*
This rather long exchange between a number of active participants
in the discussion of anagrams provides a good sample of the
calibre of this NewsGroup ten years ago.
*
It is being re-posted here for the first time.
*
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
From: (Claude Latremouille)
Subject: Jan 31 to Peter
Message-ID: <Eno10w.D2x.0.sheppard@torfree.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 20:31:43 GMT
*
[QUOTE]
*
ITEM 1:
~~~~~~
From: (Peter Lemesurier)
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
Subject: Re: NOSTRADAMUS: ON CLINTON'S END ?
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 11:57:42 GMT
Reply-To:
References: <EnJrt7.5Fx.0.queen@torfree.net>
<19980131011900.UAA26654@ladder03.news.aol.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.74.254.37
Message-ID: <34d3151f.0@hades.ndirect.co.uk>
Lines: 204
nostrabob@aol.com (NostraBOB) wrote:
Claude,
Thank you for taking Peter L. to task about his total oblivion
to the possibility of Anagrams.
He totaly denies any type of reasonable belief regarding the
use of other languages [ other than LATIN OR GREEK ]
PETER: Bob
Well, at least we have some sensible discussion of Nostradamus
going on in this ng at last!
I don't deny reasonable belief (tho' I'm not sure that belief can
ever be reasonable - but forget that for the moment) that
Nostradamus did anything. But let it be reasonable. In other
words, let's have some reasonable evidence for it. Otherwise your
speculation is as good as mine - which isn't saying much.
CLAUDE: You say "...let's have some reasonable evidence for it"
[i.e., cryptic anagrams]. Every time, without exception, for the
past seven months, you have been presented by me with - not only
reasonable, but - uncontrovertible evidence of the presence of
cryptic anagrams in Nostradamus' poetry, you have systematically
deleted that part of my post, have refused to answer the
question, and gone to another topic, asking more and more
questions of me, rather than first answering the pending
questions. That game is over, Peter. Seven months is long enough.
. I believe that Nostradamus understood English...obviously we
have no proof that he actually wrote in it....BUT THAT DOES NOT
MEAN THERE COULD BE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT WOULD
EVENTUALLY MEAN.
PETER: Two points here:
1. There's absolutely no evidence that Nostradamus knew English.
CLAUDE: Jesus! Is it my imagination, or did we (you, Jean and me)
not spend a number of posts about the sole English word used in
his poetry, the word "North"? Or is that "absolutely no
evidence"? You sound like a crooked lawyer, Peter. There is at
least *some* evidence that he knew at least *one* lousy word of
English, wouldn't you say?
PETER: Nor was there any reason why he should. English wasn't a
recognised language of learning at the time. Even English
scholars tended to write in Latin.
CLAUDE: I don't care if there was or was not any reason why he
should (there was a reason, by the way, but it is found in the
anagrams - which you don't believe he wrote, so it does not
count). He used the sole English word "North". And, in the
anagrams, he used the sole English word "Thanks".
PETER: 2. If it's legitimate to say that Nostradamus knew English
'in advance' as it were, then it's legitimate to say he knew
everything in advance - i.e. that he was omniscient. Now that is
a point of view, admittedly, but it's not backed up by any of the
evidence other than interpretations such as your own, and is so
unlikely in human terms as to be worthy of outright dismissal
IMO.
CLAUDE: Another Nixon-type of argument. It is not necessary to
infer that Nostradamus knew English 'in advance'. The word North
is sufficient. He also uses Greek letters. Therefore he knew
Greek. Why not English? After all, a future Empire lasting more
than 300 years (X-100) is most certainly worthy of consideration
by the seer, wouldn't you say?
I really do not understand why he is so interested in arguing or
commenting on Interpretative methods HE DOES NOT USE OR ACCEPT.
PETER: I am interested in arguing about them and commenting on
them only to the extent that they falsify the known facts and
Nostradamus's language.
CLAUDE: Now we are getting at the witch-hunt! "If you don't see
it as I do, die!"
PETER: If you can stick to the facts and still argue that
Nostradamus predicted than the moon would be found to be made of
green cheese, good luck to you!
CLAUDE: Speaking of the Moon, Nostradamus predicted (in one
simple cryptic anagram about which you have commented saying only
"if you say so") the total solar eclipse of August 11, 1999. No
green cheese, just an eclipse of the Sun crossing all of Northern
France, from Cherbourg to Strasbourg. (X-72)
How did you say it once?...he appears to have a Nixonian
mindset. Why would a man...PETER...be so absurd to say that
there are NO CODINGS...NO HIDDEN MEANINGS...NO USE OF THE
UNDERSTANING OF ENGLISH?
PETER: I didn't say that at all. Obviously there are pieces of
language in Nostradamus (mainly single words) that mean nothing
as they stand, ...
CLAUDE: Glad to see that we agree on this, at least. That is what
I called meaningful gobbledygook.
PETER: ... and that therefore beg to be understood as misprints,
adaptations of foreign words, anagrams or other forms of
word-play.
CLAUDE: If the entire poetry is not a text in prose hidden in
cryptic anagrams, one anagram per line of poetry, then yes, it is
full of misprints, adaptations of foreign words, anagrams or
other forms of word-play. Anagrams? Did you say anagrams, Peter?
Oh, yes, I momentarily forgot. You admit to his use of word-based
anagrams because other commentators before you have asserted that
there were indeed word-based cryptic anagrams in the poetry. And
since you seem to adopt the saying "there is safety in numbers",
why not admit that... others have already said it, so it is safe
to say it...
PETER: What I dispute is that this means that the WHOLE THING is
merely a scrabble game, ...
CLAUDE: Merely, Peter? A gigantic cryptogram too brilliant to
even trigger any response from your neurones, "merely a scrabble
game"? Come on. Admit to the possibility that you are either
absolutely right (not difficult, given your mindset) or stupidly
wrong, as stupid as I was for the 25 years during which the darn
thing was staring me in the face and I was too stupid to see it.
PETER: ... or that it is legitimate to change letters here and
there at will in order to justify your own preconceptions.
CLAUDE: You are repeating yourself, here. Cryptic anagrams, by
definition, do involve displacing letters and adding a maximum of
one missing letter per word. And I would not call that justifying
my own preconceptions, as this trick was discovered 25 years
after, not before, I began studying that obscure poetry.
PETER: That is merely a case of 'taking it to its logical
conclusion' - which means pushing the idea that there are some
coded words to a ridiculous and invalid extreme (where would any
of us be if we were pushed to our 'logical conclusion', I
wonder?!).
CLAUDE: We would be exactly where Paris will be. In hell. Why?
Because, you see, many people will push your reasoning to its
extreme conclusion, and call the entire prose 'ridiculous' and
'invalid'.
I frankly wonder why he is 98% BASICALLY NEGATIVE ABOUT ALL
OTHER NOSTRADAMUS RESEARCHERS AND INTERPRETORS?
PETER: Is that percentage exact? Read what I write carefully, and
you'll see that the only things I normally dismiss are things
that are factually invalid. I may disagree with other people's
interpretations, or offer alternatives of my own, but I don't
insist that mine alone are right.
CLAUDE: And about things which are factually valid, you remain
silent, so as not to confirm (heaven forbid!) that the assertion
is indeed valid. Because, if it is valid, then the whole darn
thing is in anagrams. And you don't want that. After all, if your
books don't say that, they would be seriously missing the boat,
would they not?
PETER: OK, I am human, and may go over the top sometimes, but if
more people came back at me when I do, as you are doing and Jean
just has, preferably citing just enough real facts to justify
their case, the remedy would be in their own hands.
CLAUDE: Well, actually, Jean does not seem too much to like my
'coming back at you', as you say. Because he too denies the
anagrams. You see, he does not like me to have made a gross
mistake (discovered last December 26), so he denies everything
else I have found. He would like the anagrams to be magic, with
no possibility of error. Well, they are not magic.
Anyone reading his comments about other authors...or
explanations of Nostradamus...OTHER THAN HIS OWN..would think
all other explanations are totally incorrect, and have no
merit.
PETER: Now we're getting into the realms of exaggeration! I have
been critical of Cheetham, Roberts and Leoni, sceptical of
Fontbrune, dismissive of Cannon and rude about Hogue - in fact,
it was largely because I found their books so unsatisfactory that
I wrote my own in the first place.
CLAUDE: That's why I began my own, Peter... long before the
anagrams.
PETER: Yet I have actually recommended Cheetham for her reprint
of the 1568 edition, have described Cannon's suggestion that N
may have seen the future partly through our eyes as distinctly
interesting, and have recommended Leoni's 'literal' translations
to compare with my own freer ones for anybody who distrusts mine
but can't make head or tail of his. Moreover, I have recommended
Chomarat's editions and Leroy's biography, have praised Dufresne
and have been positively effusive about Pierre Brind'Amour.
CLAUDE: Yes. Just before the anagrams, Brind'Amour had been 'the
only game in town', so to speak.
PETER: As to this ng, I have been complimentary about Claude
regarding everything except his assertion that his anagrams are
really Nostradamus's, ...
CLAUDE: Well if they are not, whose are they? Mine? And if I tell
you that they are not mine, that does not count? What counts?
Only what you say? Logically, that does not count, either.
PETER: ... entirely in agreement with AZ, most appreciative of
Zaphod's Herculean efforts (which I continually recommend), in
tune with Newmill, Ron, Helen and others...
Somehow this doesn't seem to fit the picture you paint.
CLAUDE: Not to berate anyone, but how many of that impressive
list can actually read what the good doctor wrote? « Au royaume
des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois ! »
Frankly...What he trying to prove? Since he does not accept the
basis for much of my analysis of Nostradamus...or much of
anyone elses...WHY DOES HE SEEM SO INTERESTED IN HIS ANALYTICAL
DIATRIBES ON IS ABSOLUTE CORRECTNESS?
PETER: All I'm interested in, Bob, is the facts. If they're not
correct in the first place, what do any of us have to go on?
I guess you need the publicity to sell your line of books,
while your highly critical of most others.
PETER: That's worthy only of Alef, Bob! If I depended for my
living on any publicity gained in the ng, I would give up, since
I reckon it might be bringing me in all of £.0001 per hour...
I wonder if he ever bothered to REALLY read Edgar Leoni's
...RULES OF THE GAME...for interpreting Nostradamus.
PETER: Yep.
Out of the several points on Interpretative mehods he gives, I
sincerely believe Peter would find a reason to disagree with
most of them. I have a rather large collection of Books on,
and regarding Nostradamus.
PETER: OK, let's look at them:
1. N's verses were originally in Latin.
Nope, no evidence for that (apart from one verse), but there's a
heavy influence from Virgil. The linguistic blueprint was in fact
laid out in Du Bellay's highly influential 'Deffence et
Illustration de la Langue Francoyse' of 1549 (note the date). I
don't know if Leoni had heard of this. He doesn't profess to be a
linguist.
2. Use of Latin, Greek, Provencal words etc. Absolutely bang on.
Note, though, that even Leoni doesn't suggest English!
CLAUDE: Does Leoni mention the word "North"?
3. Use of anagrams and other enigmas. I agree 100% - but not with
taking it to ridiculous extremes. Most of them jump out and hit
you in the eye as being simply untypical of contemporary French.
There's no need to go looking for them or creating ones of your
own.
CLAUDE: The entire Nostradamian poetry is "simply untypical of
contemporary French"... But go on...
4. Mythical and historical allusions. Bang on again.
5. Use of classical place-names. Agreed.
6. Use of such perfectly normal procedures as ellipsis,
synecdoche, hyperbaton, apocope, syncope, apheresis, epenthesis,
prosthesis and metathesis. Agreed again - though some of these
may owe more to the printer than to Nostradamus, and there really
isn't any need for all the Greek jargon.
7. (At the bottom of 6.) Typographical errors. Absolutely!
8. (Ditto) Punctuation almost exclusively by printers. Couldn't
agree more.
As for Leoni's 'Rules of the Game in This Edition', Leoni merely
did the best he could with the materials available to him. What
he said he wished he could have done I have actually done in the
Enclcylopedia - namely printed the 1555 edition as far as it
goes, then the 1557, then the 1568, then the 1605. While he says
he tries to steer a middle course between translating too freely
and too literally, in fact I suggest he errs much too far in the
direction of literalness - but then he doesn't claim to be a
translator. I certainly disagree strongly with his policy of
modernising Nostradamus's spelling (!!).
CLAUDE: Right! Because if you change the spelling, you kill the
anagram! So you better keep all the misprints, typos, etc...
Yes, I do have most of PETER'S books...and frankly I do respect
his research and findings. BUT THERE ARE OTHERS WITH VERY MUCH
OPPOSING OPINIONS... who he seems to want to dipose of their
works, by calling it a good doorstop..OR WORSE..
PETER: Obviously I am critical of the versions that I wrote my
books in order to correct. What else do you expect?
As for calling them good doorstops, have you SEEN Hogue #3? Deke
made a similar comment about my own #1 - which I thought was
perfectly justified and in no way offensive, and merely took as
the joke that it was obviously intended to be.
I wish he would allow other types of analysis to exist on this
web-site, without all the mega nit picking he seems so fond of
As I said, analyse all you want, but if you don't want further
nit-picking make sure that what you are analysing is really
Nostradamus - and please, Claude, take responsibility for your
own results!
CLAUDE: In other words, stop making me look like a fool in the
eyes of English-only readers...
If I recall my recent browsing in a Toronto bookstore, did I not
see at the beginning of one of your books a disclaimer, to the
effect that, well (I am paraphrasing, of course), these things
are not really for real, ya know, so take them with a grain of
salt... Try telling that to the radiation-burned Parisians who
will suffer a very slow and painful death as a result of writings
like yours...
I am sure he would be just than a bit more than upset if someone
would be in constant comment and criticism of his comments and
FAQ'S...directly attached to his learned OPINIONS.
PETER: On the contrary, I would welcome any comments and
criticisms on them. In that way we can hope constantly to improve
them.
Meanwhile, Bob, thanks for the input. This is what I call getting
down to the nitty-gritty, and is what this ng ought to be about.
--
Peter
CLAUDE: Well, if it took Bob to get all that ice thawed,
goooood!!!
ITEM 2:
~~~~~~
From: (Peter Lemesurier)
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
Subject: Re: Example of cryptic anagrams (X-86)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 11:57:48 GMT
Reply-To:
References: <EnGEEr.567.0.queen@torfree.net>
<34CE838C.FCF18E41@videotron.cas>
<34cf1b6a.0@hades.ndirect.co.uk>
<34D17B3B.5C303BD0@ivic.qc.ca>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.74.254.37
Message-ID: <34d31523.0@hades.ndirect.co.uk>
Lines: 100
Jean Guernon <jguernon@ivic.qc.ca> wrote:
Peter Lemesurier wrote:
Cactus <lin_go@videotron.cas> wrote:
Claude Latremouille wrote:
An example of cryptic anagrams using X-86 [1568]:
Original quatrain X-86 from the 1568 edition:
Comme vn gryphon viendra le roy d'Europe
Accompaigné de ceux d'Aquilon,
De rouges & blancz conduira grand troppe
Et yront contre le roy de Babilon.
And its version in prose, decrypted by Claude Latrémouille:
Vn Tyran invade pour rien le Royaume de
Quoueit, l'Amy d'Occident en Paix,
Puis le Grand O N U tentera d'occire ce Saddam
Et la Bombe tuera trop d'Innocens.
[ snip ]
BY JEAN:
If only... But Nosty alone rules!!! (i.e. with his original work).
But who knows, maybe there will be a key found one day that could unlock all
this. But I am personnally convinced that the interpretation of existing
quatrain is the only key. Still, that's only me.
Jean...
PETER: No, Jean, it's me as well - and, I suspect, most of the
people on this ng!
CLAUDE: As I said earlier, there is safety in numbers, Peter!
PETER: Though who knows?...
Peter
ITEM 3:
~~~~~~
From: (Peter Lemesurier)
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
Subject: Re: Jan 30 to/à Jean
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 11:57:52 GMT
Reply-To:
References: <EnM9Cn.n3H.0.queen@torfree.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.74.254.37
Message-ID: <34d31527.0@hades.ndirect.co.uk>
Lines: 230
(Claude Latremouille) wrote:
CLAUDE: Let's be clear about this, Jean. Are you saying that,
for example, out of nine (9) different versions in anagrams of a
given quatrain NONE is the correct one, because I found nine? Or
are you saying that, because I found nine (9), there is only ONE
(1) correct one, and the eight (8) others are a figment of my
imagination? (To help you answer this, I do publish them all!)
This does not count, I know, but Nostradamus does write many
times that the anagrams about the destruction of Paris are exact.
PETER: Claude
In plain language, or only in your 'decrypted' version?
CLAUDE: I wrote "This does not count", because I found it in the
anagrams, the authorship of which you deny.
PETER: If the latter, then your 'decrypted' version is justifying
itself - which is a circular argument, and therefore logically
inadmissible.
CLAUDE: Or course, Peter, the anagrams cannot be telling the
truth, because I made them up, not Nostradamus. And if they tell
the truth, it is not because they come from Nostradamus, but
because I am myself (unconsciously) a seer. And if they do not
tell the truth, it is because I am not a seer. And if they tell
the truth, it is because... You want a circular argument, Peter?
Just look at yours!
[ big snip ]
CLAUDE: Jean, the anagrams do not disclose that - before the end
of the prophecy, i.e., August 2017, someone else finds "a key
... that could unlock all this." Au contraire, the anagrams keep
repeating that the "translation" (Nostradamus' term, not mine)
of the poetry into prose yields his own prose, not mine... and
he also tells us that it shall be generally believed only after
the fact.
Because your logic leads to that: let's wait for August 13,
2017, at 3:53 a.m., to see if Paris will REALLY be destroyed.
Then, one can agree that it is HIS prose. A bit late, I am
afraid...
PETER: The ultimate test, certainly!
As it is my view that all quatrains were made to contain a
version about the circumstances of the destruction of Paris,
applying your logic, that version can be accepted as coming from
him... only after the fact.
You ask for a statement independent from the poetry which
confirms that business of anagrams. But you have so far rejected
the explanation of Nostradamus' three statements that
1) he worked out his quatrains obscurely;
PETER: On which we can all agree.
2) his quatrains are not to be interpreted; and
PETER: He doesn't in fact say that (see below).
3) he wrote a prophecy in prose,
PETER: Noor that. What he actually says is, 'My other prophecies
in prose'.
as meaning that his poetry hides a prophecy in prose, therefore
written in anagrams.
PETER: The argument doesn't follow. 'Miennes autres propheties
qui sont composees tout au long, in soluta oratione' (Preface)
says perfectly clearly that he's referring to his 'OTHER
prophecies . . . which are in prose'.
Question, then: had he already written other prophecies, and in
prose?
Answer: yes - his Almanachs. In view of the word 'other', he
cannot possibly be referring to the current prophecies. There is
no indication whatsoever, either, that he is talking about
anagrams.
Frankly, Claude, I'm surprised that a Francophone such as
yourself could be arguing that the sentence means something quite
different from what it clearly says. Do you have to be blind to
the word 'autre' to be an anagrammatist?
CLAUDE: Flattery will get you nowhere, Peter! ;-) Note that his
Letter to Caesar is dated March 1, 1555. The only published prose
in Almanach is in the Almanach for that year (published in 1554)
which contains 13 or 14 quatrains of poetry. You do not state
that his prose in the 1555 Almanach is his other prophecy in
prose. I most certainly do not state that, either.
So, on March 1, 1555, Nostradamus states :
à plain i'ay redigé par escript aux miennes au
tres propheties qui sont co[m]posées tout au lo[n]g
*in soluta oratione* ...
"Qui sont composées tout au long *in soluta oratione*" means in
English "which are composed entirely in prose". The Almanachs, as
I have already pointed out, are not composed entirely in prose,
as they contain at least 13 quatrains of poetry.
So, the word "au- tres" would then refer - not to a text to be
found elsewhere, but to a text to be found in the same book, this
text being "other than" the one which people can already read.
And the text which people can already read is the poetry, which
cannot be the prophecy he is talking about, as the prophecy he is
talking about is in prose.
As I do not recall if - in addition to giving your (correct)
understanding of Nostradamus' use of the verb "scauoir", you have
given your views on the question: why does Nostradamus tell us
that most of his quatrains are not meant to be interpreted, if
indeed you are "personnally convinced that the interpretation of
existing quatrain is the only key"?
How do you reconcile your views with Nostradamus' statement also
quoted elsewhere...
NOSTRADAMUS: (Letter to Henry, page 5 in the 1568 edition, lines
6 and 7 - [s] marks an ancien 's')
lement [s]cabreux , que l'on n'y [s]cauroit donner
voye ny moins aucuns interpreter , toutesfois
PETER: Which manifestly doesn't say that they are not supposed to
be interpreted, but merely that people wouldn't be able to - as,
in most cases, is undoubtedly true.
--
Peter
CLAUDE: Which you have said before, Peter, and I recall Jean's
post pointing out that the verb "scauoir" can indeed mean what
you suggest, but can also in good French mean that one ought not
attempt doing it (interpreting them), as the attempt shall fail.
Why on earth publish quatrains which he already knew were not to
be interpreted sucessfully?
Answer: Because he knew that they were cryptic anagrams, that
they would be decrypted when the time of ignorance is to be
dissipated, and when this would have happened, the case would
then become much clearer. «...le cas sera plus esclairci. »
As to your "There is no indication whatsoever, either, that he is
talking about anagrams.", which you have now written for the
third time, my reply to your statement having remained unanswered
time and time again, here it is once more:
Peter, Nostradamus is not a fool. If he goes through the long,
painstaking job of writing his entire prose in a disguised poetry
so as to protect his prophecy from the injury of time, the last
thing he is going to do is to tell everybody that he did hide his
prophecy in cryptic anagrams.
You either hide something or you don't.
ITEM 4:
~~~~~~
From: (Peter Lemesurier)
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
Subject: Re: Jan 30 to/à Alef
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 11:57:55 GMT
Reply-To:
References: <EnM9IF.xE.0.queen@torfree.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.74.254.37
Message-ID: <34d3152b.0@hades.ndirect.co.uk>
Lines: 253
(Claude Latremouille) wrote:
[ snip ]
BY ALEF:
I am just trying to understand how you
are doing these anagrams and always end
up with full sentences, right in your sight
and or wrong in mine, but nevertheless
with sentences.
CLAUDE: I always end up with full sentences, because Nostradamus
constructed his poetry so as to allow for that result to happen,
which is the best evidence in my view that the anagrams do not
just occur by chance. What are the chances of having four (4)
independent anagrams which would "just happen" to be four
distinct pieces of the same complete good French sentence?
PETER: This is possibly what's most impressive about Claude's
work. However, I seem to remember AZ demonstrating that quite
other complete French sentences could be obtained from the same
material...
CLAUDE: You seem to remember? How about quoting him (and my
response to what he wrote), Peter. That would be much better
sport than just shooting in the dark...
[ snip ]
CLAUDE: If Nostradamus' prophecy were not entirely made of
cryptic anagrams, Peter's point of view would be highly
consistent.
PETER: Phew! So I got something right, then!
Only when he contradicts himself or remains silent on
the obvious presence of anagrams does he get from me a few
darts!
PETER: Fair enough re contradictions. But obvious to whom?
CLAUDE: Obvious to you, Peter, as you carefully edit out from
your subsequent reply any reference to what you do not have an
explanation for. You have been doing that for a number of months,
now, and it is obvious that these snips are not just a
coincidence to save bandwith...
FROM ANOTHER POST BY ALEF:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PETER: Oh God, not another one! ;)
BY ALEF ABOUT PETER:
He just have an
inventory to liquidate and a publisher which tells
him that as long that he can attach Nostradamus
name to his comics book they will sell. The
only thing he has to do is to argue every one
else out of the net anyhow he can.
PETER: On the contrary, the more the merrier.
CLAUDE: Well, he does at times behave like that, and I cannot
disprove what you state above.
PETER: He! He! A tendentious statement if ever there was one! ;)
CLAUDE: True, though. I cannot disprove Alef on that one.
He does make many informed points
which only a good student of Nostradamus' literature can make.
PETER: Phew!
So, in that limited sense, he cannot be an intellectual fraud,
as he has - at least - read the darn books!
PETER: Well , it does help...
If he wants to win an argument, just as I also like to win an
argument, he has to assert his point of view. Only when he does
remain silent about the (sometimes obvious) presence of anagrams
in the poetry does he look to me slightly foolish. But since I am
probably the only one who remembers what he has snipped out of
his replies, I suppose he calculates that he can get away with
it. I have met many people who act like this, mostly lawyers!
PETER: If you prefer everything to stand, so be it. But some
people complain about bandwidth and criticise me for just the
opposite...
CLAUDE: You know very well, Peter, what I am talking about: All
the questions I have asked you in the last seven months and which
have remained unanswered. That is no coincidence. Make a list of
all I have asked you which you have edited out of your replies,
so as not to have to give an answer. You will then have a clear
picture of the situation.
But the Americans have a saying: You can fool somebody all the
time, you can fool everybody some of the time, but you cannot
fool everybody all of the time.
To establish Peter's state of mind, the most telling piece of
evidence would be to have a look at the contract which binds him
to his publishers, and which might preclude him from being
totally intellectually honest, so as not to hurt the sales of
his/their books. That would be "the smoking gun", as far as I am
concerned.
PETER: Unfortunately they don't say any such thing. They only
mention other BOOKS which might adversely affect sales of the
earlier ones. But since the only contractual penalty available to
them is to cease to publish those earlier ones - which are in
fact published by other publishers entirely - it doesn't have
much in the way of teeth! And in fact I modify my views
constantly in the light of the evidence, just like (hopefully)
everyone else!
CLAUDE: Good! Then we can concentrate on your mindset, oblivious
to any legal obligation which you might have contracted.
And, Alef, even if you do not agree with the cryptic anagrams, or
see them as the prophecy itself, you will probably agree that -
if they are indeed the prophecy - the entire Nostradamus Industry
(which thrives on the ignorance of the prophecy) would have good
reason to jump over the cliff...
PETER: IF
Which might explain some recent desperate attempts by Peter in
a.p.n. to force me to deny the authorship of what I have found.
PETER: No despair, Claude. Merely unhappiness at your constant
assertions that your renderings ARE by Nostradamus.
CLAUDE: How about your constant assertions that they are not?
Should we - as Alef seems to say - leave you all the space in
a.p.n. to debate only what you wish to debate, preferably in the
company of people who cannot even read the original stuff?
PETER: This merely reminds me of dowsers who blame their rods,
Radionics practicitioners who blame their black boxes, Tarot
readers who blame their cards, etc., when all they are doing is
denying their own natural psychic abilities.
Gee, but we've got some interesting discussions going. I wish
some more people would contribute their own input into the
argument...
As far as I am concerned, he can go fly a kite...
Just waiting for the wind...
--
Peter
CLAUDE: ...fly a kite using metal wire... during a thunderstorm,
that is... :-))
*
[END OF QUOTE]
*
------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Claude Latrémouille % -- "Claude! There ain't no stinkin' -- %
Le 31 janvier 1998- % cryptic anagrams in them dang texts, - %
APNCL#0141 -------- % ya hear?!" (A chorus of a.p.n. voices) %
------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
*
=== ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
.
|
