Talk:Council for Quezlarian Research

From Ghyll
Revision as of 14:15, 8 July 2005 by Morbus Iff (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Just a couple of points: firstly, there's one too many citations! Secondly: the Council for Quezlarian Research is a group which studies the work of Quezlar 6, per Quezlarian Numerals. I guess if you really, really wanted to twist it you could claim "Quezlarian researcher" in said article to mean "a researcher of the Quezlarian institute" not "a researcher of Quezlar 6", but that wasn't the intent under which QN was written. Otherwise, nice stuff--especially the redacted bits. --Sean B. Palmer 06:08, 25 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Dropped a citation - I think I thought I should throw more in, since one of them was phantomed by another entry already. And I can see the "of" vs "by" focus, now that I look around again. I think the combination of Morbus Iff's brown fluid bath and Bysted Timperton's tower ("It is said that the clocktower is either the meeting place of Council members, or a testing facility for forbidden and forgotten lore") made me think there was more going on there. That is, Quezlar 6 was one of the major eccentric geniuses and most well known, but the beast (likely from the Alezan pantheon, with lots of tentacles) was bigger than the man himself. That and, well, lots of things were just crying for redaction. Also: I blame any inaccuracies or errors on the Council! (How do you like that for a cop-out completely valid excuse?) --Tamlin Moon 09:00, 25 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Oh! And also, I'd wanted to make intimations that the Council could be compared with great similarity to mythical cults of the Nitenmangrey culture, maybe back around -1000 EC, but I thought it might overload the entry, and became afraid of asserting dates in the timelime. At any rate, any and all revisions or eviscerations of this entry are, of course, welcome. --Tamlin Moon 09:15, 25 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Well, I certainly think (from the many references throughout the lexicon so far) that the CfQR can be considered to research many different areas now, but I think from the original post they should just be considered to focus at the core on the works of Quezlar 6 (and possibly other Quezlars, though that wasn't the intent). I'd like to see what Morbus thinks of all this before we go changing anything too drastically, so let's just see if he weighs in here. Also, drat--I was hoping that wouldn't be one of the citations you'd remove! [grin] Perhaps someone else will make it at some point. --Sean B. Palmer 09:38, 25 Sep 2004 (EDT)
Hmm, actually, that would be the more interesting citation to leave in there. I'm not all that attached to the other :) --Tamlin Moon 09:15, 25 Sep 2004 (EDT)
Aww, ye olde shukkes. Thanks deusx! --Sean B. Palmer 11:36, 25 Sep 2004 (EDT)
Personal tools