The following is a slightly revised article originally posted as:
*

Subject: The difference between looking and reading
Message-ID: <20020710095620.A22314-100000@sheppard1.torfree.net>
Keywords: Nostradamus, Methodology
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:00:45 -0400

*
For many years, I have read articles posted in a.p.n. by people
who - believe it or not - can actually read and write French.
*
What has struck me upon reading many of these articles is that
their author - some of French lineage, some not - seemed to lack
a common characteristic which can be better summarized as
follows: they know how to read but they appear to lack the
ability to look.
*
And this latter quality is essential to the discovery of
Nostradamus' secret. To illustrate the point, let's go to a
recent set of posts by the same author who - after having kill-
filed too many people - likes to reply to his own posts, and see
how this lack of ability to look affects his thinking processes:
*

From: Peter Lemesurier <lemesur@bengal.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: THE PAGE C10Q72, unpublished authors at
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/c10q72.html
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:09:10 +0100
Message-ID: <25uniugns6kn39fkc1qsritf6vqg32fr07@4ax.com>

*

On 9 Jul 2002 14:50:17 -0700,

Removing the quotes, one could swear that is exactly what
Peter Lemesurier has done: not paying any attention to the
words that Nostradamus actually wrote or the way in which he
arranged them.
*
Had he done so, *he* would have been the one to discover the
cryptic nature of Nostradamus' entire literary output.

In other words, because Claude *does* pay attention to the words that
Nostradamus actually wrote and the way in which he arranged them ...
he is ... er... at liberty to *alter* the words that Nostradamus
actually wrote and the way in which he arranged them!

Wunnerful, ain't it?!

What is it with the French Canadian members of this Group (Claude,
Jean, Rino...)? Could it be something in the water, do you think?


"Gee whizz -- when I jumble Nostradamus's letters to make different
words ... they make different words (especially if I actually allow
myself to change around 20% of them)!!"

--
Nye Eve

*
And the article following this?
*

From: Peter Lemesurier <lemesur@bengal.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: THE PAGE C10Q72, unpublished authors at
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/c10q72.html
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:41:18 +0100
Message-ID: <rk3oiu05pfmip0b0dfgtcum6tmhisol4vq@4ax.com>

*

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:09:10 +0100, Peter Lemesurier
<lemesur@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

What is it with the French Canadian members of this Group (Claude,
Jean, Rino...)? Could it be something in the water, do you think?

What is it, I mean, that makes them incapable of reading and
understanding the words that are actually there?

"I am holding the prophecies hostage and torturing them until they say
what I want them to say."

--
D Luzhenzov Granjur

*
So, where he speaks of reading, Peter Lemesurier confirms my
earlier statement about the difference between reading and
looking. An example?
*
In all of his original editions, Nostradamus places before each
and every centurie the following title: PROPHETIES DE M.
NOSTRADAMVS.
*
If that were all he had been doing, one might say: so what?!
*
But he did more than that. For those who have not lost to ability
to look, he did write these very words, in the very same book, in
two different manners:
*
His 'regular' manner, the most frequent:
*
PROPHETIES
DE
M. NOSTRADAMVS.
*
Again, so what?! There would be nothing unusual about this, as it
makes perfect typographical sense.
*
Problem: Nostradamus does it differently in two cases, in the
very same book, thus:
*
PROPHETIES
DE M. NOSTRA-
DAMVS.
*
The very same text, by the very same author, but printed
differently. The question then becomes: why?
*
Out of ten centuries, in the very same book, eight have the
'regular' typography, and two have this unusual one.
*
Typographically, this last one stinks. The name of the author is
broken in two parts, unnecessarily. The size of the typeface used
is (also unnecessarily) ridiculous: Line 1 has the biggest (no
problem), but line 2 has a bigger type than line 3, whereas one
would expect that a longer line (line 2) would have a smaller
type than a shorter one (line 3).
*
So, for those who can look at what Nostradamus did (only two
other regular contributors to this NewsGroup have to my knowledge
access to the original text referred to above, Jean Guernon and
Peter Lemesurier)[1], the question becomes: why was this done?
*
Unfortunately, these only two regular contributors have also
authored books about the Prophecies, books in which they have
omitted to note that Nostradamus' entire literary output is made
of cryptic anagrams. Something which prevents them - after the
fact - from saying: "Hey! There must be a reason for this."
*
There is indeed.
*
------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Claude Latrémouille % -- "Claude! There ain't no stinkin' -- %
Le 10 juillet 2002- % cryptic anagrams in them dang titles,- %
APNCL#1308 -------- % ya hear?!" (A chorus of a.p.n. voices) %
------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
*
[1] At the time, this original had not yet been placed by Mario
Gregorio on his website for everyone to see. Now, everyone can.
*
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latrémouille
Le 14 février 2006
http://web.ncf.ca/cj559
*
===