annotated version, because that isn't what annotated means or implies.  Give it a different name and say "based on", or something to that effect.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2015, 09:44:33 PM »
I'm not sure I understand why a completely rewritten ENaG would be different or superior to an improved Wiki.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8631
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2015, 10:25:51 PM »
I'm not sure I understand why a completely rewritten ENaG would be different or superior to an improved Wiki.

Eventually it could all become one large living encyclopedia of Flat Earth knowledge. There is no sense maintaining two works which cover the same content.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 5459
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2015, 02:31:07 AM »
I'm not sure I understand why a completely rewritten ENaG would be different or superior to an improved Wiki.

Eventually it could all become one large living encyclopedia of Flat Earth knowledge. There is no sense maintaining two works which cover the same content.
Incorrect.  It makes perfect sense to package the same or similar content in different works for different purposes and different audiences.  For example, an encyclopedia (or a wiki) may have content similar to a text book, but they each serve different functions.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8631
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2015, 03:25:16 AM »
I'm not sure I understand why a completely rewritten ENaG would be different or superior to an improved Wiki.

Eventually it could all become one large living encyclopedia of Flat Earth knowledge. There is no sense maintaining two works which cover the same content.
Incorrect.  It makes perfect sense to package the same or similar content in different works for different purposes and different audiences.  For example, an encyclopedia (or a wiki) may have content similar to a text book, but they each serve different functions.

How many Tom Bishops are there to perform research for, write and maintain material for these various projects?

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 5459
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2015, 03:32:12 AM »
How many Tom Bishops are there to perform research for, write and maintain material for these various projects?
I thought the wiki was supposed to be a community project.  I also thought that several other members were interested in annotating ENaG.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8631
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #32 on: January 03, 2015, 04:42:31 AM »
Yes, the wiki was supposed to be a community project. But, while I appreciate the contributions that have been made, no significant content has been added since I wrote it. This is because it is a community project that lacks direction. A decision that we are writing a modern edition of Earth Not a Globe and a official rule that we should somewhat focus our debates to contribute towards that, provides the direction we need.

If we all work towards creating a modern version of Earth Not a Globe in the manner I described it will fulfill several goals:

1. Content will be created for the Wiki (which we may eventually abolish or merge)
2. Flat Earth Theory will be further fleshed out
3. The debates on this forum would actually have purpose
4. Kill many birds with one stone (create debates, write the wiki, publish a book, and push the theory to new levels)

Anyway, I believe it to be impossible to provide short explanations for Earth Not a Globe and properly represent modern FET. We have entirely different theories now. We've expanded topics touched on in ENAG that a significant amount of content and a whole rewrite of the chapter is in order.

Adding a simple explanatory paragraph to the existing ENAG chapters doesn't really further Flat Earth Theory. But rewriting it as a community and  exploring new discussions does. That is far more exciting.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2015, 07:58:18 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8631
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2015, 12:04:35 AM »
This isn't going to be popular but I'm going to have my say on this.

This is akin to the Catholic church saying "the bible seems a bit out of date, lets rewrite it".

There are a number of reasons why they don't. Any ambiguities are already there. They aren't creating new ones. And "This is the Word of God".

ENaG is the same. It is written by an FES prophet. Someone dead and unable to be held to account. Someone revered and delivering first hand their thoughts on their findings. Not someone 150 years later reinterpreting the text for their own good.

By placing your thoughts of what the text may be saying into an annotated or updated version, you narrow that level of ambiguity and give your enemies specific things to target. Its then harder for you to say, well maybe I misread Rowbotham. I fear all that will come of this, is a narrowed selection of topics around ENaG, focussing on your misinterpretations, not the theory as a whole.

ENaG is a holy book for the flat earth society. There is nothing else like it. We are its guardians, not its editors.

If you have the energy to write a whole new book, write a whole new book ... but distance yourself from replacing the text that founds the society.

I don't need ambiguity to argue my points. I give my opinion to the best of my ability, with the best evidence we have available. If something is unknown, then I state that the matter is presently unknown, no big deal. I don't like situations where we are being invaded on all fronts by swarms of  globularists and we are leaving our less learned planists out cold to fend for themselves because of ambiguity. We must supply them with the ammunition of evidence and specificity to properly combat our relentless foes. We need a totem of knowledge to fall back on for our modern Flat Earth Theory. It's going to take an effort of all of us to construct such a work.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 12:09:31 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2015, 05:27:37 PM »
Yes, the wiki was supposed to be a community project. But, while I appreciate the contributions that have been made, no significant content has been added since I wrote it. This is because it is a community project that lacks direction. A decision that we are writing a modern edition of Earth Not a Globe and a official rule that we should somewhat focus our debates to contribute towards that, provides the direction we need.

...
Adding a simple explanatory paragraph to the existing ENAG chapters doesn't really further Flat Earth Theory. But rewriting it as a community and  exploring new discussions does. That is far more exciting.

I agree with most of this... but I'm sort of getting stuck on re-writing ENaG My goal wasn't to re-write, but to add to the work.  I'm not talking about a single explanatory paragraph or even a few, I'm talking about expanding upon the ideas present and working in new theories such as aetheric wind.

To this end, perhaps "Expanded Edition" is a better descriptor than  "Annotated."  I believe the work should be preserved as it is the foundation of our society, but there is certainly room for lots of additional knowledge.

Although having said that, it's already a pretty lengthy tome, so perhaps Earth Not a Globe Volume 2 is something we can put together?  Since the first is in the public domain, we could publish a pretty attractive two-volume set.

Thork

Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2015, 12:41:12 PM »
so perhaps Earth Not a Globe Volume 2 is something we can put together?  Since the first is in the public domain, we could publish a pretty attractive two-volume set.

Have you ever read Flat Earth, by Christine Garwood? Its a smear campaign ... the history of flat earth theory written by someone who scorns and mocks her subjects. I think you could do a much better version of that, writing all the things we know that she didn't ... proof Dr Birley was a doctor, his pioneering work in the soft drinks industry and creation of a drink later sold as Dr Pepper, Hampden winning his case on the Bedford level and the two other experiments by Blount and Rowbotham proving earth flat, Ptolemy and his work, Aristotle and his prime movers and celestial gears, the clockwork universe, deism and Newton's links, battles with the royal astronomical society etc etc

We know enough to write a really interesting book, but from a sympathetic standpoint. Something you never see normally. I think you'd be better served rewriting the history properly as we know it, than cocking about with Rowbotham's high tide numbers.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2015, 12:42:44 PM by Thork »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7820
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2015, 01:59:19 PM »
Well don't lie about Hampden; make sure to mention the bet was turned over on a legal technicality and not the substance of the bet. It was like the 1800s version of "If it doesn't fit you must acquit."  Everyone knows what happened but the courts had to rule for Hampden anyway.

EDIT: Fixed Typos.  Now if only Thork can correct his claims about Hampden.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2015, 06:14:42 PM by Rama Set »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Thork

Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2015, 02:10:16 PM »
Well don't lie about Hambden; make sure to mention the bet was turned over on a legal technicality and not the substance of the bet. It was like the 1800s version of "If it doesn't fit you must acquit."  Everyone knows what happened but the courts had to rule for Hambden anyway.
We'll also make sure we spell his name correctly.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7820
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2015, 06:13:40 PM »
Well don't lie about Hambden; make sure to mention the bet was turned over on a legal technicality and not the substance of the bet. It was like the 1800s version of "If it doesn't fit you must acquit."  Everyone knows what happened but the courts had to rule for Hambden anyway.
We'll also make sure we spell his name correctly.

As well you should.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Re: Annotated ENAG
« Reply #39 on: January 06, 2015, 03:39:46 AM »
Well don't lie about Hampden; make sure to mention the bet was turned over on a legal technicality and not the substance of the bet. It was like the 1800s version of "If it doesn't fit you must acquit."  Everyone knows what happened but the courts had to rule for Hampden anyway.

EDIT: Fixed Typos.  Now if only Thork can correct his claims about Hampden.

I think you missed the point in his idea. It is irrelevant how the case was won. And there's no real evidence that he invented dr pepper. But it makes an interesting read and will captivate believers and sceptics alike.
You don't read a tabloid for the facts. You humor yourself at the strange articles and refer to the diagrams on page 3.