Cardinal Chunder wrote:

so it's unecessary to read anything more into such a vague
statement.

its unecessary when you're in denial and don't want to be objective yes.

Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Never anonymous Butt wrote:

Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Never anonymous Butt wrote:

bookman wrote:

"hermesnines" <hermesnines@yahoo.com> the SollogSock wrote in message
news:5d0f6bee.0402061111.4c9bec27@posting.google.com...

BunnERabbit@webtv.net (Moderate Mammal) explained Sollog's *****

hahaha

so you think the FACT that on 9/11/1998 a Sollog WARNING about MAJOR
EMERGENCY IN DC on 911 means nothing?

Yes. Your _guess_ didn't specify 9/11/2001, fraud.

Xineophoels prediction did.

No it didn't.

It said 'Something is going to happen tomorrow'. Which might have been
uncanny if was posted on September 10th and elaborated on the
'something' in specific terms. But it wasn't and it didn't

Everyone that has actually read the xino post from beginning to end can
see he specifically was talking about sept. 11 2001.

Only kooks can. Normal people can't.

If kooks are those who read all the facts and are able to see that
the facts show xinophoels post is naming 9/11/2001, then it seems to
me you're not only deluded, but your entire world is backward making
the kooks "normal" or persons of true intelligence and normal people
retards.

Theres nothing to
argue on
that by someone with a brain.

Of course there is no need for argument. 'Something' happens every day
of the year

But what you won't address is that knowing it was his only prediction
and
that he said his predictions are only cataclysmic doomsday nature, the
field narrows as to what type of event he might be warning of.

Also you won't address that 2 sollog fans named 9/11 as a date for
a "warning". The naming of the date by 2 sollog fans who supported
a message about the US' destruction specifically by "terrorism"
on DC and New York is more evidence to show a good circumstancial and
case that wasn't random or coincidence. There are 3 major points of
evidence to support the case about 9/11 and that it would be related to
sollogs writings on the US' destruction.

In the justice system, you would lose just based on circumstancial
evidence.

For those who analyze prophecy related to nostradamus, the case about
9/11 has enough evidence to validate sollog and the uncanny hit and
eerie naming of 9/11 by 2 sollog fans.

You're free to say there's nothing interesting about 2 sollog fans
giving a warning that specifically named 9/11
and sollog himself warning about the US' destruction by Terror and
even saying early september for an attack by terrorists on new york,
but you look really stupid when everything I mentioned are discussed
together and someone does real investigation into this.

so it's unecessary to read anything more into such a vague
statement.

its unecessary when you're in denial and don't want to be objective yes.

Here, let me make a prophecy - something will happen tomorrow, but I
won't tell you what it is until it happens.

Show me something about your beliefs and dogma that can be researched
ahead of time. What do you stand for in a clear concise way and you
also must have proclaimed yourself a prophet in a serious public manner.

No one makes the unique and controversial claims that sollog has and
its clearly anti US, so we know what his writings are basically
about.

If you can do that and your "prophecy" names a date in the same way
sollogs fans did, then if something "big" in context of something
against the US and "great" in context of an emergency were to occur
that isn't an average every day emergency, then I would concede your
point and the possibility that your prediction was at least interesting
and worth
serious debate. And if that date you "warned" several times about
had an event that made news on a national level or even state level,
then that is definitely more than the average everyday emergency and
thats what needs to be defined; great, major and something big. Those
terms are descriptive. If they were used, then I could concede your
argument completely. Because those terms were used, is why your
argument is flawed far more than mine.

Now I have the same amazing god-like prophetic powerz as xino. If
nothing particularly bad happens tomorrow I could recycle the prediction
or string it out if I could be bothered.

If the date you give relates somehow to the subject title and becomes
a date of historic proportion or even a date that is 10% of the 9/11
attack, you might have a case. Until then, your argument is worthless
and dwarfed compared to mine.

You can debate, twist and lie about those points of the evidence proven,
but it won't change the outcome of what I've just explained and make
what I said untrue. I've laid out the facts as they happened and its an
objective unbiased viewpoint unlike yours.

The evidence is a joke. If it were a criminal trial the judge would have
laughed it out of court.

The evidence was never meant to be judged by a court in a literal way.

It was a prophecy and a prediction that was written to be understood
in a prophetic way.

The prophetic way involves codes or deeper thinking. Once you put
all the evidence together, the predictions and warnings that named
9/11 can easily be considered a very close and interesting
prognostication
for the wtc attack.

But there was enough circumstancial evidence I think even a judge
would have admitted could not be dismissed as easily as you want
to claim.

you're too much of a fool and moron to see the obvious if you can't
already

Yeah right, me and the rest of the sane world.

yeah right, the same world you live in where kooks are actually
intelligent and normal people are dumb and ignorant.

1. One who says 'GREAT EMERCENCY' in 1998
2. And another who says 'something is going to happen to tomorrow'
(August 31st 2001)

I hate to break it to you, but you two suck at prophecy.

wrong. you suck at simple obvious objective interpretation of prophecy
and obvious
clear information like the date xino pinpointed for one.

Objective has little to do with it. It would take a highly subjective
and disturbed mind to consider these 'prophecies' as anything but feeble
postdictions.

In your sick deluded world, that might make sense.

In the real world, nostradamus would be hailed as a true seer for giving
even one part of the evidence I've outlined.

Take the meds kook.

I think you've got it reversed retard.

BTW, Nice post-editing too you fool. Brilliant tactic to use when you
lose
an argument. You'll do anything to make people think
you're not a moron won't you.