On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:22:35 +0100, Peter Lemesurier
<lemesur@bengalwipeyethisoutvillas.demon.co.uk> either wrote or (if so
marked) quoted:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:08:02 +0100, Peter Lemesurier
<lemesur@bengalwipeyethisoutvillas.demon.co.uk> either wrote or (if so
marked) quoted:
On 14 Oct 2003 04:45:27 -0700, (Leigh_Bee)
either wrote or (if so marked) quoted:
Only AFTER they had been published did I discover that that was
precisely the scenario outlined in the Mirabilis Liber, which had
clearly been his major source -- and which it looks as if you haven't
even bothered to look at yet.
Similarities did Nostradamus really flog the Mirablis Liber or was he
telling a similar story with more detail?
He never mentioned it -- but the latter seems to be very much the
case.
Though I should add that he never mentioned *Savonarola* either --
notwithstanding the fact that (as Mario's research has recently
revealed) he borrowed no less than 23 (twenty-three!) passages from
him in his Preface to Cesar alone, almost certainly from the reprint
of Savonarola's 'Compendium Revelationum' that is included... in the
Mirabilis Liber!
....and all except two of them *in exactly the same order*!
...Which, incidentally, would be rather remarkable if they were also
Nostradamian 'anagrams' for the destruction of Paris in 2017, wouldn't
it?! [Oh, I get it... Nostradamus must have written Savonarola as
well!! ;) ]
Now let me see... Savonarola's 'Compendium' was written in 1495... and
Nostradamus wasn't born until ... er ...1503...
Clever, eh, this Nostradamus?! ;)
--
Peter
http://www.nostradamus500.com
.
|
|
| User: "Claude Latremouille" |
|
| Title: It's the anagram, stupid! (was Re: Nostradamus's prophecies on the black pope?) |
20 Oct 2003 08:13:43 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:11:53 +0100, Peter Lemesurier
<lemesur@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote to himself once again (he must
be getting lonely) about what
*
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:22:35 +0100, Peter Lemesurier
<lemesur@bengal.demon.co.uk> either wrote or (if so marked) wrote
to himself about what
*
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:08:02 +0100, Peter Lemesurier
<lemesur@bengal.demon.co.uk> either wrote or (if so marked) quoted:
*
....as he is no longer sure of what he writes anymore, even though
only 14 minutes had elapsed between the two posts... Alzheimer?
*
[...]
*
Though I should add that he never mentioned *Savonarola* either --
notwithstanding the fact that (as Mario's research has recently
revealed) he borrowed no less than 23 (twenty-three!) passages from
him in his Preface to Cesar alone, almost certainly from the reprint
of Savonarola's 'Compendium Revelationum' that is included... in the
Mirabilis Liber!
...and all except two of them *in exactly the same order*!
*
....and (you forgot to mention this) changing each and every one
of these quotes while making very clear that he was taking them
from someone else, by quoting them (as you pointed out) '*in
exactly the same order*!'.
*
After that, you began to deal with a subject of which you are
much too ignorant, and therefore much too arrogant:
*
...Which, incidentally, would be rather remarkable if they were also
Nostradamian 'anagrams' for the destruction of Paris in 2017, wouldn't
it?! [Oh, I get it... Nostradamus must have written Savonarola as
well!! ;) ]
Now let me see... Savonarola's 'Compendium' was written in 1495... and
Nostradamus wasn't born until ... er ...1503...
Clever, eh, this Nostradamus?! ;)
--
Peter
*
That's because Nostradamus, having been born in 1503, learned to
read afterwards, something which enabled him eventually to read
Savonarola, and eventually to 'lift' many of Savonarola's quotes
and inserting them in his Letter to Ceasar (a 1-year old child),
not without having changed them a little, so as to make them fit
his constructed anagram.
*
Yes, he was clever, much more clever than the inept Brittish
commentator who keeps mentioning the fact that the quotes come
from Savonarola, but never mentions the fact that the quotes have
been changed by Nostradamus, one way of avoiding (avoidance is
one of this Britton's strong points) to explain to his readers
*why* Nostradamus changed them.
*
The explanation is simple: It's the anagram, stupid!
*
Happy 500th, Nosty!
*
Claude Latrémouille
*
=== ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
--
*** ** ***
C L A U D E L A T R E M O U I L L E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leigh_Bee" |
|
| Title: Re: It's the anagram, stupid! (was Re: Nostradamus's prophecies on the black pope?) |
20 Oct 2003 05:21:19 PM |
|
|
(Claude Latremouille) wrote in message news:<bn0n27$s3h$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
SNIP
Here we have the Pot calling the Kettle Black.
There is this fixation with PLM it must be if (I) can convince PLM, I
will become the Mr Nostradamus' Pet. What else can it be, there are
claims here which state that he is easily debunked, but for all the
attempts, there has been little success, in this endeavour, Why is
that one asks?
Yes, he was clever, much more clever than the inept Brittish
commentator who keeps mentioning the fact that the quotes come
from Savonarola, but never mentions the fact that the quotes have
been changed by Nostradamus, one way of avoiding (avoidance is
one of this Britton's strong points) to explain to his readers
*why* Nostradamus changed them.
*
The explanation is simple: It's the anagram, stupid!
But NOT the CLAUDOGRAM, can you prove anything you assert?
Happy 500th, Nosty?
*
Claude Latrémouille > *
=== ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
Or as one commentater observed:
Nostradamus was not entirely a man of shadows, and there is much in
his complex personality that is admirable. He had a social conscience
and he reacted with horror to the aberrations of the day corruption,
decadence, cruelty of both control and punishment. In a small way,
buried among the lures for the fools, are records of how he felt,
expressed in a fashion that was probably much less cryptic then than
now. He was willing to name names and face down faces in a symbolic
way. It took courage to speak out, even under one's breath. He also
demonstrated the possibility of kowtowing to princes while holding his
head erect, of contraindicating flattery with double-entendres that he
knew his subjects were probably too stupid to appreciate '.
This is the Nostradamus that we can respect today.
New York, 1978 Liberté E. LeVert
So really he was smarter than sum of all the "Brains" out there
LB
Now if I can remove Claude and DHM from Peter's underpants I have some
digging to do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
