The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Tintagel on March 03, 2014, 08:16:01 PM
-
So, since the news release we're about to push out mentions our creating an annotated edition of Earth Not a Globe, let's get that started.
Here's the table of contents, and I think the annotations should go pretty quickly if each member tackles a chapter.
Chapter I. Zetetic and Theoretic Defined and Compared
Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane (lots of these, maybe a few members)
Chapter two breakdown:
Introduction
Experiment 1 (A boat, with a flag-staff)
Experiment 2 (six flags along a canal)
Experiment 3 (The Bedford Level 1)
Experiment 4 (The Bedford Level 2)
Experiment 5 (1870 Bedford Level)
Experiment 6 (Brighton, in Sussex)
Experiment 7 (The sea horizon)
Experiment 8 (Sea horizon at Portsmouth Harbour)
Experiment 9 (St. George's Channel)
Experiment 10 (the apparent concavity of the earth if seen from a balloon)
Experiment 11 (eastern pier at Brighton, quadrant with plumb)
Experiment 12 (Telescope at Waterloo)
Experiment 13 (London and North-Western Railway)
Experiment 14 (Theodolite at Shooter's Hill, in Kent)
Experiment 15 (views from the "grand" hotel)
Chapter III. The Earth No Axial or Orbital Motion
Chapter IV. The True Form and Magnitude of the Earth
Chapter V. The True Distance of the Sun
Chapter VI. The Sun's Motion, Concentric With the Polar Centre
Chapter VII. The Sun's Path Expands and Contracts Daily for Six Months Alternately
Chapter VIII. Cause of Day and Night, Winter and Summer; and the Long Alternations of Light and Darkness at the Northern Centre
Chapter IX. Cause Of Sunrise And Sunset.
Chapter X. Cause of Sun Appearing Larger When Rising and Setting Than at Noonday
Chapter XI. Cause of Solar and Lunar Eclipses
Chapter XII. The Cause of Tides
Chapter XIII. The Earth's True Position in the Universe; Comparatively Recent Formation; Present Chemical Condition; and Approaching Destruction by Fire
We will also want a foreword and an afterword, most likely by Mr. Bishop.
Note that some of these things have since been disproven - our goal here isn't to edit the work, but to offer annotations for places where Dr. Rowbotham's work was insightful, incorrect, incomplete, or has deeper implications. The chapter on the moon, for instance, deals with the idea of an "antimoon," which isn't always a part of modern FET. This is an excellent opportunity to illustrate some of the more modern variations on Flat Earth Theory.
-
I suggest we start with the experiments, since they're the most useful part of the book. We can then link to the annotated copy in the Wiki, which will be useful. Speaking of which, how exactly are we doing this?
If anyone isn't aware, you can find ENaG online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/pageidx.htm
-
I suggest we start with the experiments, since they're the most useful part of the book. We can then link to the annotated copy in the Wiki, which will be useful. Speaking of which, how exactly are we doing this?
If anyone isn't aware, you can find ENaG online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/pageidx.htm
That's a good question. We'll have to research (with the assistance of our knowledgeable admins) a good way to do a highly interactive, annotated text online, but I'd also like to package it for print and publish a TFES edition of ENAG for Kindle, Nook, some other e-reader formats, and print using a system like Lulu. http://www.lulu.com/
As for the annotations, those can be written separately either in threads here or (probably more usefully) in Google docs. From there I can format it into a document that works as print and e-book text, and our more web savvy administrators can update the online version.
I can go ahead and start on Annotations for experiments 11-15, and lay out some cover art for us to approve as well. Stay tuned.
-
Which experiments have been repeated recently?
-
Which experiments have been repeated recently?
Start a new thread for debate of this topic, please. This thread is for logistics related to this society project.
-
Front cover mockup for Lulu print-on-demand book. (not print quality, I scaled it down to be web friendly and removed bleeds and other extraneous bits)
I think this'd look pretty snazzy on my bookshelf.
(http://i.imgur.com/nk7wUgu.png)
-
Hell yeah.
-
I like it.
We could make a kickstarter or indiegogo campaign to raise money to actually publish it, if it comes to that.
-
I like it a lot. Great artwork, Tintagel.
-
We could make a kickstarter or indiegogo campaign to raise money to actually publish it, if it comes to that.
Or we could use Lulu (http://www.lulu.com/), like Tintagel suggested.
-
We could make a kickstarter or indiegogo campaign to raise money to actually publish it, if it comes to that.
Or we could use Lulu (http://www.lulu.com/), like Tintagel suggested.
Exactly. Lulu is print-on-demand publishing, enables us to publish a printed book for no money, and books are produced as they are ordered, with a percentage of the purchase price going to TFES.
-
Pardon the necro, but I want to get this project back into the society's brain.
I have been spending a little time on this, mostly organizational, but I have a draft for an introduction to Chapter 1 in progress which I'll share here as soon as it's done. Also, I see that we're getting (or already have, perhaps?) an electronic fascimile of the first edition, and it may be good to include a page or two (or a section) in the Annotated edition.
I've been admittedly slacking on it, at first because the lack of initiative mad me sad, and then later because :life: but I really want to get back to it. I don't want it to be "Tintagel's Annotated Edition," I want it to come from all of us.
Things have been quiet on the reunification front as well, but I'm thinking of reaching out to Daniel and/or Wilmore. I'd like to include their contributions if they want to supply some.
-
Pardon the necro, but I want to get this project back into the society's brain.
I have been spending a little time on this, mostly organizational, but I have a draft for an introduction to Chapter 1 in progress which I'll share here as soon as it's done. Also, I see that we're getting (or already have, perhaps?) an electronic fascimile of the first edition, and it may be good to include a page or two (or a section) in the Annotated edition.
I've been admittedly slacking on it, at first because the lack of initiative mad me sad, and then later because :life: but I really want to get back to it. I don't want it to be "Tintagel's Annotated Edition," I want it to come from all of us.
Things have been quiet on the reunification front as well, but I'm thinking of reaching out to Daniel and/or Wilmore. I'd like to include their contributions if they want to supply some.
See: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1493.0 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1493.0)
-
Pardon me while I throw up. :P
-
Is ENaG no longer under copyright because of its age?
Is it legally sound to create a 150th anaversary edition? Basically a retype of the original book with the new cover posted in this thread?
I'd be tempted to tackle this myself as its a really good idea.
-
Is ENaG no longer under copyright because of its age?
Is it legally sound to create a 150th anaversary edition? Basically a retype of the original book with the new cover posted in this thread?
I'd be tempted to tackle this myself as its a really good idea.
Of course. It's public domain.
-
Also, I see that we're getting (or already have, perhaps?) an electronic fascimile of the first edition, and it may be good to include a page or two (or a section) in the Annotated edition.
I've been swamped with other things so I didn't have the time to give the facsimiles the love they so desperately need. I do have the scans, I just haven't published them yet
-
I've never really understood this project. Annotated how?
Does anyone have an example chapter I could read?
-
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.
-
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.
I can agree with that format. I think it would also be a good idea to have someone write a foreword, which would explain that ENaG is only the beginning of FET, that some FE'ers disagree with Rowbotham on some points, etc. I'd hate to cause a situation like what we used to deal with about the Ice Wall, before we rewrote the FAQ.
Maybe Daniel should write the foreword? If nothing else, as President of the Flat Earth Society he has the appropriate name recognition.
-
Maybe Daniel should...
Any sentence that begins like this is not a good idea.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I'm not sure I understand why a completely rewritten ENaG would be different or superior to an improved Wiki.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
And there's no real evidence that he invented dr pepper.
I have the original recipe for Dr Birley's phosphorous tonic. It is the constituent ingredients for a 'tart' tasting sugary beverage and pre dates Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper's first recipe is almost identical albeit appearing just a few years later. When you see the labelling on the first Dr Pepper drinks and the slogans and compare to Dr Birley's, the similarity is jaw-dropping. Unfortunately, Rowbotham died just as Dr Birley's was really taking off, leaving a gap in the market.
Fun fact: Rowbotham used the flat earth society as a ready made distribution network for his tonic. It was a real money spinner for the society.
Annoyingly, Garwood identifies that TFES sells the tonic, but isn't smart enough to identify that what is being sold is an early form of cola. She makes out that it is some evil witch doctor potion for scamming people. She fails to realise the context of the era, where Victorians were obsessed with elixirs and ALL cola companies for the next 30 years would market their drinks as a medical tonic.
-
And there's no real evidence that he invented dr pepper.
I have the original recipe for Dr Birley's phosphorous tonic. It is the constituent ingredients for a 'tart' tasting sugary beverage and pre dates Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper's first recipe is almost identical albeit appearing just a few years later. When you see the labelling on the first Dr Pepper drinks and the slogans and compare to Dr Birley's, the similarity is jaw-dropping. Unfortunately, Rowbotham died just as Dr Birley's was really taking off, leaving a gap in the market.
Fun fact: Rowbotham used the flat earth society as a ready made distribution network for his tonic. It was a real money spinner for the society.
So then you have no evidence that he invented Dr. Pepper. Thanks.
-
And there's no real evidence that he invented dr pepper.
I have the original recipe for Dr Birley's phosphorous tonic. It is the constituent ingredients for a 'tart' tasting sugary beverage and pre dates Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper's first recipe is almost identical albeit appearing just a few years later. When you see the labelling on the first Dr Pepper drinks and the slogans and compare to Dr Birley's, the similarity is jaw-dropping. Unfortunately, Rowbotham died just as Dr Birley's was really taking off, leaving a gap in the market.
Fun fact: Rowbotham used the flat earth society as a ready made distribution network for his tonic. It was a real money spinner for the society.
So then you have no evidence that he invented Dr. Pepper. Thanks.
It is a forerunner for Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper is a rip off of Birley's tonic. That I can prove.
-
And there's no real evidence that he invented dr pepper.
I have the original recipe for Dr Birley's phosphorous tonic. It is the constituent ingredients for a 'tart' tasting sugary beverage and pre dates Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper's first recipe is almost identical albeit appearing just a few years later. When you see the labelling on the first Dr Pepper drinks and the slogans and compare to Dr Birley's, the similarity is jaw-dropping. Unfortunately, Rowbotham died just as Dr Birley's was really taking off, leaving a gap in the market.
Fun fact: Rowbotham used the flat earth society as a ready made distribution network for his tonic. It was a real money spinner for the society.
So then you have no evidence that he invented Dr. Pepper. Thanks.
It is a forerunner for Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper is a rip off of Birley's tonic. That I can prove.
Then please do, and stop making infounded claims that R invented Dr. Pepper.
-
And there's no real evidence that he invented dr pepper.
I have the original recipe for Dr Birley's phosphorous tonic. It is the constituent ingredients for a 'tart' tasting sugary beverage and pre dates Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper's first recipe is almost identical albeit appearing just a few years later. When you see the labelling on the first Dr Pepper drinks and the slogans and compare to Dr Birley's, the similarity is jaw-dropping. Unfortunately, Rowbotham died just as Dr Birley's was really taking off, leaving a gap in the market.
Fun fact: Rowbotham used the flat earth society as a ready made distribution network for his tonic. It was a real money spinner for the society.
So then you have no evidence that he invented Dr. Pepper. Thanks.
It is a forerunner for Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper is a rip off of Birley's tonic. That I can prove.
Then please do, and stop making infounded claims that R invented Dr. Pepper.
I didn't say he invented Dr Pepper, I said he invented a drink that would later be sold as Dr Pepper. This pre-dates the Coca-Cola company's version without cocaine. They ended up copying much of the recipe too. All these drinks are heavy on sugar, have tartaric acid in them and a small amount of phosphoric acid. They even stick very closely to Rowbotham's original quantities of each. He invented the cola type drinks that sell in their billions around the world today. That's pretty amazing, no? Surely worth a paragraph or two in any new book.
-
And there's no real evidence that he invented dr pepper.
I have the original recipe for Dr Birley's phosphorous tonic. It is the constituent ingredients for a 'tart' tasting sugary beverage and pre dates Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper's first recipe is almost identical albeit appearing just a few years later. When you see the labelling on the first Dr Pepper drinks and the slogans and compare to Dr Birley's, the similarity is jaw-dropping. Unfortunately, Rowbotham died just as Dr Birley's was really taking off, leaving a gap in the market.
Fun fact: Rowbotham used the flat earth society as a ready made distribution network for his tonic. It was a real money spinner for the society.
So then you have no evidence that he invented Dr. Pepper. Thanks.
It is a forerunner for Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper is a rip off of Birley's tonic. That I can prove.
Then please do, and stop making infounded claims that R invented Dr. Pepper.
I didn't say he invented Dr Pepper, I said he invented a drink that would later be sold as Dr Pepper. This pre-dates the Coca-Cola company's version without cocaine. They ended up copying much of the recipe too. All these drinks are heavy on sugar, have tartaric acid in them and a small amount of phosphoric acid. They even stick very closely to Rowbotham's original quantities of each. He invented the cola type drinks that sell in their billions around the world today. That's pretty amazing, no? Surely worth a paragraph or two in any new book.
Odd, you argue for R's greatness because someone else used successfully a similar formula. No, it's not amazing. No it's not worth a paragraph.
-
And there's no real evidence that he invented dr pepper.
I have the original recipe for Dr Birley's phosphorous tonic. It is the constituent ingredients for a 'tart' tasting sugary beverage and pre dates Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper's first recipe is almost identical albeit appearing just a few years later. When you see the labelling on the first Dr Pepper drinks and the slogans and compare to Dr Birley's, the similarity is jaw-dropping. Unfortunately, Rowbotham died just as Dr Birley's was really taking off, leaving a gap in the market.
Fun fact: Rowbotham used the flat earth society as a ready made distribution network for his tonic. It was a real money spinner for the society.
So then you have no evidence that he invented Dr. Pepper. Thanks.
It is a forerunner for Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper is a rip off of Birley's tonic. That I can prove.
Then please do, and stop making infounded claims that R invented Dr. Pepper.
I didn't say he invented Dr Pepper, I said he invented a drink that would later be sold as Dr Pepper. This pre-dates the Coca-Cola company's version without cocaine. They ended up copying much of the recipe too. All these drinks are heavy on sugar, have tartaric acid in them and a small amount of phosphoric acid. They even stick very closely to Rowbotham's original quantities of each. He invented the cola type drinks that sell in their billions around the world today. That's pretty amazing, no? Surely worth a paragraph or two in any new book.
Odd, you argue for R's greatness because someone else used successfully a similar formula. No, it's not amazing. No it's not worth a paragraph.
Are you being deliberately facetious? A man invents a tonic, which goes on to be the most widely consumed soft drink in the world, and you don't think that merits a mention? Should we omit the Wright Brothers from history because Boeing make way more aircraft these days?
-
And there's no real evidence that he invented dr pepper.
I have the original recipe for Dr Birley's phosphorous tonic. It is the constituent ingredients for a 'tart' tasting sugary beverage and pre dates Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper's first recipe is almost identical albeit appearing just a few years later. When you see the labelling on the first Dr Pepper drinks and the slogans and compare to Dr Birley's, the similarity is jaw-dropping. Unfortunately, Rowbotham died just as Dr Birley's was really taking off, leaving a gap in the market.
Fun fact: Rowbotham used the flat earth society as a ready made distribution network for his tonic. It was a real money spinner for the society.
So then you have no evidence that he invented Dr. Pepper. Thanks.
It is a forerunner for Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper is a rip off of Birley's tonic. That I can prove.
Then please do, and stop making infounded claims that R invented Dr. Pepper.
I didn't say he invented Dr Pepper, I said he invented a drink that would later be sold as Dr Pepper. This pre-dates the Coca-Cola company's version without cocaine. They ended up copying much of the recipe too. All these drinks are heavy on sugar, have tartaric acid in them and a small amount of phosphoric acid. They even stick very closely to Rowbotham's original quantities of each. He invented the cola type drinks that sell in their billions around the world today. That's pretty amazing, no? Surely worth a paragraph or two in any new book.
Odd, you argue for R's greatness because someone else used successfully a similar formula. No, it's not amazing. No it's not worth a paragraph.
Are you being deliberately facetious? A man invents a tonic, which goes on to be the most widely consumed soft drink in the world, and you don't think that merits a mention? Should we omit the Wright Brothers from history because Boeing make way more aircraft these days?
Since his tonic did not sell well, no, you really shouldn't bother with an off-topic, insignificant additional failure.
-
And there's no real evidence that he invented dr pepper.
I have the original recipe for Dr Birley's phosphorous tonic. It is the constituent ingredients for a 'tart' tasting sugary beverage and pre dates Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper's first recipe is almost identical albeit appearing just a few years later. When you see the labelling on the first Dr Pepper drinks and the slogans and compare to Dr Birley's, the similarity is jaw-dropping. Unfortunately, Rowbotham died just as Dr Birley's was really taking off, leaving a gap in the market.
Fun fact: Rowbotham used the flat earth society as a ready made distribution network for his tonic. It was a real money spinner for the society.
So then you have no evidence that he invented Dr. Pepper. Thanks.
It is a forerunner for Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper is a rip off of Birley's tonic. That I can prove.
Then please do, and stop making infounded claims that R invented Dr. Pepper.
I didn't say he invented Dr Pepper, I said he invented a drink that would later be sold as Dr Pepper. This pre-dates the Coca-Cola company's version without cocaine. They ended up copying much of the recipe too. All these drinks are heavy on sugar, have tartaric acid in them and a small amount of phosphoric acid. They even stick very closely to Rowbotham's original quantities of each. He invented the cola type drinks that sell in their billions around the world today. That's pretty amazing, no? Surely worth a paragraph or two in any new book.
Odd, you argue for R's greatness because someone else used successfully a similar formula. No, it's not amazing. No it's not worth a paragraph.
Are you being deliberately facetious? A man invents a tonic, which goes on to be the most widely consumed soft drink in the world, and you don't think that merits a mention? Should we omit the Wright Brothers from history because Boeing make way more aircraft these days?
Since his tonic did not sell well, no, you really shouldn't bother with an off-topic, insignificant additional failure.
Oh, it sold. Rowbotham lived in a 14 bedroom mansion. Where on earth do you think he got the money? From public speaking about earth's shape? It was the tonic that made him wealthy and also fuelled the society. But he died before it could go global.
So again, tell me how well the Wright Brother's aircraft sold. We can then compare that to companies that came later.
-
And there's no real evidence that he invented dr pepper.
I have the original recipe for Dr Birley's phosphorous tonic. It is the constituent ingredients for a 'tart' tasting sugary beverage and pre dates Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper's first recipe is almost identical albeit appearing just a few years later. When you see the labelling on the first Dr Pepper drinks and the slogans and compare to Dr Birley's, the similarity is jaw-dropping. Unfortunately, Rowbotham died just as Dr Birley's was really taking off, leaving a gap in the market.
Fun fact: Rowbotham used the flat earth society as a ready made distribution network for his tonic. It was a real money spinner for the society.
So then you have no evidence that he invented Dr. Pepper. Thanks.
It is a forerunner for Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper is a rip off of Birley's tonic. That I can prove.
Then please do, and stop making infounded claims that R invented Dr. Pepper.
I didn't say he invented Dr Pepper, I said he invented a drink that would later be sold as Dr Pepper. This pre-dates the Coca-Cola company's version without cocaine. They ended up copying much of the recipe too. All these drinks are heavy on sugar, have tartaric acid in them and a small amount of phosphoric acid. They even stick very closely to Rowbotham's original quantities of each. He invented the cola type drinks that sell in their billions around the world today. That's pretty amazing, no? Surely worth a paragraph or two in any new book.
Odd, you argue for R's greatness because someone else used successfully a similar formula. No, it's not amazing. No it's not worth a paragraph.
Are you being deliberately facetious? A man invents a tonic, which goes on to be the most widely consumed soft drink in the world, and you don't think that merits a mention? Should we omit the Wright Brothers from history because Boeing make way more aircraft these days?
Since his tonic did not sell well, no, you really shouldn't bother with an off-topic, insignificant additional failure.
Oh, it sold. Rowbotham lived in a 14 bedroom mansion. Where on earth do you think he got the money? From public speaking about earth's shape? It was the tonic that made him wealthy and also fuelled the society. But he died before it could go global.
So again, tell me how well the Wright Brother's aircraft sold. We can then compare that to companies that came later.
Income citation needed. Just because you say doesn't make it true.
-
And there's no real evidence that he invented dr pepper.
I have the original recipe for Dr Birley's phosphorous tonic. It is the constituent ingredients for a 'tart' tasting sugary beverage and pre dates Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper's first recipe is almost identical albeit appearing just a few years later. When you see the labelling on the first Dr Pepper drinks and the slogans and compare to Dr Birley's, the similarity is jaw-dropping. Unfortunately, Rowbotham died just as Dr Birley's was really taking off, leaving a gap in the market.
Fun fact: Rowbotham used the flat earth society as a ready made distribution network for his tonic. It was a real money spinner for the society.
So then you have no evidence that he invented Dr. Pepper. Thanks.
It is a forerunner for Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper is a rip off of Birley's tonic. That I can prove.
Just out of curiosity, is Dr. Pepper a generic term for sweet, carbonated beverages in Europe? I ask because Dr. Pepper has a very specific flavor profile that I highly doubt that Dr Birley's tonic had.
-
I know all about it thork. I read your original thread about it.
I do not need convincing, as I said its noteworthy and gives credit to the man and will make an interesting addition. I don't know why people are debating it, the point is that its an interesting fact about a man who the general public know little about. I think there should be a short biography in the opening chapter. Other than that the only changes I would make would be to improve the diagrams and a chapter at the end that gives a short history of the modern flat earth society. Everything else I would leave as it is.
Not that it matters, but was this actually an original formular or was there similar products on the market at the time? The question is rhetorical. I don't care either way. But it might be worth investigating to make a solid case if it was published.
-
I know all about it thork. I read your original thread about it.
I do not need convincing, as I said its noteworthy and gives credit to the man and will make an interesting addition. I don't know why people are debating it, the point is that its an interesting fact about a man who the general public know little about. I think there should be a short biography in the opening chapter. Other than that the only changes I would make would be to improve the diagrams and a chapter at the end that gives a short history of the modern flat earth society. Everything else I would leave as it is.
Not that it matters, but was this actually an original formular or was there similar products on the market at the time? The question is rhetorical. I don't care either way. But it might be worth investigating to make a solid case if it was published.
It was original. It came from his research on phosphorus effects on the human brain that he conducted whilst at the University of Edinburgh. He then made the phosphorus tonic.
And there's no real evidence that he invented dr pepper.
I have the original recipe for Dr Birley's phosphorous tonic. It is the constituent ingredients for a 'tart' tasting sugary beverage and pre dates Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper's first recipe is almost identical albeit appearing just a few years later. When you see the labelling on the first Dr Pepper drinks and the slogans and compare to Dr Birley's, the similarity is jaw-dropping. Unfortunately, Rowbotham died just as Dr Birley's was really taking off, leaving a gap in the market.
Fun fact: Rowbotham used the flat earth society as a ready made distribution network for his tonic. It was a real money spinner for the society.
So then you have no evidence that he invented Dr. Pepper. Thanks.
It is a forerunner for Dr Pepper. Dr Pepper is a rip off of Birley's tonic. That I can prove.
Just out of curiosity, is Dr. Pepper a generic term for sweet, carbonated beverages in Europe? I ask because Dr. Pepper has a very specific flavor profile that I highly doubt that Dr Birley's tonic had.
Its very similar to Dr Pepper's original recipe and pre-dates it. It would have had the same 'tart' taste that you don't get in other phosphorus drinks that came later like coca cola.
Click for full size
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JsXOOT5m9As/T3Nde145-iI/AAAAAAAAAwQ/mOkk-87tKiM/s1600/003+2.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uZsAHnyjs7g/T3Ndc5nb5vI/AAAAAAAAAwI/GKFqipkfJPk/s1600/002+2.jpg)
-
BIRLEY'S ANTI-CATARRH.
Supplied by Gordon, Murray, and Co., Limited, 10, Adam
Street, Stranld, London. Price is, lid. per bottle, contain.
ing nearly 3 fluid ounces. The bottle was accompanied by
four pages of printed matter headed " The Birley Monthly
Report," in which the "Anti-Catarrh" is included in a
" List and Prices of Dr. Birley's Compounds of Free (or
Unoxidised) Phosphorus," and described as " Special
Remedy for Catarrh and Influenza." The following
extracts are from, the same circular, under the heading
"The Wonders of Phosphorus."
Free (or unoxidised) Phosphorus, whose chief seat or situation
is in the brain, is one of the most important elements contained
in our bodies. Without Free Phosphorus there can be no
thought, and very probably no life...
One thing is proved beyond doubt, that the degree of intellectual thought depends upon the amount of Free Phosphorus in
the brain, and just as the Phosphorus is unduly wasted, so does;
the brain power weaken....
Free Phosphorus, it is thus shown, must be the saving agent
-no other means is possible. This one element must be
replaced.
The directions are:
For an ordinary cold take one tea-spoonful every two hours
until better, then every third and fourth hour, and finally night
and morning.
For severe attacks, commence by taking a dose every hour
until better, then gradually increase the period between each
dose as attack abates. For Children, give half doses.
Analysis showed the presence of:
Sugar (partly as " invert sugar ") ... 74 parts
Tartaric acid ... ... ... ... 1.15
Phosphoric acid ... ... ... 0.07 part
Alcohol ... ... ... trace
Water to ... ... ... ... 100 fluid parts
No free phosphorus could be detected, but the odour
when the bottle was first opened suggested the presence of
a trace. From the presence of a trace of alcohol it appears
probable that an alcoholic solution of phosphorus had been
added, and the phosphoric acid had been formed by its
oxidation. If the phosphorus found were in the free state
each fluid drachm would contain about E grain. The
liquid was of a light straw colour, probably produced by
addition of a trace of colouring matter.
Estimated cost of ingredients for 3 fluid ounces,4d.
-
(http://i39.tinypic.com/2wmgodu.png)
-
Like many early sodas, the drink was marketed as a brain tonic and energizing pick-me-up, so another theory holds that it was named for the pep it supposedly gave to users.
From the Coca Cola Nutrition website
Phosphoric Acid
Phosphoric acid is a used in certain soft drinks, including Coca-Cola, to add tartness to the beverage. Phosphoric acid contains phosphorus, one of the basic elements of nature and an essential nutrient. Phosphorus is a major component of bones.
Tartaric Acid
Tartaric Acid is used to provide a tart taste. It can also be found in some foods, such as grapes.
Sugar
Sugar, also known as table sugar, is made from sugar cane or sugar beets. Sucrose is the technical name for table sugar.
-
From Dr Birley's Syrup of Free Phosphorus we get ...
(http://ideasinfood.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/29/drpeppersyrup.jpg)
Look at this. Dr Pepper's Phos-Ferrates!
(http://clendening.kumc.edu/dc/sc/DrPepper'sPhos-Ferrates02.jpg)
In 1885, in Waco, Texas, a young pharmacist called Charles Alderton invented the soft drink "Dr Pepper".
Rowbotham died in 1884.
Rowbotham's research was published in 1881
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Phosphorus-discovered-prepared-Dr-Birley/dp/B00177WW4M
-
Anyway, bringing the thread back, in this society, we know a lot of things that is not in any book anywhere. Stuff that is at least interesting. We know all kinds of things from our own research.
Personally I'm pretty good on the life of Rowbotham (Tom Bishop likely knows more however), celestial gears, the clockwork universe, deism and Ptolemy as a chapter and certainly my speciality, I'm also pretty well versed in Voliva, Dowie and the Zionist cult. I'm not too bad on Lady Blount but could learn more. I'd also venture I would be the person to ask about space tourism and its various motives and inherent flaws. Maps and projection I can do, but it bores me to tears.
Other flat earthers will be good on other subjects. Tom again is an expert in the moon men hoax of 1969. I'm sure we can make an excellent new book, without having to rehash ENaG. We would have enough content without just explaining his book.
-
ESnaG?
-
Its very similar to Dr Pepper's original recipe and pre-dates it. It would have had the same 'tart' taste that you don't get in other phosphorus drinks that came later like coca cola.
Do you have a copy of the original Dr. Pepper formula so that we can compare the ingredients?
-
Anyway, bringing the thread back, in this society, we know a lot of things that is not in any book anywhere. Stuff that is at least interesting. We know all kinds of things from our own research.
Personally I'm pretty good on the life of Rowbotham (Tom Bishop likely knows more however), celestial gears, the clockwork universe, deism and Ptolemy as a chapter and certainly my speciality, I'm also pretty well versed in Voliva, Dowie and the Zionist cult. I'm not too bad on Lady Blount but could learn more. I'd also venture I would be the person to ask about space tourism and its various motives and inherent flaws. Maps and projection I can do, but it bores me to tears.
Other flat earthers will be good on other subjects. Tom again is an expert in the moon men hoax of 1969. I'm sure we can make an excellent new book, without having to rehash ENaG. We would have enough content without just explaining his book.
I think Thork's expertise on celestial gears and the Ptolemaic cosmology would certainly make for a lovely essay in its own right. Tausami's aetheric wind theory also deserves some time. I certainly dabble, as I don't discount any particular flavor of FET outright, but I personally subscribe to an infinite plane, so I'd be happy to write an essay on that. Tom's NASA / Conspiracy expertise is invaluable.
I'd also love to write about Lady Blount, to be honest, as she fascinates me.
-
I wouldn't mind writing about those things. We should make further organizational threads to determine exactly what chapters and content we're going to tackle. The chapter format should also be refined. We can't just go into this in the dark. There should be a very organizationized game plan so that everything fits together.
When we begin writing it would be helpful for me to post a quick outline of the chapter and the forum helps me refine my ideas and subjects to talk about. I would be happy to help anyone else with their chapters.
-
I wouldn't mind writing about those things. We should make further organizational threads to determine exactly what chapters and content we're going to tackle. The chapter format should also be refined. We can't just go into this in the dark. There should be a very organizationized game plan so that everything fits together.
When we begin writing it would be helpful for me to post a quick outline of the chapter and the forum helps me refine my ideas and subjects to talk about. I would be happy to help anyone else with their chapters.
I'm still in favor of an entire forum devoted to the project, and then consolidate all relevant threads there and begin the organizational process.
-
I wouldn't mind writing about those things. We should make further organizational threads to determine exactly what chapters and content we're going to tackle. The chapter format should also be refined. We can't just go into this in the dark. There should be a very organizationized game plan so that everything fits together.
When we begin writing it would be helpful for me to post a quick outline of the chapter and the forum helps me refine my ideas and subjects to talk about. I would be happy to help anyone else with their chapters.
I'm still in favor of an entire forum devoted to the project, and then consolidate all relevant threads there and begin the organizational process.
I've come around and now agree. Perhaps an Editor's forum could be created for purely organizational and internal discussion among the main writers.
However, I would prefer to post (or cross-post) my chapter and content threads in the main Flat Earth forum for the entire community to comment on. We've had a separate forum for the Wiki, and how did that turn out? We need to post these things full front and center, for the community to comment on, contribute to, rip apart, and encourage refinement of ideas.
-
Dunno how helpful it will be for markjo and co. to just devour every point you make.
-
Dunno how helpful it will be for markjo and co. to just devour every point you make.
If Markjo actually has a relevant rebuttal, rather than the usual insult or deflection of the topic onto another subject, it will be addressed and put into the Q&A section of the chapter.
-
I wouldn't mind writing about those things. We should make further organizational threads to determine exactly what chapters and content we're going to tackle. The chapter format should also be refined. We can't just go into this in the dark. There should be a very organizationized game plan so that everything fits together.
When we begin writing it would be helpful for me to post a quick outline of the chapter and the forum helps me refine my ideas and subjects to talk about. I would be happy to help anyone else with their chapters.
I'm still in favor of an entire forum devoted to the project, and then consolidate all relevant threads there and begin the organizational process.
I've come around and now agree. Perhaps an Editor's forum could be created for purely organizational and internal discussion among the main writers.
However, I would prefer to post (or cross-post) my chapter and content threads in the main Flat Earth forum for the entire community to comment on. We've had a separate forum for the Wiki, and how did that turn out? We need to post these things full front and center, for the community to comment on, contribute to, rip apart, and encourage refinement of ideas.
Agreed, especially about the Wiki forum. That was a disaster. If the board was open to all, it might have better luck.
So, is this the format we're agreeing on, more or less?
We create a board dedicated to work on ENaG. Anyone can edit it, but it is heavily moderated. Posts which attempt to dispute FET within the board are summarily deleted, as such discussion belongs in other boards. Content may also be posted in FEG.
-
Dunno how helpful it will be for markjo and co. to just devour every point you make.
If Markjo actually has a relevant rebuttal, rather than the usual insult or deflection of the topic onto another subject, it will be addressed and put into the Q&A section of the chapter.
Tom, I'm game for a civil, on-topic debate any time you are.
-
I wouldn't mind writing about those things. We should make further organizational threads to determine exactly what chapters and content we're going to tackle. The chapter format should also be refined. We can't just go into this in the dark. There should be a very organizationized game plan so that everything fits together.
When we begin writing it would be helpful for me to post a quick outline of the chapter and the forum helps me refine my ideas and subjects to talk about. I would be happy to help anyone else with their chapters.
I'm still in favor of an entire forum devoted to the project, and then consolidate all relevant threads there and begin the organizational process.
I've come around and now agree. Perhaps an Editor's forum could be created for purely organizational and internal discussion among the main writers.
However, I would prefer to post (or cross-post) my chapter and content threads in the main Flat Earth forum for the entire community to comment on. We've had a separate forum for the Wiki, and how did that turn out? We need to post these things full front and center, for the community to comment on, contribute to, rip apart, and encourage refinement of ideas.
Agreed, especially about the Wiki forum. That was a disaster. If the board was open to all, it might have better luck.
So, is this the format we're agreeing on, more or less?
We create a board dedicated to work on ENaG. Anyone can edit it, but it is heavily moderated. Posts which attempt to dispute FET within the board are summarily deleted, as such discussion belongs in other boards. Content may also be posted in FEG.
You should give certain people permission to post on your ENaG board, or it will turn into a cluster fuck like the regular forum boards.
-
You should give certain people permission to post on your ENaG board, or it will turn into a cluster fuck like the regular forum boards.
I don't know if that's necessary, but perhaps we could give some extra members the ability to moderate just that section, so it's more heavily moderated. Add a big underlined flashy sticky topic with clear guidelines, and a disclaimer saying THIS FORUM IS HEAVILY MODERATED, NO WHINING IF YOUR POST IS MOVED or something.
Of course, now that I've typed this I realize that my idea may result in Thork being granted some sort of power, and that just feels wrong.
-
You should give certain people permission to post on your ENaG board, or it will turn into a cluster fuck like the regular forum boards.
I don't know if that's necessary, but perhaps we could give some extra members the ability to moderate just that section, so it's more heavily moderated. Add a big underlined flashy sticky topic with clear guidelines, and a disclaimer saying THIS FORUM IS HEAVILY MODERATED, NO WHINING IF YOUR POST IS MOVED or something.
Of course, now that I've typed this I realize that my idea may result in Thork being granted some sort of power, and that just feels wrong.
I agree. Closing the forum would create an unnecessary barrier for contributors to contact people to get access.