Arcadia Discussion Zone

A new book written by a conspiracy theory expert will be out in around two weeks, in which a chapter is devoted to this subject. Right up to the Red Monkey film team pulling out after they had been interviewed by Lady Armytage and her flunkeys, and the recent information that a local councillor was involved.

Kepp you posted

Damiana

Barbara, is that you?

I don't know about a new book (Title? Author? Publisher?) but there was a very interesting article in last month's Fortean Times (#259), mentioning the grave in Yorkshire, looking back at the earliest evidence for Robin Hood in the ballads, and proposing the theory that he was a Templar knight, post the 1307 crackdown. The article is by John Paul Davis, and based on his book Robin Hood: The Unknown Templar (Peter Owen Publishers 2009).
Not my area of expertise, but his arguments seemed quite persuasive.

I think Sir Walter Scott was a little later than the earliest ballads!
As I said, this isn't my area at all, but I liked the way the writer argued his points, without the sort of dogmatism often seen in these areas.
FT259 should still be in the shops (including in the States, Roger). It's the "March" edition, which in magazine marketing parlance I think means it's supposed to stay on the shelves until March. But then, I've just received the April edition...
I posted this because I wondered what our Yorkshire resident might think...

Robin Hood in the sense of La Mesnie Hellequin?

I assume I am correct in this interp that anybody in the service of one of those embattled monks was also a Templar. I mean folks who went along on their Crusades as cook, livery specialist, armorer, weapons maker, shit shoveler in the stalls. It was 1 big happy family, yes?

Modern military parlance encompasses all support personnel as bein' soldiers, yes?. it was like that for 1,000s of years prior to the Templars. All those support personnel had to swear fealty to their Knight, yes? So, offspring of all of these service providers had the right to say they were Templars, yes? When those charging monks on their steeds went into battle, they were accompanied by foot soldiers wearing the same red cross tunics. They had the generic name of Crusaders just like the Templars, yes?

Since these foot soldiers were part of the same priory as a Templar knight, that made them templars also, yes? To say a blanket no, without a shred of evidence these priory controlled foot soldiers + service personnel were not Templars is mere caprice, yes? After all modern Templar fanatic fanciers like Roger don't wanna be put on the same level as the Templars who shoveled shit in the priory stalls.

That these service personnel-foot soldiers passed on their Templar legacy is a bitter pill for Roger to swallow, but hey dude, that's life. When they joined the ranks of the freemasons and contributed their Templar legacy to the masons, well, ain't that a cryin' shame Roger. The world don't revolve the way ya want it. That's why I mentioned way back when, all those German families who provided Templar officer cadre, foot soldiers + livery support durin' the Crusades feel justified in associatin' themself with those forebearers, regardless of yer lame protestations.

So what's the big deal if one of Robin's family member forebearers shoveled shit in a Templar stall in Jerusalem.

Sorry to interrupt the Templar shit-shovelling stories, but I am wondering about this book damiana is promoting on here.

Would it happen to be by Barbara Green, by chance?

If so, it's another sickening example of advertorial in this style:



What isn't disclosed here, of course, is that the person rushing to Songstress's defense, was the same person publishing the damn thing.

So, please damiana, if you're going to promote something, at least disclose your affiliation with it.

Anyway boys, carry on.

It was just a news update--is that a problem? I havent seen the FT- they seemed scared off the Kirklees story some years ago, I do know that! When I get my freebie copy of the new book I will send you more info--is that a problem, or don't you want to be known to be interested in a very interesting story because the Powers that Be, both in this world and no longer in it, can still do their stuff, wouldnt be surprised if it was the funny handshake lot. If the story of Robin Hoods Grave upsets you do by all means, keep off it instead of moaning that you dont like it,
tata

damiana

Not quite sure what Anthony Hogg's gripe is (here and on other threads!).

Damiana, I for one would like to know more about this book when it's published.
And do check out the FT article; it's nicely illustrated as well.

Hi David.
Um -- just to mention: I'm not a silvery plastic disc about 4-1/2 inches across...

For Damiana, 'DVB' and the rest of you:

This new book sounds interesting, but is a 'conspiracy theory expert' an expert on conspiracies, or an expert on theories about conspiracies? They are not necessarily the same thing!

Some very peculiar things have happened with regard to Robin Hood's Grave, people who have tried to do television or other media projects about it have been visited late at night by mysterious men threatening them with unspecified troubles unless they drop the subject, or had telephone calls purporting to come from MI5. Presumably the author of this forthcoming publication has been able to overcome these threats! So far, I am glad to say, nothing of the sort has happened to me, though one never knows when an enigmatic phone call may come!

Gareth J Medway

Thanks Guys--nice to have a few knights in shining armour rushing to my rescue for a change!

As soon as the book arrrives I will let you all now--its nearly two weeks since "they" said they were posting some copies onto me--I am always worried in case the Kirklees branch of MI5 swoop down and stop things as they clearly did with Red Monkey--but some people do show a bit of gumption and don't get silenced by a bunch of old fogeys and cap doffers, though there must be some more powerful element in and among----I am hopeful that this new book will survive any sabotage, the editor hasn't told me of any dickipoggy warnings but we have kept it secret, which might have helped. It actually what I wrote but it has been edited, as they didn't think much of my typing skills-haha!

tata damiana

Hi Damiana.
Could you clarify? In your first post in this thread you said there was a chapter on this subject in A new book written by a conspiracy theory expert. In your most recent post you say it's actually what I wrote but it has been edited.
Is it your book, copy-edited by someone else; or is it a book edited by someone else in which you have a chapter?
And can you say who the conspiracy theory expert is?

Hi Damiana.
Could you clarify? In your first post in this thread you said there was a chapter on this subject in A new book written by a conspiracy theory expert.

Weell yes and no. I sent in the story and they have edited it, but everything is quite right in the edit.





In your most recent post you say it's actually what I wrote but it has been edited.
Is it your book, copy-edited by someone else; or is it a book edited by someone else in which you have a chapter?
And can you say who the conspiracy theory expert is?




Best not BEFORE I GET THE BOOKS!

tata damiana

damiana,

Firstly, I know it's you, Barb, so why you're using a pseudonym here, is beyond me.

Second:



It's not a mere "news update" if you're promoting something you've written yourself, and speaking about it in the third person.

That's called an advertorial:



I don't believe you should utilise forums in this deceptive manner. I've covered another example of this here. I acknowledge that the "other party" engages in similar tactics.

That's why I said if you're going to advertise something, at least disclose it, and not resort to such false methods as "news updates".

DVB,



See above.

Or, you could, you know ask? As to my contributions to other threads, they're an extension of what I write in my blog. This section relates to the Highgate Vampire, hence the consistency with what I write about elsewhere. Simple.

Dave,



Please tell me it's not going to be published by the British Psychic and Occult Society...

Also, nice name-dropping there!



I've invited people on both sides of the Highgate fence to my Facebook. It allows further discussions on the matter and because, as I've iterated elsewhere, it's not like I hate you guys. Sure, I largely disagree with the things you say and believe that fraudulence is being perpetrated by both sides, but it don't mean I can't be civil!

DVB (again),



Glad to see you're upholding my "gripe" in a more civil manner! Well-spotted.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and presume that a) the book's by Barbara, pretending to talk about someone else b) it's probably going to be published by the BPOS or an affiliated publisher.

If I'm wrong, "damiana", then by all means, correct me.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and presume that a) the book's by Barbara, pretending to talk about someone else b) it's probably going to be published by the BPOS or an affiliated publisher.

If I'm wrong, "damiana", then by all means, correct me.


Yes your wrong, Hoggykins. The book is by somebody else who is its editor, so that is still somebody else, published compiled and edited, nothing to do with the BPOS, and I never pretend to be someone else, its obvious its me, its just a bit boring being called Barbara all the time, thats why we can give ourselves different names on the Internet, its fun, boy, fun.

If you really have to be so pedantic and pernickerty, go and nitpick at someone else if you dont like Robin Hood--sure your not one of them?

barbara

Am I to assume the links I found of Barbara Green to be the personage under discussion?
http://www.librarything.com/author/greenbarbara
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ladies-Night-Ba ... 190634907X
http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/spir ... green.html
http://beautytruegood.co.uk/robin3.htm

Its nice to know somebody has that much time on their hands to write this much.

You can assume what you like JW. What is the conclusion of your assumption, prithee. young sir? Have you anything useful to say or just complaining as per usual?

damiana

jabberwock,

Yep, that's her.

Content removed

Barbara,



Thanks for correcting me, but nonetheless, you're still a contributor to the book (see: "It actually what I wrote but it has been edited, as they didn't think much of my typing skills-haha!"), so you were still tooting your own horn under the guise of a "news update", but actually wrote an advertorial, which I maintain.

Not very kosher there, Babbs!



Aww Barb, playing the woe-is-me part again?

I'm personally against (undisclosed) advertorials on this forum, Barb. Or pretty much any other medium. Simple as that. Like I said, if you're gonna promote something, at least disclose your involvement in it, not wait till after you slip up and reveal it. Otherwise, you're engaging in "dikkipoggy" practices, yourself.

But, out of curiousity, who is this mysterious "editor" and who's publishing the thing?

Why the accusatory stance and the triumphalism, Anthony? It's been open knowledge since Damiana arrived on this forum (quite a long time before you did) that she is Barbara Green. It's hardly a false name because she has no intent to deceive; it might be called a handle, or an ident, or a forum label, or all sorts of other things.
Why so antagonistic?
In the case of a certain ecclesiastical gentleman he used a different name with the presumed intention that people should think he was someone other than himself when he defended the bishop and attacked his critics as if he was someone else. That's different from just using a forum handle, as many (most?) members of this forum do.

Thank you GM.

I dont know what the matter is with those two guys to get themselves into such a frenzy, methinks they both do protest too much. What is the harm in telling people about something that might be of interest to some of members of the public and this board ,honestly my mind does not work in such a devious way as their, thinking their is a dickipoggy motive behind it all, it shows the sort of thing they might do on the other hand to project their interests--whatever they might be apart from complaining all the time--onto other people.

tata for now damiana barbara greenwych etc

DVB,

Firstly, forgot about the mentioning of-you-know-who. Bloody censors.

But, onto your post:



Babbs is clearly using the thread with an intention to shift product. She didn't initially disclose her involvement with it. You pointed out the slip she made in terms of authorship. Thus, this thread was set up to be an advertorial, not a "news update" as she falsely claimed.

That's why. As I said in the previous post, I'm against such practices. I've reported her to Andrew. It's up to him what he does about it, if anything.

But, there's another reason.

The Healthypages forum was used to hawk HVS wares. Ditto to the JREF forum. I wouldn't like to see the same thing happen here, that's all.

I mean, are you a fan of advertorials, DVB? Do you actually disagree with my objections?



It's different to an extent, sure, but both cases deal with self-promotion under a different guise.

Babbs,



DVB is Gareth? Hoo boy...



Sigh. Babbs, I'm going to have to explain this one to you. Again. Maybe a bit more slowly.

Your initial post on this thread claimed you had a "news update". What you didn't do, was disclose your involvement in the product you're trying to promote. Thus, you tried to make it look like you were merely relating an offhand news story, but you were actually engaging in promoting the product in question.

Let's refer back to Wikipedia for a clear definition of this practice:



This, my dear, is an advertorial. It's a deceptive form of journalism or "reporting". Your country's Advertising Standards Authority even "requires advertorials to be clearly marked as such."

Not that I'm expecting such devotion to the law here, but surely you can understand the principle behind why such things are imposed.

Like I said before, if you're going to promote something, you should at least disclose your involvement with the product in question. That way, it doesn't make you look so...dikkipoggy, if you will.

Sigh, well that advice didn't last long did it, Rog!

Once again,



Have fun!