Since Mr L has plonked this threads author to avoid having to be held
accountable, I think people should repost this every time Mr L posts to
this group so they know what kind of fool Mr L is and that any advice or
statements of authority on nostradamus are now discredited by true
scholars in the study of nostradamus.
Peter Lemesurier wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:05:36 GMT,
either wrote or (if so
marked) quoted:
Peter Lemesurier wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:50:35 -0700, "Sid See" <sidsee@nospam.cox.net>
either wrote or (if so marked) quoted:
If only we knew what he REALLY said... <sigh>
Well, we do have three of the original printed editions, together
with an original manuscript. See...
which btw, are all fakes.
Perhaps 'Z' (whose latest change of identity suggests that he himself
has plenty of experience of fakery) should discuss this with the
reputable world libraries who hold them under the mistaken impression
that they are originals, then, and then provide both us and them with
proper evidence to the contrary?
if what you're saying is true, why did you drop out of this thread so
quickly?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fake+edition+peter+sollog&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=95d53202.0309100535.22fd4108%40posting.google.com&rnum=1
If that thread was so erroneous, why haven't you attempted even a basic
refutation of its points you halfwit?
Ah, but he won't know which those libraries are, will he -- let alone
provide any proper evidence for his extraordinary assertions? He won't
even have *seen* the said editions! :(
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fake+edition+peter+sollog&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=95d53202.0309100535.22fd4108%40posting.google.com&rnum=1
we're all waiting mr plagiarist.
isn't it sad that peter still refers to the fakes as originals?
Only Peter? Not Claude, Gary, Mario, Brind'Amour, Wilson, Chomarat,
Benazra, Gruber, Penzensky, Guinard, Chevignard, Ruzo...?
We're not talking about the other fools right now mr plagiarist, so
don't change the subject you clever little conman.
Ah, but he won't even have heard of the last nine, will he?
isn't it funny that peter couldn't refute the evidence that proved his
originals were fakes?
Peter doesn't have any originals. They are all in respected world
collections. Moreover, he hasn't seen any such 'evidence' that's even
worth a second look.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fake+edition+peter+sollog&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=95d53202.0309100535.22fd4108%40posting.google.com&rnum=1
No one said you had them personally. But your premise was answered and
refuted in the thread which you failed to respond to or refute.
Indeed, he suspects that 'Z' wouldn't recognise
actual evidence even if it kicked him in the teeth.
I see nothing wrong with this argument nor do I see where you even
explained where it was by refuting the points.
So the problem for you remains that it was never refuted point by point
by you in the same way the argument refuted yours point by point.
Most people with even the slightest bit of intellect can now see what a
fraud you really are once they read the entire thread carefully. Is it
any wonder you ignored this thread and dismiss it? I guess if I were a
plagiarist who had been exposed, I'd say the same things to hide the
truth and discredit the information as you have. The only problem for
you is that you never explained how the information was wrong point by
point. Which by the way is the scholarly way to disprove and prove
truth or facts.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fake+edition+peter+sollog&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=95d53202.0309100535.22fd4108%40posting.google.com&rnum=1
has everyone read the thread where peter quietly dropped out of the
argument when he realized the facts proved peters lifes work was based
on fraudulent nostradamus writings?
Peter has more sense than to make a habit of replying to ignorant,
malevolent and apparently maniacal trolls with chips on their
shoulders.
The most interesting aspect of this thread, is the poster and accuser of
you being a fraud and plagiarist who's entire lifes work has been based
on fraudulent writings, presented a very organized, factual and hardly
abusive argument which you're using as an excuse for why you won't
respond. Which by the way is typical of someone in your position who's
true colors has been shown.
Really Peter, its quite obvious who the ignorant fool is after one reads
this thread. I just wanted to remind the group what a hypocrite you are
and that you're not the intellectual or authority you claim to be.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fake+edition+peter+sollog&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=95d53202.0309100535.22fd4108%40posting.google.com&rnum=1
if the evidence put forth was untrue, why couldn't peter answer the
questions he was asked and why did he drop out of the thread??
"Never argue with a fool on his own level: he has far more experience
of it than you do."
the evidence contained and being "argued" by the person in this thread
who you claim is a fool, is basing his "argument" on factual pretext and
even challenges you to show where he's wrong, which you completely fail
to respond to with any intellectual argument. Your only response to an
intellectual challenge on the facts is to call him a fool without ever
showing how he is or what he's saying is foolish. Even a fool can see
the real fool is you. I'm just surprised more here haven't held you
accountable for your buffoonery.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fake+edition+peter+sollog&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=95d53202.0309100535.22fd4108%40posting.google.com&rnum=1
how convienient.
No, just sensible.
Ah Yes. I suppose the sensible thing to do when a fraud is exposed, is
to behave like you have, make excuses and plonk the post in shame.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fake+edition+peter+sollog&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=95d53202.0309100535.22fd4108%40posting.google.com&rnum=1
but thats how fools operate when exposed.
No, they generally continue arguing,
this wasn't an argument Peter. It was a simple test of the truth.
Now I'm sure you'd like to have people believe this was an argument that
had no factual basis. But anyone who analyzes this thread, can see it
was simply challenging your position and asked you to support your
claims and beliefs with evidence either proving yours or disproving
theirs. You failed to do so because you couldn't. Its really that
simple. The evidence presented within this thread is clearly superior
and outweighs any you've ever put forth. Yet you dismiss it not by
showing how and where its wrong, but by implying you're just engaging in
a childish argument. Come on Peter, I thought you were more intelligent
than that. And I certainly think your critics can distinguish that this
thread is hardly what you claim. Finally this group now has proof that
you're nothing but a conman and fool. However, the saddest part is that
I don't think you were previously aware that your lifes work was based
on the writings of fake editions.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fake+edition+peter+sollog&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=95d53202.0309100535.22fd4108%40posting.google.com&rnum=1
inventing ever more preposterous
arguments
If they were preposterous, why couldn't you show proof? The answer is
simple. Because you couldn't.
Saying something is preposterous is one thing. Proving it is quite
another. And since the argument you claim to be preposterous has clearly
supported its position, you should have no problem in showing where the
argument is preposterous if it really is. Everyone thats not your patsy
here, wants an answer Mr L. Plonking the post and those who call a
spade a spade isn't the answer Peter. Plonking posts in such a group
especially where the post you plonk provided supporting evidence, only
exposes you to be more of a fool.
to justify their ludicrous positions and maintain the
unmaintainable, and often desperately change their identities to avoid
sensible people's filters,
Those who use filters in a newsgroup, are merely cowards whose beliefs
are either not worth defending, or are afraid to confront those who
challenge their beliefs for lack of supporting evidence.
That is a perfect overview of the situation with you.
while usually descending into personal
abuse.
I have yet to see where their position was deemed ludicrous or for that
matter, any evidence to support your claim. They presented a very
clear-cut concise arguement with evidence to support their claims, and
all you can do is cry about how they change identities as if that excuse
disproves the evidence and what they've claimed. What it comes down to
is the facts.
Not who "they" are.
And no matter how much you dislike abuse or attacks on your credibility
in the form of abuse, in the end, all that should matter is the evidence
they have to back up what they say. Essentially you are willing to
ignore the evidence and factual content due to your feelings being hurt.
So your argument is purely "emotional" and has nothing to do with the
truth. I thought true scholars and men of science were supposed to be
objective. The moment they allow their objectivity to be overrun by
personal feelings, they are no longer respected or credible.
Your own definition of a fool has just been applied to you.
Just as Rush Limbaugh is facing judgement from hypocrisy, you have begun
to suffer the same fate.
Which reminds me...
Plonk!
very convenient Peter.
But I think everyone knows the truth now. You're a fraud.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fake+edition+peter+sollog&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=95d53202.0309100535.22fd4108%40posting.google.com&rnum=1
.
