[Pete Svarrior]

My initial offer was to let me write the short summary; they declined.

Who, when, where? Are you sure you're not talking about Daniel's site? The Wiki here (and originally the revival of Daniel's wiki, before it was snagged away from me) is my pet project, so when you say "they", you pretty much have to mean me.

You're absolutely welcome to a wiki page describing your own model, as long as it's clearly described as an alternative to the Society's model, championed primarily by you, and not the mainstream view.

Then, my suggestion was to at least include a single link to my AFET, the only flat earth theory that answers the most important questions.

Which people don't want, because you'd be linking to an external site, and specifically a site that we're somewhat at odds with. If you want to migrate your sources here (or, as above, create a Wiki page for them), that's no problem.

The only reason I'm asking that any proposed rewrites to the FAQ should be accepted by the majority is that the FAQ is supposed to be largely representative of what the Society at large believes. Currently, it is my impression that most FE'ers here disagree with you. A popular vote would be a very simple way to confirm or dismiss that concern. You continuously talking about what "people" want, however, changes nothing.

[sandokhan]

There is only one correct FE model: the one that works, that answers any and all questions.

Why would the FES believe in a model which can be debunked at once using very simple arguments: ham radio measurements. ring laser gyroscopes, axial precession, venus angular size and much more?


You see, presumably you and your colleagues opened this site to achieve/accomplish something different (not referring to a better moderation, or a different look).

You want to be the best, to be at the very forefront of FE research.

My AFET has received over 245000 views so far: a sure sign it works, people are interested.

If you want this site to achieve the same success, you must change things: imagine having one day more viewers and users than the other site.

The fastest way to do this is to change the FAQ by removing the stuff that does not work, that has been shown to be false in countless threads over the past 8 years.

[Pete Svarrior]

Sandokhan, at this point you're just saying the same thing over and over. It's great that you think your model is the best, but, quite frankly, most people disagree with you. Until that changes (and I'm giving you a very fair chance to prove that it has), replacing the FAQ with your theory is a no-go.

And no, you repeating once more that your theory is better than the one in FAQ won't change my mind, either.

[Pete Svarrior]

Further to the above, your "my thread has views, therefore it's good" argument is completely moot. Your thread is simply very old, so of course it accrued views over time. However, even if we assumed that views directly imply endorsement, you're simply far behind the FES FAQ.

If you look at the top viewed threads on the old site, you will find that there are two copies of the FAQ (outdated compared to ours, containing far fewer answers) - one with 432706 views, and one with 410200. Even if we assume that these can't be summed up, your thread doesn't even come close in the view count.

Finally, our much younger version of the FAQ accrued 121824 views over 2 years (~60,000/year), compared to your 245079 over 6.5 years (~37,700/year). The numbers really don't speak in your favour.

[sandokhan]

The official faq has received that many views because each and every newcomer must read it.

It is only being read once.

It has never changed for the past eight years.

My AFET always includes new material, the information that viewers want to read.

It is located in least known section of the entire forum, yet it attracts the most new viewers by far.

Rest assured that had my AFET been required reading for each visitor, the number of views would exceed now at least one million.


I repeat, if you want this forum to go beyond what any other FE website has tried so far, you are going to have to do things differently.

[Pete Svarrior]

The official faq has received that many views because each and every newcomer must read it.

Not ours, no. We don't auto-redirect people to the FAQ.

I repeat, if you want this forum to go beyond what any other FE website has tried so far, you are going to have to do things differently.

And I also repeat:

And no, you repeating once more that your theory is better than the one in FAQ won't change my mind, either.

Write up your FAQ like you said you would, post it in a thread, and have people approve or disapprove in a vote. It's really that simple.

[sandokhan]

You still don't get it.


The faq that you support does not answer any of the most important questions re: FET.


Why do I have to save the day for both these websites each and every time questions like the gravitational anomalies, beam neutrinos, radio wave measurements, radar, orbital equations, and much more, come up?


It is bizarre, to say the least, to have to rely on TWO ROUND EARTH CONCEPTS, relativity and dark energy, to explain the UA.


Can you explain the ham radio distance to the moon measurements thread?


You cannot.

But I can.


Without the ether physics, you have very little going for you.


Let me remind you of another basic fact: in your unipolar map, the sun's orbit is bounded between the two tropics. Since the sun does undergo a westward shift of 1.5 km per day, and since the distance between the two tropics is some 6000 km, it means that after 4000 years the sun will exceed its present day boundaries.


If my AFET is not up to your standards, then, by all means, do come up with an improved version of FET using ether.

[Pete Svarrior]

If my AFET is not up to your standards, then, by all means, do come up with an improved version of FET using ether.

I didn't say that. I said that the community should decide. Once you've written up your FAQ and the people accepted it, it'll be put up on the Wiki with no delay.

[ClaireSmythe]

If my AFET is not up to your standards, then, by all means, do come up with an improved version of FET using ether.

I didn't say that. I said that the community should decide. Once you've written up your FAQ and the people accepted it, it'll be put up on the Wiki with no delay.

Perhaps a good test will be a draft FAQ, and then the community shares what they understood from it: Sandokhan can say if they're accurate. One of the most important functions of an FAQ is to inform clearly and, no offense intended to Sandokhan, but when I look at his posts it's often incredibly hard to work out what's going on.
That could just be the unavoidable effect of advanced science, but in that case it's possible an FAQ format wouldn't be feasible.

[Thork]

All I would say is don't lose sight of what an FAQ is for.

It is bait. It isn't supposed to be the de facto answer to everything. We want people to ask questions. We want them to engage with us. A flawed FAQ is a good thing. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, you don't want to answer every question. You want people to find faults, to question. To engage. A perfect FAQ is death. People get answers and leave.

The point of an FAQ is it is a starting point. The reason they find a flaw and question it. Engage with members of the forum and realise it isn't insanity. There are smart people here. People you want to find out more about, their motives, their beliefs. The FAQ is a hook. It needs to be imperfect. It is imperfect by design. A newbie needs to find an obvious flaw and post. Only then is it an opportunity to interact. Don't build an impenetrable field. FES is strong because people can be a part if it. Not because it is inaccessible.

[Lord Dave]

245,000 views and no one still believes in your model.

Doesn't that make you pause and ask why?

[Thork]

245,000 views and no one still believes in your model.

Doesn't that make you pause and ask why?

On that other site there are over 500 bots 'reading' articles as I type. Views for posts on that site mean absolutely nothing. They just become a function of time. It is an old thread, it has a lot of views.