Publishing the Forum

Rivkin · 6th June 2006, 09:39 PM

I am glad to hear the reaction to "proceedings idea" (I think it is repeatedly surfaces here).

First of all, publishing proceedings of once a year conference should be a very small job to do. You post submissions standards (accepted file formats, references, margins etc.), since our conference has only _invited_ talks it is not nessesary to peer review the submission, all is needed is a small editorial review, mostly technical in nature, lumping the submissions together and publishing them online. The editor will also be responsible for "reminding" the authors concerning sumbission deadlines etc.

I think that because we don't have an edged weapons journal, proceedings of this conference would be met with enthusiasm.

One more thing - there is such system as germanic publication model, where there are no referees, but each journal is a journal of certain society. Full fledge members of the society have the right to submit papers, both their own and of other people, with "... submitted by such and such" printed on the paper. This substitutes anonymous review process by a more personal interaction between the submitter and de-facto reviewer.

Concerning errors - a lot of Einstein's papers are highly erroneous. This gave him some troubles when he was young, but now - no one remembers these papers, only the ones that were right survived years of scrutiny.
In our community I think it should be the same - erroneous and weak papers will be forgotten, after may be a few angry debates here and there, but the interesting stuff shall preservere.

Mark · 6th June 2006, 10:29 PM

There is also the "letter/report/article" system used in some scientific journals (such as Science and Nature). "Letters" are pretty much published as-is, assuming they get past the threshold interest test of the editors; "reports" are published with only an editorial and internal review, but not outside peer reviewing; "research articles" go through the whole peer-reviewing process.

It is a way to get info out fast, basically, while at the same time conveying to the reader the degree of definativeness of the content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivkin

First of all, publishing proceedings of once a year conference should be a very small job to do. You post submissions standards (accepted file formats, references, margins etc.), since our conference has only _invited_ talks it is not nessesary to peer review the submission, all is needed is a small editorial review, mostly technical in nature, lumping the submissions together and publishing them online. The editor will also be responsible for "reminding" the authors concerning sumbission deadlines etc.

This is pretty much the way I would handle it. I am the (so far) one-man committee for the speakers at the next seminar, and I am planning to float this among the invitees as an idea. There needs to be discussion first about what to do with them once they are in hand, of course.

Stay tuned ...

not2sharp · 6th June 2006, 11:02 PM

I believe we are overly complicating the exercise. To cover the breath of this forum in any sort of reasonable publication would mean to publish what amounts to an updated Stone's glossary. That does not require very detailed scholarly composition. We only need to catalog the examples on hand and hopefully prepare a short intro to each major area of interest. The key is to provide enough information and pictures, to adequately identify the relic; beyond that, the reader would be free to join on these forums for a more detailed discussion on their item.

n2s

Rivkin · 6th June 2006, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch

There is also the "letter/report/article" system used in some scientific journals (such as Science and Nature). "Letters" are pretty much published as-is, assuming they get past the threshold interest test of the editors; "reports" are published with only an editorial and internal review, but not outside peer reviewing; "research articles" go through the whole peer-reviewing process...

Are you sure ? In my experience Science and Nature use the following system, which is btw somewhat atypical - first there is a 4-day or so long editorial review, which is usually based on politics (names on the paper, hotness of the topic etc.). Than if editor ok's the publication, it goes to reviewers, who will reply back in 3-5 months. These true for all types of articles.

Letter (aka correspondence), brief report and regular article define only the nature and length of the publication - in the first case for example it should be a response to something previously published in the journal and is being evaluated on such bases.

Mark · 8th June 2006, 04:59 PM

Rivkin: You may be right about the "reports," actually, but I am fairly sure "letters" don't get peer review. The peer input comes from the sometimes numerous and heated reply letters from others in the field. The editorial hurdle is still huge, however. If the editors don't think it is "good" enough or on a hot enough topic, or actually if they think it is too avante-garde, a submission dies an early death. Its like the fashion industry - the editors determine a priori what their audience wants.

Anyway, I just meant is to be an example of how there can be a teired approach to the publication process. There are, in fact, entire journals that are "pay to publish," where the paper receives virtually no peer review aside from whatever the editors feel needs to be changed.

Tim & not2sharp: I think what you are saying is that it would not be too hard to collate information from the forum into a more succinct and organized form, to be published however (on the web, or maybe as a compilation).

I agree, with one caveat. If that is to be done, it must be done by the original authors of the information. In other words, the people who have posted the information must be the ones to write it up in article form. Having a third party do it invites not only error and misinterpretation, but subversion of the original intent of the authors and probably (justifiably) resentment. But I actually would be happy to be a coordinator and editor for such an effort, if there is actual interest.

Here are a few possible topics:
-Wootz (several possibilities here),
-Tibetan weapons,
-Specific weapons or armor types, such as head axes, kris, pata, flyssa, barong, talibon, Moro armor, kampilan, mandau, kastane, laz bichac, etc., etc. (Lee has done good examples on takouba and kaskara, for example),
-keris, of course (there would need to be focus, though, such as on certain pamor or hilts),
-"Swords of the Prophet,"
-forging or smelting techniques,
-decoration techniques (inlay, koftgari, chasing, repousee', engraving, etching, etc.), both as unique to a particular area/culture, and as shared or separately used,
-Naga weapons,
-Taiwanese weapons,
-Ainu weapons,
-Cretan knives

There are of course, many, many other possibilities. Just think of the threads you have started, or questions asked by others to which you have responded (solely or along with others), and you basically could have a short article right there. And of course, co-authorship would often be appropriate. In a lot of cases it would almost just be a matter of finding a thread, and copying and pasting together what was written, with some editting to clean it up (again, with the cooperation, or at least consent, of the people who wrote the stuff if there was more than one). Voila', quicky info sheet on a discrete topic. I envision something meant to be informative and accessible, something to answer some specific or basic question, rather than an involved treatise or dissertation on a subject.

As an aside, if anyone were to start a magazine, I am sure there is already ample information right here on the forum for several focused articles.

Revising Stone: that is actually something I suggested years ago.

I think it would be great to update the little pieces that Stone did on various weapons and armor types, but it would be a pretty big project. Still worthwhile, I think. There are any number of books in the field that are published under the original authors names, but are updated by others, sometimes by committees. "Remington's Pharmaceutical Sciences" is one example, "Bartlett's Familiar Quotations" and "Webster's Dictionary" are others. "Stone's Glossary" is a name recognizable enough to merit becoming part of the title itself. I think it would be a very cool project. One would need the permission and cooperation of whoever holds the copyright, however. Again, I would be happy & proud to be a general editor on that project.

In a real way, the Philippines and Continental SEA sections in the History of Steel catalogue are based on information that has been posted and discussed over the years on this Forum, since they were written by Forum members. Of course, the kinds of things I mentioned above don't need to be as comprehensive and elaborate as these are.

Rivkin · 8th June 2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch

Rivkin: You may be right about the "reports," actually, but I am fairly sure "letters" don't get peer review. The peer input comes from the sometimes numerous and heated reply letters from others in the field. The editorial hurdle is still huge, however. If the editors don't think it is "good" enough or on a hot enough topic, or actually if they think it is too avante-garde, a submission dies an early death. Its like the fashion industry - the editors determine a priori what their audience wants.

Anyway, I just meant is to be an example of how there can be a teired approach to the publication process. There are, in fact, entire journals that are "pay to publish," where the paper receives virtually no peer review aside from whatever the editors feel needs to be changed.

To be honest I don't know what their standard practise is, I can only state that my "letters" submissions have gone through some limited review. Concerning publication charges - most of the journals have them, although they are somewhat semi-voluntary novadays. The review process is still pretty much the same, whether you pay it or not.

P.S. On the other hand I am not really sure I submitted a letter. I remember I wanted to, but may be I just submitted a report...

Now, to "Revised Stone" and "collecting information in the forum" - what we can do is commision series of review articles (i.e. articles that are by definition focus on covering discussion already that already occured in the community) on the subjects covered in the forum, and then, if the number of review articles will be significant we can stich them together.
But in my opinion, it is better to start with review articles and in this case we will need a place to publish them.

Emanuel · 8th June 2006, 05:32 PM

Mark, Tim, n2s, and Rivkin, you guys really drew out in detail the sort of things I vaguely had in mind.

My impression of this forum was that it provided much more information than a glossary like Stone's. It seemed to me that a lot of new and unique conclusions were reached in the many threads on this forum and that many of them deserved publication (either by their individual authors or under the collective of this site if they so wished.)
One reason for my initial inquiry has to do with permanence -how long will we have access to this fine site and its digital content? I was thinking that a hard-copy journal or whatever such format could complement the archives of the forum and our downloads of the threads. Even if the journal were purely digital, its organized articles would perhaps be more easily read, printed and stored than long forum discussions.
I love this forum, but I would also like something tangible in my library that I can use without relying on my computer.

If these ideas meet further support, I gladly offer my help (for what its worth) with format, graphics or whatever is needed.
Emanuel

VANDOO · 8th June 2006, 06:30 PM

THIS IS A FORUM FOR DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS AND THEORY ALL ADD TO OUR KNOWLEGE AND SOMETIMES SPUR SOMEONE ON TO FINDING A ANSWER TO QUESTIONS AND TO PROVING THEORY. I LIKE THE FORUM LIKE IT IS AS SOME OTHER FORUMS THAT HAVE DIVIDED INTO GROUPS HAVE BECOME CLANNISH AND DON'T WELCOME OR ANSWER POSTS BY OUTSIDERS.

PRESENT REFRENCES ARE MOSTLY PROVEN THEORYS BASED ON OTHER REFRENCES OR RESEARCH WHICH IS VERY SELDOM COMPLETE. SO THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN YET AND SOMETIMES A PERSON WITH LITTLE KNOWLEGE ON A CERTIAN SUBJECT CAN ASK A QUESTION OR GIVE THEIR IDEA AND START THOSE DOING THE RESEARCH IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION LEADING TO MORE SOLID FACTS. MOST RESEARCH KIND OF GOES IN CIRCLES AND SOMETIMES WE GET HUNG UP ON WHAT WE KNOW FROM REFRENCES AND DON'T SEE THE BRANCH OFF THE CIRCLE THAT LEADS TO NEW INFORMATION. THATS WHERE HAVING A WIDE RANGE OF PEOPLE AND INTRESTS ACADEMIC AND LAYMEN AS WELL AS AMATURES CAN SOMETIMES NUDGE SOMEONE INTO FINDING NEW FACTS.

THE IDEA OF PUTTING THE INFORMATION ON THIS FORUM IN ORDER IS A GOOD ONE AND ELECTRONIC BOOKS ARE GOOD IF SOMEONE WANTS TO DO THE WORK. THE FORUM GOES IN CIRCLES ALSO HOW MANY DIFFERENT DISCUSSIONS HAVE WE HAD ON KERIS,KAMPILAN AND DARE I SAY IT SUDANG

THERE IS A LOT OF THE SAME INFORMATION EACH TIME BUT DIFFERENT POSTS HAVE DIFFERENT INFORMATION, QUESTIONS AND IDEAS. IT IS DIFFICULT TO RUN DOWN ALL THE POSTS READ THEM AND GATHER ALL THE INFORMATION, ITS KIND OF LIKE READING A BOOK THAT HAS ALL ITS PAGES TORN OUT AND SCATTERED IN THE BUSHES

SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO GO BACK AND GATHER ALL THE GOOD INFORMATION,IDEAS AND QUESTIONS AND ELIMINATE THE REPETITON AND CONDENSE IT INTO A POST WITH ALL THE PRESENT INFORMATION WE HAVE AND THEN WE COULD DISCUSS THAT TO SEE IF WE MISSED ANYTHING OR CAN ADD TO IT AND KEEP IT UPDATED. PERHAPS SUCH CONDENSED TOPIC INFORMATION COULD BE PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER SUCH AS THE OLD MEDEVIL TOPICS WE USED TO HAVE ON THE FORUM THAT WOULD MAKE RESEARCH MUCH EASIER.

Tim Simmons · 8th June 2006, 07:06 PM

Vandoo.

Clear sight, sometimes you just have to try it to see if it works, we are not talking of any money above running your PC. We could start on something simple with little dispute like choora, peshkabz and related knives especially as I have just acquired one. With all the members surely a dazzling display can be arranged from old to new. Agree a size, format and colour background, get the pictures in and sort them. Then the coordinator has come up with an agreeable text but not to tame.

The results could be a wonderful CD-ROM full of a most enjoyable display of the styles of a few specific weapons, and a compact and valuable resource for reference.

You said you would think about doing it. Put out the call. My PC skills are limited but I can resize pictures to share the burden. Or are we dreaming.

VANDOO · 8th June 2006, 09:01 PM

A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT I WAS MENTIONING ON CONDENSING POSTS IS A SEARCH OF CHOORA BRINGS UP 22 POSTS. SOME MAY ONLY HAVE THE WORD CHOORA AND NO INFORMATION AND AS TIM SAID THIS WOULD BE A SIMPLE ONE TO SEARCH. I ONLY SEARCHED THE PRESENT POSTS NOT THE ARCHIVES SO THAT GIVES YOU A IDEA OF THE WORK NECESSARY TO DO EVEN ONE OF THE WEAPONS RARELY DISCUSSED. IT ALSO GIVES YOU A IDEA OF THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION, QUESTIONS AND THEORYS AVAILABLE HERE ON THE FORUM. THE REFRENCE TO IT REQUIREING AS MUCH WORK AS RE- DOING STONES IS NOT FAR OFF THE MARK. IT WOULD TAKE A LOT OF TIME AND WORK TO ARRANGE ALL THE INFORMATION BUT WOULD MAKE AN EXCELLENT REFRENCE SOURCE. THE INFORMATION IS ALREADY THERE BUT IT IS NOT EASY TO ACCESS IT AND CAN BE DIFFICULT TO PUT IT ALL TOGETHER IN THE PROPER FORM AND CONTEXT WHICH CAN LEAD TO MISTAKES AND WASTE A LOT OF TIME. SO IF ANYONE WANTS TO TRY ORGANIZING AND CONDENSING THE INFORMATION PICK SOMETHING EASY OR FORM A GROUP AND WORK TOGETHER TO CRACK THE MORE DIFFICULT ONES. YOU COULD POST YOUR FINDINGS AND SEE HOW IT DOES UNDER DISCUSSION ON THE FORUM.

THE BAD THING ABOUT ONLY READING THE CORRECTED CONDENSED INFORMATION IS YOU WOULD MISS OUT ON ALL THE FUN OF JOKES AND FUNNY COMMENTS AS WELL AS INTERESTING OFF TOPIC STUFF FROM FELLOW MEMBERS

6th June 2006, 09:39 PM	#1
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I am glad to hear the reaction to "proceedings idea" (I think it is repeatedly surfaces here). First of all, publishing proceedings of once a year conference should be a very small job to do. You post submissions standards (accepted file formats, references, margins etc.), since our conference has only _invited_ talks it is not nessesary to peer review the submission, all is needed is a small editorial review, mostly technical in nature, lumping the submissions together and publishing them online. The editor will also be responsible for "reminding" the authors concerning sumbission deadlines etc. I think that because we don't have an edged weapons journal, proceedings of this conference would be met with enthusiasm. One more thing - there is such system as germanic publication model, where there are no referees, but each journal is a journal of certain society. Full fledge members of the society have the right to submit papers, both their own and of other people, with "... submitted by such and such" printed on the paper. This substitutes anonymous review process by a more personal interaction between the submitter and de-facto reviewer. Concerning errors - a lot of Einstein's papers are highly erroneous. This gave him some troubles when he was young, but now - no one remembers these papers, only the ones that were right survived years of scrutiny. In our community I think it should be the same - erroneous and weak papers will be forgotten, after may be a few angry debates here and there, but the interesting stuff shall preservere.

6th June 2006, 11:02 PM	#3
not2sharp Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 210	I believe we are overly complicating the exercise. To cover the breath of this forum in any sort of reasonable publication would mean to publish what amounts to an updated Stone's glossary. That does not require very detailed scholarly composition. We only need to catalog the examples on hand and hopefully prepare a short intro to each major area of interest. The key is to provide enough information and pictures, to adequately identify the relic; beyond that, the reader would be free to join on these forums for a more detailed discussion on their item. n2s

8th June 2006, 04:59 PM	#5
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	Rivkin: You may be right about the "reports," actually, but I am fairly sure "letters" don't get peer review. The peer input comes from the sometimes numerous and heated reply letters from others in the field. The editorial hurdle is still huge, however. If the editors don't think it is "good" enough or on a hot enough topic, or actually if they think it is too avante-garde, a submission dies an early death. Its like the fashion industry - the editors determine a priori what their audience wants. Anyway, I just meant is to be an example of how there can be a teired approach to the publication process. There are, in fact, entire journals that are "pay to publish," where the paper receives virtually no peer review aside from whatever the editors feel needs to be changed. Tim & not2sharp: I think what you are saying is that it would not be too hard to collate information from the forum into a more succinct and organized form, to be published however (on the web, or maybe as a compilation). I agree, with one caveat. If that is to be done, it must be done by the original authors of the information. In other words, the people who have posted the information must be the ones to write it up in article form. Having a third party do it invites not only error and misinterpretation, but subversion of the original intent of the authors and probably (justifiably) resentment. But I actually would be happy to be a coordinator and editor for such an effort, if there is actual interest. Here are a few possible topics: -Wootz (several possibilities here), -Tibetan weapons, -Specific weapons or armor types, such as head axes, kris, pata, flyssa, barong, talibon, Moro armor, kampilan, mandau, kastane, laz bichac, etc., etc. (Lee has done good examples on takouba and kaskara, for example), -keris, of course (there would need to be focus, though, such as on certain pamor or hilts), -"Swords of the Prophet," -forging or smelting techniques, -decoration techniques (inlay, koftgari, chasing, repousee', engraving, etching, etc.), both as unique to a particular area/culture, and as shared or separately used, -Naga weapons, -Taiwanese weapons, -Ainu weapons, -Cretan knives There are of course, many, many other possibilities. Just think of the threads you have started, or questions asked by others to which you have responded (solely or along with others), and you basically could have a short article right there. And of course, co-authorship would often be appropriate. In a lot of cases it would almost just be a matter of finding a thread, and copying and pasting together what was written, with some editting to clean it up (again, with the cooperation, or at least consent, of the people who wrote the stuff if there was more than one). Voila', quicky info sheet on a discrete topic. I envision something meant to be informative and accessible, something to answer some specific or basic question, rather than an involved treatise or dissertation on a subject. As an aside, if anyone were to start a magazine, I am sure there is already ample information right here on the forum for several focused articles. Revising Stone: that is actually something I suggested years ago. I think it would be great to update the little pieces that Stone did on various weapons and armor types, but it would be a pretty big project. Still worthwhile, I think. There are any number of books in the field that are published under the original authors names, but are updated by others, sometimes by committees. "Remington's Pharmaceutical Sciences" is one example, "Bartlett's Familiar Quotations" and "Webster's Dictionary" are others. "Stone's Glossary" is a name recognizable enough to merit becoming part of the title itself. I think it would be a very cool project. One would need the permission and cooperation of whoever holds the copyright, however. Again, I would be happy & proud to be a general editor on that project. In a real way, the Philippines and Continental SEA sections in the History of Steel catalogue are based on information that has been posted and discussed over the years on this Forum, since they were written by Forum members. Of course, the kinds of things I mentioned above don't need to be as comprehensive and elaborate as these are.

8th June 2006, 05:32 PM	#7
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Mark, Tim, n2s, and Rivkin, you guys really drew out in detail the sort of things I vaguely had in mind. My impression of this forum was that it provided much more information than a glossary like Stone's. It seemed to me that a lot of new and unique conclusions were reached in the many threads on this forum and that many of them deserved publication (either by their individual authors or under the collective of this site if they so wished.) One reason for my initial inquiry has to do with permanence -how long will we have access to this fine site and its digital content? I was thinking that a hard-copy journal or whatever such format could complement the archives of the forum and our downloads of the threads. Even if the journal were purely digital, its organized articles would perhaps be more easily read, printed and stored than long forum discussions. I love this forum, but I would also like something tangible in my library that I can use without relying on my computer. If these ideas meet further support, I gladly offer my help (for what its worth) with format, graphics or whatever is needed. Emanuel

8th June 2006, 06:30 PM	#8
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	THIS IS A FORUM FOR DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS AND THEORY ALL ADD TO OUR KNOWLEGE AND SOMETIMES SPUR SOMEONE ON TO FINDING A ANSWER TO QUESTIONS AND TO PROVING THEORY. I LIKE THE FORUM LIKE IT IS AS SOME OTHER FORUMS THAT HAVE DIVIDED INTO GROUPS HAVE BECOME CLANNISH AND DON'T WELCOME OR ANSWER POSTS BY OUTSIDERS. PRESENT REFRENCES ARE MOSTLY PROVEN THEORYS BASED ON OTHER REFRENCES OR RESEARCH WHICH IS VERY SELDOM COMPLETE. SO THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN YET AND SOMETIMES A PERSON WITH LITTLE KNOWLEGE ON A CERTIAN SUBJECT CAN ASK A QUESTION OR GIVE THEIR IDEA AND START THOSE DOING THE RESEARCH IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION LEADING TO MORE SOLID FACTS. MOST RESEARCH KIND OF GOES IN CIRCLES AND SOMETIMES WE GET HUNG UP ON WHAT WE KNOW FROM REFRENCES AND DON'T SEE THE BRANCH OFF THE CIRCLE THAT LEADS TO NEW INFORMATION. THATS WHERE HAVING A WIDE RANGE OF PEOPLE AND INTRESTS ACADEMIC AND LAYMEN AS WELL AS AMATURES CAN SOMETIMES NUDGE SOMEONE INTO FINDING NEW FACTS. THE IDEA OF PUTTING THE INFORMATION ON THIS FORUM IN ORDER IS A GOOD ONE AND ELECTRONIC BOOKS ARE GOOD IF SOMEONE WANTS TO DO THE WORK. THE FORUM GOES IN CIRCLES ALSO HOW MANY DIFFERENT DISCUSSIONS HAVE WE HAD ON KERIS,KAMPILAN AND DARE I SAY IT SUDANG THERE IS A LOT OF THE SAME INFORMATION EACH TIME BUT DIFFERENT POSTS HAVE DIFFERENT INFORMATION, QUESTIONS AND IDEAS. IT IS DIFFICULT TO RUN DOWN ALL THE POSTS READ THEM AND GATHER ALL THE INFORMATION, ITS KIND OF LIKE READING A BOOK THAT HAS ALL ITS PAGES TORN OUT AND SCATTERED IN THE BUSHES SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO GO BACK AND GATHER ALL THE GOOD INFORMATION,IDEAS AND QUESTIONS AND ELIMINATE THE REPETITON AND CONDENSE IT INTO A POST WITH ALL THE PRESENT INFORMATION WE HAVE AND THEN WE COULD DISCUSS THAT TO SEE IF WE MISSED ANYTHING OR CAN ADD TO IT AND KEEP IT UPDATED. PERHAPS SUCH CONDENSED TOPIC INFORMATION COULD BE PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER SUCH AS THE OLD MEDEVIL TOPICS WE USED TO HAVE ON THE FORUM THAT WOULD MAKE RESEARCH MUCH EASIER.

8th June 2006, 07:06 PM	#9
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,875	Vandoo. Clear sight, sometimes you just have to try it to see if it works, we are not talking of any money above running your PC. We could start on something simple with little dispute like choora, peshkabz and related knives especially as I have just acquired one. With all the members surely a dazzling display can be arranged from old to new. Agree a size, format and colour background, get the pictures in and sort them. Then the coordinator has come up with an agreeable text but not to tame. The results could be a wonderful CD-ROM full of a most enjoyable display of the styles of a few specific weapons, and a compact and valuable resource for reference. You said you would think about doing it. Put out the call. My PC skills are limited but I can resize pictures to share the burden. Or are we dreaming.

8th June 2006, 09:01 PM	#10
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT I WAS MENTIONING ON CONDENSING POSTS IS A SEARCH OF CHOORA BRINGS UP 22 POSTS. SOME MAY ONLY HAVE THE WORD CHOORA AND NO INFORMATION AND AS TIM SAID THIS WOULD BE A SIMPLE ONE TO SEARCH. I ONLY SEARCHED THE PRESENT POSTS NOT THE ARCHIVES SO THAT GIVES YOU A IDEA OF THE WORK NECESSARY TO DO EVEN ONE OF THE WEAPONS RARELY DISCUSSED. IT ALSO GIVES YOU A IDEA OF THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION, QUESTIONS AND THEORYS AVAILABLE HERE ON THE FORUM. THE REFRENCE TO IT REQUIREING AS MUCH WORK AS RE- DOING STONES IS NOT FAR OFF THE MARK. IT WOULD TAKE A LOT OF TIME AND WORK TO ARRANGE ALL THE INFORMATION BUT WOULD MAKE AN EXCELLENT REFRENCE SOURCE. THE INFORMATION IS ALREADY THERE BUT IT IS NOT EASY TO ACCESS IT AND CAN BE DIFFICULT TO PUT IT ALL TOGETHER IN THE PROPER FORM AND CONTEXT WHICH CAN LEAD TO MISTAKES AND WASTE A LOT OF TIME. SO IF ANYONE WANTS TO TRY ORGANIZING AND CONDENSING THE INFORMATION PICK SOMETHING EASY OR FORM A GROUP AND WORK TOGETHER TO CRACK THE MORE DIFFICULT ONES. YOU COULD POST YOUR FINDINGS AND SEE HOW IT DOES UNDER DISCUSSION ON THE FORUM. THE BAD THING ABOUT ONLY READING THE CORRECTED CONDENSED INFORMATION IS YOU WOULD MISS OUT ON ALL THE FUN OF JOKES AND FUNNY COMMENTS AS WELL AS INTERESTING OFF TOPIC STUFF FROM FELLOW MEMBERS