*
Once upon a time, when this NewsGroup was still inhabited by
people interested in discussing Nostradamus' texts, two
contributors using aliases, Raymond Lafontaine, a.k.a. Alef, and
Peter Ewart Britton, a.k.a. Peter Lemesurier, were talking about
the line-based cryptic anagram. Here is what the latter was
saying to the former on Tue, 30 Dec1997 17:07:01 GMT, in a
thread titled Re: C10 Q72: the 1999 event, and in message
<34a92d5...@hades.ndirect.co.uk>:
*>> I've checked out some of Claude's anagram interpretations since I wro=

this original post. Maybe I'm overly skeptical, but I'm having a hard =

believing in the validity of his methods also. He ends up with entire=

different sentences than the original in many of his interpretations.

Me too, I'm afraid. But at least he knows his French, has his rules,
and sticks to them with great consistency and integrity. You can't
fault his application of them. Either Claude's whole thesis is wrong
or none of it is!

--

Peter

*
There you have it from the horse's mouth. Although I do not
necessarily subscribe to the of all-or-nothing notion (after all,
decyphering mistakes can and do happen, and I have made my share
of them), the principle I have advocated, i.e., that all of
Nostradamus' published texts are using the line-based cryptic
anagram, seems to be either completely right or completely wrong.
*
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latr=E9mouille
March 4, 2007http://web.ncf.ca/cj559
*
=3D=3D=3D