The History of ‘Histories’
Note that this piece was followed by an Addendum (26-Oct-2017) and both articles were built upon in Full Member Video Update #07 (3-Nov-2017).
The History of ‘Histories’
PROLOGUE
Before reading this article, you might benefit from revisiting earlier pieces regarding what I call the History Hoax and also Primary Source Research Methodology.
Article #19 | The History Hoax – A Primer (5-Jul-2017)
tl;dr Humans love stories, and the stories of ‘history’ are just stories. Even true stories are still just stories, and the retelling of stories requires no intelligence or genuine thought, but merely repetition. We have grown up in an age in which so many stories have been repeated so many times that few of us will ever stop to wonder, let alone investigate, where these stories actually come from.
Article #20 | The History of History (6-Jul-2017)
tl;dr The academic discipline known as ‘history’ is less than 200 years old. History ‘education’ dates to the 1800s, and yet ‘experts’ within that field can supposedly tell us what was happening hundreds and even thousands of years ago. And people believe them. That is, the ‘experts’ claim to have knowledge of events which are literally prehistorical.
Article #29 | Primary Source Research Methodology (17-Oct-2017)
tl;dr Primary sources are those which come directly from the time/event/person in question. Secondary sources are those which do not come directly from the time/event/person in question. It seems logical to sooner rely on a man’s own words/writings to piece together his life than to rely on stories told decades or centuries (or millennia) later. This is why I personally prioritise primary sources well above secondary sources in my research.
If you have not already done so, you are also strongly encouraged to familiarise yourself with the Exordium page and in particular the Welcome Video. If you haven’t revisited that page/video for some time it may be worth refreshing your memory.
NOTE: The images used in this article are likely to be scaled down if you read them on a handheld device. You can click on any image to see it in full size.
Herodotus is considered the ‘father of history’. My question is: did he even exist?
This article will use the example of ‘Herodotus’ and his classic work Histories to demonstrate just how little of what we are shown as ‘history’ is based on primary sources.
Contents
1 – Introduction to Herodotus (popular sources)
2 – Official stories and modern mythos
3 – Tertiary sources vs primary sources
4 – Wikipedia’s page on Herodotus
5 – Wikipedia’s page on Herodotus – references
6 – Godley’s translation of Herodotus
7 – Stein’s translation of Herodotus
8 – The process of primary source research
9 – Wikipedia’s page on Herodotus’ work Histories
10 – Wikipedia’s page on the Oxyrhynchus Papyri
11 – Oxford confirms the story of Oxyrhynchus
12 – The bust of Herodotus
13 – Key concepts and ideas revised
14 – There is no case – there never was!
15 – I know it sounds crazy, but…
16 – I could be wrong
Sources
Credits
1 – Introduction to Herodotus (popular sources)
Herodotus is a key figure in the field of ‘history’. If one were to google his name, the top four search results would likely be pages from Wikipedia, Ancients.eu, History.com, and Brittanica.com.
Let’s take a look at what each has to say about ‘Herodotus’.
Wikipedia
Herodotus was a Greek historian who was born in Halicarnassus in the Persian Empire (modern-day Bodrum, Turkey) and lived in the fifth century BC (c. 484–c. 425 BC), a contemporary of Thucydides, Socrates, and Euripides. He is often referred to as “The Father of History”, a title first conferred by Cicero; he was the first historian known to have broken from Homeric tradition to treat historical subjects as a method of investigation—specifically, by collecting his materials systematically and critically, and then arranging them into a historiographic narrative.
–link
Ancients.eu
Herodotus (c. 484 – 425/413 BCE) was a writer who invented the field of study known today as `history’. He was called `The Father of History’ by the Roman writer and orator Cicero for his famous work The Histories but has also been called “The Father of Lies” by critics who claim these `histories’ are little more than tall tales. Criticism of Herodotus’ work seems to have originated among Athenians who took exception to his account of the Battle of Marathon (490 BCE) and, specifically, which families were due the most honor for the victory over the Persians. More serious criticism of his work has to do with the credibility of the accounts of his travels.
–link
History.com
Sometime around the year 425 B.C., the writer and geographer Herodotus published his magnum opus: a long account of the Greco-Persian Wars that he called The Histories. (The Greek word “historie” means “inquiry.”) Before Herodotus, no writer had ever made such a systematic, thorough study of the past or tried to explain the cause-and-effect of its events. After Herodotus, historical analysis became an indispensable part of intellectual and political life. Scholars have been following in Herodotus’ footsteps for 2,500 years.
–link
Brittanica.com
Herodotus (born 484 BCE?, Halicarnassus, Asia Minor [now Bodrum, Turkey]?—died c. 430–420), Greek author of the first great narrative history produced in the ancient world, the History of the Greco-Persian Wars.
–link
Putting this all together, then, the following would seem to be a fair summary of the official story overview of Herodotus.
-Alive roughly 400 BC
-the ‘father of history’
-the man who ‘invented the field of study known as history’
-the man whose ‘footsteps have been followed by scholars ever since’
-his work Histories is the ‘first great narrative’ of history
KEY: Herodotus is a central figure of ‘ancient history’ and is considered by popular sources to the ‘father of history’.
2 – Official stories and modern mythos
It is beyond the scope of this article to explore the concept of the ‘official story’ (that is, the mythos intended for and/or accepted by the masses), or how the modern layman will typically source his information from the top few results of a google search. It should suffice for now to point out that the four paragraphs provided above can be taken as an overview of the official story of Herodotus as it stands today. That is, as far as a regular person would be concerned, the information cited above would be considered to be a genuine, historical account of the life of Herodotus.
3 – Tertiary sources vs primary sources
Each of the four sources in question are what I would describe as tertiary sources. That is, compilations of secondary sources (and, in theory, primary sources) for the purpose of a broad overview of the topic at hand. Ideally, a tertiary source will provide a ‘bibliography’ and/or ‘references’ for inquiring minds to dig deeper into the matter for themselves.
In the case of historical figures it is obviously going to be worth going directly to the primary source i.e. the words of the historical figure himself. Since we cannot read ancient Greek, we will have to settle for translations. So long as these translations are themselves based upon the original, primary sources, and can cite the whereabouts of the original (so that those who wish to do so can check for themselves), then these translations are as good as primary sources for the purpose of our investigation.
KEY: Since we cannot read ancient Greek, we will accept as a ‘primary source’ a true translation of Herodotus’ words — so long as the original can itself can be identified for verification.
This ought to be straightforward. If I were to publish a translation of somebody else’s work, I would obviously explain at the outset which copy of their work I had used as my source. If I were translating a book, I would explain at the very beginning of my translation, as part of the preface (if not earlier), which original book I was translating from, where I had gotten the book, and where others can go to find the original for themselves. This is not just good scholarly practice; it is common sense.
4 – Wikipedia’s page on Herodotus
Now let’s take a look at the supporting information provided by the Herodotus page on wikipedia.
To the untrained eye, this certainly seems impressive. It looks so academic and formal: all of those dot points, ISBNs and italicised words. Fancy.
Now let’s take a closer look: the oldest English translation on that list is from 1849. The oldest critical edition is from 1908.
English is supposed to be at least several hundred years old. According to history, William Caxton was printing in English in the 1400s, and the King James Bible was printed in English in the 1600s. Does it strike you as peculiar that the oldest listed translation of the most important work of ‘history’, written by the ‘father of history’, entitled Histories, is dated to 1849?
Think about this for a moment. The people you are surrounded by every day get their ‘knowledge’ from the TV and, if they are curious to learn more, from websites like Wikipedia.
The wikipedia entry for Herodotus, the top result if one googles ‘Herodotus’, lists as the oldest critical edition or translation, a book from 1849.
KEY: The oldest translation of Herodotus’ Histories listed by his wikipedia page is from 1849.
5 – Wikipedia’s page on Herodotus – references
Now let’s take a look at the references from that same wikipedia page. These are the sources cited within the article itself. Every major claim made within the article is supposed to be referenced, and the references should effectively provide the curious reader with a clear indication as to where the purported information can be found and verified.
Most people do not bother to check the references of the wikipedia articles they read. It is my opinion that 99+% of visitors to the wikipedia page in question will never attempt to verify even a single reference. The fancy-looking footnotes will, however, bestow an air of credibility and academic rigour to the article. That is, the footnotes/references make the article look legitimate to the untrained eye.
But just how legitimate are these references?
The first thing you might notice is that most of these sources are relatively recent, dated from the 1970s through to today.
In fact, of the 98 references cited throughout the article, more than three quarters are explicitly dated within the last fifty years.
The bulk of the remainder are references to Rawlinson (1859).
The second thing you might notice is that these references are, with just a few exceptions, all secondary/tertiary sources.
In fact, of the 98 references cited throughout the article, only two of them are to Herodotus’ Histories.
Put another way, in the entire wikipedia entry for Herodotus, only two of the 98 references go directly to the words of the man in question.
The tiny proportion of people who follow those two references to their source will find that they are from a 1920 translation by A. D. Godley.
KEY: Of the 98 references cited in this wikipedia article about Herodotus, only two are to Herodotus’ own work (i.e. primary sources), and both of those references are in fact to a 1920 translation of Herodotus’ Histories.
This alone should raise red flags in the mind of any objective, rational, thinking person. How can a multi-thousand word article about any figure of history – let alone the ‘father of history’ – contain only two direct references to words of the man in question? And why are those two references both to a source which is itself less than 100 years old?
6 – Godley’s translation of Herodotus
In any event, let’s take a look at that translation by Godley. Not only it is the only ‘primary source’ (direct) reference to Herodotus in the entire wikipedia article about him, but is is also one of the oldest sources listed in the Translations section.
Godley’s book is available in pdf from archive.org.
What we want to know is, what is the actual primary source on which Godley based his translation? Which work of Herodotus did Godley use to create his translation? Was it a manuscript stored in some exclusive library? Godley must have gotten his hands on a Herodotus original, surely…
…no. Godley’s translation is actually based on Stein’s translation. The image above is a screenshot of the pdf linked earlier, page xvii.
“The text which I have followed is that of Stein; in the few passages of any importance where I have thought fit to follow any other authority, the fact is noted.”
In other words, Godley’s translation is not of Herodotus’ words, but of Stein’s words, which are themselves supposedly a translation of Herodotus’ words.
You’ll note that Godley openly states that the ‘best’ sources are dated to the tenth and eleventh centuries.
KEY: Even on the most generous reading, the ‘best’ accounts of ‘Herodotus’ are from the tenth century i.e. 1400 years after his alleged existence.
7 – Stein’s translation of Herodotus
The more pressing concern is that Godley’s ‘translation’ is in fact based on somebody else’s translation. Let’s put that into a simple schematic:
Wikipedia -> ‘Herodotus’ -> Godley (1920) -> Stein (1883) -> Herodotus?
Remember that the entire wikipedia ‘Herodotus’ article contains 98 references but only two of them go to Herodotus, and as we can see here, they don’t really go to Herodotus: they go to Godley who in turn goes to Stein (who, we might be led to believe, at least sourced his translation from Herodotus).
Okay then, let’s see if Stein did indeed base his own work on the direct account of Herodotus.
After some digging I found a pdf copy of Stein’s work at the internet archive. It is dated to 1883 and printed entirely in German.
I don’t presently have sufficient time to type out the German from that pdf into google translate. If I did have that time, I would like to know where Stein claims to have found the original work of Herodotus – if indeed he claims to have based his work on Herodotus to begin with. I would not be the least bit surprised to find out that Stein either:
a) Offers no explanation of where he got his information, or
b) Admits that his own work is based on some other person’s ‘translation’
As it stands, we have spent some time tracing the sources given to us by wikipedia. Only two of the 98 references are to Herodotus, but neither of these are directly to Herodotus: they instead go to Godley’s 1920 translation. But Godley’s translation is not a translation of Herodotus, it is a translation of Stein. I can’t determine if Stein even claims to have based his translation on an original, because it is written entirely in German.
Again, look at what we are dealing with here, and bear in mind that ‘Herodotus’ is the ‘father of history’.
KEY: Wikipedia -> ‘Herodotus’ -> Godley (1920) -> Stein (1883) -> Herodotus?
8 – The process of primary source research
Tracing back to the primary sources regarding historical figures is incredibly time-consuming and laborious.
By now you may be getting some idea of how frustrating this type of research – that is, real research – can be, particularly when dealing with ‘history’.
Each step along the way, nobody has been upfront about their primary sources. None of the sources or authorities inspected so far have stated clearly, at the outset of their work, whether or not their information comes directly from Herodotus. If you put aside some time to try this for yourself, you will see the same pattern repeated over and over again.
Pick a character from ‘ancient history’.
Google searches will bring up tertiary sources such as wikipedia and Brittanica. These tertiary sources will cite and refer to other tertiary sources, and myriad secondary sources. They may occasionally refer to ‘primary‘ sources, but those ‘primary’ sources – when scrutinised – will in fact turn out to be secondary sources (generally written within the last 150 years). Those secondary sources will generally not be upfront about where they got their information; it will usually require copious reading through the preface/introduction/body of the text to find an explanation about the basis for their claims (if indeed any explanation is given at all).
It is like trying to make sense of a murder case in which every ‘witness’ bases his story – when asked – on hearsay from other ‘witnesses’. You want to know what happened at ‘time x’ and ‘place y’ and, although there are plenty of people claiming to know the truth, every single ‘witness’ depends on the testimony of somebody else. Did anybody actually see what happened? Can we talk to that guy? Or at least read what he wrote down? Did he write anything down at all? Has anybody seen it? Sure, but you’re going to have to talk to this other guy first, or read the translation of it from a book which doesn’t explain when or where the translator saw the original!
Note that none of the Ancient.eu article, History.com article, or Brittanica.com article provides a reference list or bibliography. The wikipedia page we have just dissected is the most ‘academic’ or ‘rigorous’ of the lot. Think about that for a moment.
KEY: Tracing back to the primary sources regarding historical figures is incredibly time-consuming and laborious.
It is worth pondering just why this might be the case…
9 – Wikipedia’s page on Herodotus’ work Histories
Now let’s take a look at wikipedia’s entry for Histories, the great (and only known) work by Herodotus. Perhaps this wikipedia entry can tell us where to find the original Herodotus (or, at least, where we can find the oldest copy of his work still in existence).
You’ll note that the Critical Editions and Translations lists are almost identical to those offered on the Herodotus page seen earlier.
Of interest to us is that this page does list Manuscripts i.e. the actual primary sources. Huzzah! We are getting somewhere!
The manuscripts of Herodotus’ Histories come from the ‘Papyrus Oxyrhynchus’, and we are even given specific numbers: 18, 19 and 2099.
Now that sounds serious.
Finally, JLB’s own research has debunked his theory that ancient history is all make-believe.
You may be smirking: ‘sucked in, smarty pants!’
There’s just one little problem…
ARE YOU READY FOR THIS? THERE’S NO TURNING BACK NOW…
No refunds. No apologies. You had your chance to turn back. I warned you. Oh how I warned you.
After seeing this, there will be no returning to Normieville as though nothing happened.
No listening to the truth clowns and truth charlatans who pretend to know what is actually going on.
Keep reading and you will be with me on the ‘other side’.
It is nice here, but there are not many of us. It can be lonely sometimes.
10 – Wikipedia’s page on the Oxyrhynchus Papyri
You might be wise enough to ask at once: What are the ‘Oxyrhynchus Papyri’?
What I am about to share with you, I first discovered for myself in early 2016.
But don’t let me spoil it for you. Go and take a look at the wikipedia page for yourself.
Go on, check it out. Come back here when you have had a look at it.
PLAY ALONG AT HOME
Seriously, go and take a look for yourself before reading the rest of this article. It will be more fun this way.
What did you notice?
When did Grenfell and Hunt ‘discover’ these papyri?
The late 1800s and early 1900s.
But that is less than 150 years ago!
Now how is this possible?
Surely Grenfell and Hunt’s papyri are not the alleged ‘primary sources’ which underpin the story of the ‘father of history’.
There is no way that 120-year-old papyri could be central to the official narrative of ‘ancient history’…
It could be a complete coincidence that the ‘papyrus’ used as the header image for the Histories page on wikipedia is itself from the Papyrus Oxyrhynchus.
Perhaps they have the real deal, an actual ancient text, sitting elsewhere, and they just used this as the header image for… ‘illustrative purposes’.
Perhaps.
Think about how the average lemming would perceive this wikipedia page. Think about how legitimate the image appears to the untrained eye. Think about how academic the words ‘Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2099’ must seem to a man who does not know any better. Think about how much trust your fellow ‘human’ has in establishment, authority figures such as ‘historians’ — or, in the case of Grenfell and Hunt, ‘Egyptologists’.
Does the Lie System really need to reveal anything more than some papyri ‘discovered’ 120 years ago in order to convince the masses? Is anybody other than myself ever going to doubt these stories? Or spend the time required tracing back through the tertiary sources to the secondary sources, and then read through the secondary sources trying to find the primary sources?
My answer is no: TPWRTS do not need anything more than this. 2,400 years of ‘History’ can be created out of thin air — or ‘discovered’ the sands of ‘Oxyrhynchus’ in northern Africa by a couple of friends from Oxford.
Those who were children when Grenfell and Hunt made their amazing discoveries are all dead now.
In the time which has passed since then, ‘History’ has become reality.
And so much of our ‘reality’ today is premised on the notion that human civilisation is thousands of years old.
The average person alive today is convinced, on a fundamental psychological level, that civilisation is thousands of years old.
It is part of his worldview, the framework by which he understands and interacts with the world around him.
Like the fish who does not even notice he is swimming in water.
Ask the average normie if it is even possible that ‘ancient Egypt’ as we know it is make-believe. Go on, I dare you.
KEY: The ‘papyri’ which serve as the primary source evidence for Herodotus were ‘discovered’ around 1900 in Northern Egypt by two dudes from Oxford.
11 – Oxford confirms the story of Oxyrhynchus
Want to know more about this magical find of ancient documents? Look no further than Oxford’s own ‘Virtual Exhibition‘:
Almost nothing of [ancient Oxyrhynchus] remains. The stone was carted away for use elsewhere or burnt to produce lime to spread on the fields. A modern village now occupies part of the site. What Grenfell and Hunt found was the rubbish of Oxyrhynchus, which had been carried out and piled into a heap until it became more convenient to start another heap elsewhere, and so on. In the huge rubbish heaps were papyri, sometimes by the basketful, many rotted and fragile, but in such numbers that it took six seasons of excavation to bring them away. 65 volumes with transcripts, translations, and commentaries on the texts have been published so far. Vol. 66 is in preparation.
Yes, the papyri which Grenfell and Hunt ‘discovered’, thousands of years old, was actually the rubbish of ancient Oxyrhynchus. Still in good enough condition to read and translate, which the fine folk at Oxford have been doing, slowly but surely, ever since. What great fortune.
You can see a copy of the 1898 book released by Grenfell and Hunt about their discoveries here.
KEY: Oxford has an entire website section dedicated to Grenfell and Hunt, and their pioneering of ‘papyrology’.
12 – The bust of Herodotus
Are you ready for more? Let’s take another look at the header image for the wikipedia entry for Herodotus himself.
Wow, that bust sure looks legitimate. Okay, it is a ‘Roman copy’, but the copy is still from 200AD, which is certainly more than 150 years ago, JLB!
‘How do you explain that one?’, you might ask.
Why don’t you tell me? Here is the relevant webpage of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where the piece is on display.
Take a look at that page and tell me what you notice. Come back here once you have had a gander.
HAVE SOME FUN
Go on, take a look at the page for yourself. It really is more fun this way. Trust me.
Did you check the ‘provenance’ section? If so, you might have noticed this:
“Shortly before 1891, found in Benha (ancient Athribis), Lower Egypt, by Émile Brugsch Bey; 1891, purchased by George F. Baker, acquired in 1891, gift of George F. Baker.”
Discovered in the late 1800s. Well I would like to say that I’m surprised.
But you know I’m not.
For a bit of extra fun, here is the wikipedia entry for Mr George F Baker, the man who purchased and donated the bust.
Want some more fun? Here is the wikipedia entry for Emile Brugsch, the man who supposedly ‘discovered’ the bust.
KEY: The bust of Herodotus, the main image on his wikipedia page, was also ‘discovered’ in the late 1800s.
13 – Key concepts and ideas revised
Herodotus is a central figure of ‘ancient history’ and is considered by popular sources to the ‘father of history’.
Since we cannot read ancient Greek, we will accept as a ‘primary source’ a true translation of Herodotus’ words — so long as the original can itself can be identified for verification.
The oldest translation of Herodotus’ Histories listed by his wikipedia page is from 1849.
Of the 98 references cited in the wikipedia entry on Herodotus, only two are to his own work (i.e. primary sources), and both of those references are in fact to a 1920 translation of Herodotus’ Histories.
Even on the most generous reading, according to Herodotus scholars, the ‘best’ accounts of ‘Herodotus’ are from the tenth century i.e. 1400 years after his alleged existence.
Wikipedia -> ‘Herodotus’ -> Godley (1920) -> Stein (1883) -> Herodotus?
Tracing back to the primary sources regarding historical figures is incredibly time-consuming and laborious.
The ‘papyri’ which serve as the primary source evidence for Herodotus were ‘discovered’ around 1900 in Northern Egypt by two dudes from Oxford.
Oxford has an entire website section dedicated to Grenfell and Hunt, and their pioneering of ‘papyrology’.
The bust of Herodotus, the main image on his wikipedia page, was also ‘discovered’ in the late 1800s.
Note: This article has used Herodotus (and his Histories) to demonstrate what I am talking about when I refer to the ‘History Hoax’.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
14 – There is no case – there never was!
By now the regular visitors to this website will be aware that Dark City (1998) is among my favourite films.
You will find Eddie in the banner of the site (yes, he’s there somewhere) and I have made reference to this particular scene many times.
It even features in the Welcome video which I recommended you watch (or re-watch) in the prologue of this article.
I’m tired of linking to a crappy YouTube upload of this scene so I took the liberty of rendering and uploading my own version just for this article.
15 – I know it ‘sounds crazy’, but…
My friends, I have been slowly but surely coming to terms with this for the best part of two years now.
‘Ancient history’ is all make believe. It never happened.
Or, at least, the ‘evidence’ on which these stories are based is incredibly recent and entirely unconvincing.
If you are willing to put in the time and effort to trace through the sources, as I have done, you can prove it for yourself.
It just takes time. Lots of time.
And it is a frustrating process. Dead-ends everywhere. As though the entire field of ‘history’ is designed to make it difficult to do what I have done here.
Tertiary sources which link to tertiary sources, secondary sources which rely on secondary sources.
Entire, elaborate stories about the lives of men who whose actual words are few and far between.
Time after time. Event after event. Figure after figure. All based on scant (and sometimes non-existent) ‘primary’ evidence.
Primary evidence which has usually been ‘discovered’ in the last 150 years.
And nobody else knows about this.
At least, not in our little corner of the internet.
I can only imagine that secret schools and elite organisations are well aware that history is a hoax.
Then again, I am also open to other possibilities. It may be that even those near the ‘top’ are oblivious, a’la the the Outer Party in George Orwell’s 1984.
It may even be that those at the very ‘top’ are oblivious, as was to be the case in The Village (2004).
I can go into more detail about this another time.
Either way, among those on our level, it is my honest suspicion that the only people who know what I am sharing with you now are myself, yourself, and whoever else is subscribed to this website and takes the time to read these articles.
We are talking a few dozen people, tops.
Millions (‘billions’ – lol) of people around the world, thousands of independent ‘researchers’ and ‘truth-tellers’ on the internet…
…and you could fit the number of people who know about all of this (at our level) into a decently-sized lounge room.
16 – I could be wrong
Please, prove me wrong.
It is possible that I have overlooked something, and it is also possible that I have completely lost my mind.
Find the evidence that I have failed to find. Track down the proof that Herodotus was a real guy who ‘existed’ before the 1800s.
Have fun!
Read the Addendum to this piece
Member questions answered, more evidence revealed to demonstrate the hoaxery involved.
UPDATES
3-Nov-2017: Herodotus, Histories, and related topics are central focus of Full Member Video Update #07 available here.
Useful Sources [to be updated]
Cary’s ‘translation’ (1876) – link.
Godley’s ‘translation’ (1920) – link.
Hereen’s book (1838) – link.
Stein’s ‘translation’ (1883) – link.
Credits
The production of this article, as with all new content on this website, was facilitated by the support of the following individuals. Without their financial contributions, none of this would be possible at this point in time. If there existed more people like the following, perhaps the ‘truth’ scene might not be so bereft of quality research and material.
(Full Members as at 24-Oct-2017)
Alistair Caine | alphaxomega | Big Dave | Chad628 | dbuser | Dante from NY | DJMoe1987 | G Malicious | Hando | Harry Ell | Jimmy Scoular | Jumpy64 | Nate M | local_chump | mas | Mezzie | Negentropic | PJG | Rebel | Shirt Ninja | Silvertree | Stansen | Sts1316 | TheProphet49 | TheyAreLaughingAtUs | Tikielimited | Tomfoolery | Wattzupsport
Production Notes
Originally published 24-Oct-2017.
Minor update (final proofread) 25-Oct-2017.
Addendum added 26-Oct-2017.
Released to Freeloader members 21-Aug-2018.
Original article written entirely on 24-Oct-2017, mostly at cafe, partly at home.
Made available publicly per JLBA #57 8-Dec-2020.
Slight update to the Addendum link at bottom of article 12-Mar-2021.