[Tom Bishop]

I have a question. Who elected Daniel?

Presidents are elected by their constituents. If you were not elected by your constituents then the title of "president" or "vice president" is fraudulent, just like the fake presidents of some 3rd world countries. But even they know enough about the title that they need to concoct a rigged election to claim that position.

Daniel is a fraud president. I was on the forum from when it began. There was never any election. His claim of being the "President of the Flat Earth Society", which he uses as justification on the talk page, has no merit whatsoever.

[Particle Person]

Well, he's a part of the Shenton legacy. It isn't much, but it's something.

[Tom Bishop]

Well, he's a part of the Shenton legacy. It isn't much, but it's something.

He's not related to Samuel Shenton. Daniel Shenton is a pseudonym.

[Particle Person]

Strange... that is news to me.

[jroa]

Next episode, we will learn that Tom Bishop is not his real name. 

[Thork]

I have a question. Who elected Daniel?

Presidents are elected by their constituents. If you were not elected by your constituents then the title of "president" or "vice president" is fraudulent, just like the fake presidents of some 3rd world countries. But even they know enough about the title that they need to concoct a rigged election to claim that position.

Daniel is a fraud president. I was on the forum from when it began. There was never any election. His claim of being the "President of the Flat Earth Society", which he uses as justification on the talk page, has no merit whatsoever.

This. I've been saying it for years. How can you be a president, have no elections and a term stretching for 10 years unchallenged?

Especially when a significant majority don't want you in charge.

[Roundy]

I have a question. Who elected Daniel?

Presidents are elected by their constituents.

Is that how it works in the business world?  You are treating the FES like it's a democratic nation and, hello, it's not.

[markjo]

I have a question. Who elected Daniel?

Who elected Samuel Shenton or Charles K. Johnson? 

[rottingroom]

I'm having a hard time seeing what either side has to offer the other.

The trade-off that I've seen suggested here is that the members of this forum would move back to the old one if Daniel steps down but seeing as how Daniel is in charge of the old site, I don't see how the members that have embraced the new one simply coming back is worth losing control of something he probably doesn't want to lose control of. What matters is that the old site drives more traffic to newcomers. Discussions actually happen in the upper fora there and in due time, you'll have regulars on the FE side again. It just won't be the same people and if I was Daniel, I don't see why that would matter at all. The traffic exists because when a curious bystander looks for it on a search engine, that is where they are led.

On the other hand, keeping in mind that Daniel would probably not give the site away, I don't see why the members here should leave either. The site is functional and the domain name is good enough. The only thing missing is the traffic and the only way to change that is by working to get more people to come here instead. This means getting the word out but it also means that you have to have a conversation taking place in the upper fora. There just isn't much going on in the upper fora and unless people who like to argue for FE want to make that discussion happen, there is no reason for newcomers to keep the discussion going. There is literally 2 or 3 posts per day here in the FE discussion boards. Compare that to the old site where there is an abundant amount of activity in the upper boards. Every five minutes there is something else being added to the discussion there. You need people on the FE side here that actually care to counter RE arguments.

Just my 2 cents.

[Thork]

The problem with that is people like Markjo followed us here. I can't leave a few juicy worms because he and those like him would answer them all. I've no desire to debate with them. Its so boring its untrue.

[rottingroom]

The problem with that is people like Markjo followed us here. I can't leave a few juicy worms because he and those like him would answer them all. I've no desire to debate with them. Its so boring its untrue.

That doesn't make any sense. People like markjo are on the old site still and there is still a conversation happening there. Just because markjo can counter your arguments doesn't matter, you just need to try to make better arguments. No offense there, I'm not saying that you can't make better arguments but I am saying that you aren't doing it. Just try harder I guess?

Like I said, there are 2 steps. You need to get people to come here in the first place via advertising in whatever way that can be done and then you need to give people a reason to keep coming back. Some people who keep coming back might eventually become FE'rs. Currently though, there isn't much of a reason to keep coming back because there is no conversation happening here about FE.

[rottingroom]

Anyways, maybe I'm wrong about how to make your site a success. I hope it goes well for you. My main point is that Daniel has really got nothing to gain by giving away control over his site to people who apparently hate him. I don't think that your feelings toward him are not warranted, but the decision to give up that control lies with him and him only. You say that you guys have contributed and that is fantastic but what you need to realize is that people are replaceable. It happens all the time and life goes on and because the old site gets all the new traffic, it will have no problem getting new people.

[Tom Bishop]

I have a question. Who elected Daniel?

Who elected Samuel Shenton or Charles K. Johnson?

Samuel Shenton did not form a group and appoint himself president. He formed a group, appointing himself only as secretary and treasurer of affairs. The group then chose someone named William Mills as their president.

They had a group. They got together for events. They had MEETINGS. The group had a say in matters. They chose their presidents. There is a distinct difference between that FES group and Daniel's fraudulent presidency.

[Tom Bishop]

I have a question. Who elected Daniel?

Presidents are elected by their constituents.

Is that how it works in the business world?  You are treating the FES like it's a democratic nation and, hello, it's not.

Yes, that's how it works everywhere. The definition of president is an elected leader. Company presidents are elected by the shareholders of the company. If you are appointed then you are a CEO, chairman, director, or some other title, although the higher positions like CEO/CFO are often elected by the shareholders or board of directors as well.

[markjo]

I have a question. Who elected Daniel?

Who elected Samuel Shenton or Charles K. Johnson?

Samuel Shenton did not form a group and appoint himself president. He formed a group, appointing himself only as secretary and treasurer of affairs. The group then chose someone named William Mills as their president.

Sounds like Mills was a figurehead and Shenton did all of the real work.

They had a group. They got together for events. They had MEETINGS. The group had a say in matters. They chose their presidents. There is a distinct difference between that FES group and Daniel's fraudulent presidency.

John Davis claims to have his own FES group in Tennessee.  What's stopping you from forming your own FES group and running it however you see fit? 

[Tom Bishop]

I have a question. Who elected Daniel?

Who elected Samuel Shenton or Charles K. Johnson?

Samuel Shenton did not form a group and appoint himself president. He formed a group, appointing himself only as secretary and treasurer of affairs. The group then chose someone named William Mills as their president.

Sounds like Mills was a figurehead and Shenton did all of the real work.

They had a group. They got together for events. They had MEETINGS. The group had a say in matters. They chose their presidents. There is a distinct difference between that FES group and Daniel's fraudulent presidency.

John Davis claims to have his own FES group in Tennessee.  What's stopping you from forming your own FES group and running it however you see fit?

Nothing stopped us. We did form our own group.

The admins of this forum knew enough that they couldn't just appoint themselves president and vice president and call it a day. Nor could they simply appoint someone to be the president. It is common knowledge that presidents must be elected, whether it is president of the classroom, president of the astronomy club, or president of the United States. If you appointed yourself the title of president then you are a fraud.

[The Terror]

So, are the issues with Daniel relating to the administration of the other forum, or his overall leadership of the Flat Earth Society in general? Or do you consider the forum and the society to be one and the same?

[Lord Wilmore]

I'm having a hard time seeing what either side has to offer the other.

The trade-off that I've seen suggested here is that the members of this forum would move back to the old one if Daniel steps down but seeing as how Daniel is in charge of the old site, I don't see how the members that have embraced the new one simply coming back is worth losing control of something he probably doesn't want to lose control of. What matters is that the old site drives more traffic to newcomers. Discussions actually happen in the upper fora there and in due time, you'll have regulars on the FE side again. It just won't be the same people and if I was Daniel, I don't see why that would matter at all. The traffic exists because when a curious bystander looks for it on a search engine, that is where they are led.

On the other hand, keeping in mind that Daniel would probably not give the site away, I don't see why the members here should leave either. The site is functional and the domain name is good enough. The only thing missing is the traffic and the only way to change that is by working to get more people to come here instead. This means getting the word out but it also means that you have to have a conversation taking place in the upper fora. There just isn't much going on in the upper fora and unless people who like to argue for FE want to make that discussion happen, there is no reason for newcomers to keep the discussion going. There is literally 2 or 3 posts per day here in the FE discussion boards. Compare that to the old site where there is an abundant amount of activity in the upper boards. Every five minutes there is something else being added to the discussion there. You need people on the FE side here that actually care to counter RE arguments.

Just my 2 cents.

Just to weigh in slightly (and briefly): I don't think anyone is really talking about a compromise of this sort. I don't see a net benefit for either side in such a scenario, and it doesn't really make any sense for anyone. The kind of reconciliation I envisage would be one along the lines of what Snupes suggested earlier.


I don't mean to unduly direct this conversation, but it would be bad if people started getting downbeat or unduly negative about the chances of a deal because they had the wrong gist.

[rooster]

The only thing missing is the traffic and the only way to change that is by working to get more people to come here instead. This means getting the word out but it also means that you have to have a conversation taking place in the upper fora. There just isn't much going on in the upper fora and unless people who like to argue for FE want to make that discussion happen, there is no reason for newcomers to keep the discussion going. There is literally 2 or 3 posts per day here in the FE discussion boards. Compare that to the old site where there is an abundant amount of activity in the upper boards. Every five minutes there is something else being added to the discussion there. You need people on the FE side here that actually care to counter RE arguments.

I think part of the problem regarding upper fora conversation is that the regulars here often go over there to start serious FET discussions. That seems like a huge detriment to this site alone.

[Tom Bishop]

I'm having a hard time seeing what either side has to offer the other.

The trade-off that I've seen suggested here is that the members of this forum would move back to the old one if Daniel steps down but seeing as how Daniel is in charge of the old site, I don't see how the members that have embraced the new one simply coming back is worth losing control of something he probably doesn't want to lose control of. What matters is that the old site drives more traffic to newcomers. Discussions actually happen in the upper fora there and in due time, you'll have regulars on the FE side again. It just won't be the same people and if I was Daniel, I don't see why that would matter at all. The traffic exists because when a curious bystander looks for it on a search engine, that is where they are led.

On the other hand, keeping in mind that Daniel would probably not give the site away, I don't see why the members here should leave either. The site is functional and the domain name is good enough. The only thing missing is the traffic and the only way to change that is by working to get more people to come here instead. This means getting the word out but it also means that you have to have a conversation taking place in the upper fora. There just isn't much going on in the upper fora and unless people who like to argue for FE want to make that discussion happen, there is no reason for newcomers to keep the discussion going. There is literally 2 or 3 posts per day here in the FE discussion boards. Compare that to the old site where there is an abundant amount of activity in the upper boards. Every five minutes there is something else being added to the discussion there. You need people on the FE side here that actually care to counter RE arguments.

Just my 2 cents.

Just to weigh in slightly (and briefly): I don't think anyone is really talking about a compromise of this sort. I don't see a net benefit for either side in such a scenario, and it doesn't really make any sense for anyone. The kind of reconciliation I envisage would be one along the lines of what Snupes suggested earlier.


I don't mean to unduly direct this conversation, but it would be bad if people started getting downbeat or unduly negative about the chances of a deal because they had the wrong gist.

The only way I see everyone being satisfied is if elections were held, to make things fair and equal. If Daniel is truly the best choice for the society then he will be secure in his position. Only the society knows what is best for it. That would be the fairest way to handle things.