As many of you may already be aware, I am an
accomplished medium who has often channeled
none other than Nostradamus himself.
Though unpaid, my work in the spiritual realm is
both productive and rewarding. Every time I
think of all the celebrities, CEOs, community
leaders & national politicians that I've been able
to guide towards success through the use of my
gifts, I can't help but feel a sense of pride of such
an extant that I dare call it "sinful."
I know we all should be humbled by a power greater
than ourselves, and in my case doubly so, as
through my gifts I am in touch with that power on
a daily basis. And I assure you, as unvirtuous as
my expressed pride might seem, that despite my
powers I remain as human as the rest of you, with all
those same human faults & human frailties that
plague the rest of mankind. I would be less virtuous,
not more so, should I lie or otherwise conceal the
pride I feel towards my undeserved role in shaping
world events.
Now, as I said, I do not get paid for my work. However,
I do accept donations from those seeking guidance.
And, yes, more often than a perfect world would allow,
I am forced by circumstances to defer to those who
make a donation over those who do not. But I am not
in it for the money, and I will prove this to all of you
now.
What do you want to know? What secrets would you
like revealed?
The world is open to you, the sky your limit with but
one caveat: Ask me a question to gain information
and nothing else.
If, for example, you asked me tomorrow's Lotto
number I would ignore you. For the information itself
is not an end, but a means toward an end, with that
end being great wealth.
The same applies to stocks, commodities or any other
investment item. It can even apply towards seemingly
innocuous facts, like the fate of an ancient ancestor.
Your motives define it's validity.
Any question asked out of curiousity, or to satisfy an
entirely personal desire, is entirely valid. This is because
the information itself is the goal. If, on the other hand,
you are looking for a little insight so that you might
write the next Dan Brown style blockbuster novel, the
information is not the goal but a means towards an
end. It would be invalid.
This is important. There is a real danger here. If you
ask a question when in fact it is not the answer you
seek, but merely intend to use the answer to secure
some other goal, you risk disater. For, although I
can gaurantee you that all responses I present will be
technically true & technically accurate, the spirits will
respond to impure questions with ambiguity, often
times even to the point of being deliberately misleading.
I myself do not see the future. I myself do not know
any great secrets, or have the power to peer into the
hearts of men. I channel the spirits, and the spirit of
Nostradamus in particular, and I report back what they
have revealed to me. Unless it is something obvious,
like a lottery number, I may not recognize your question
as invalid, I may not know to not ask it. In short, I
may not be able to protect you from the potential
ruin of a "technically" true & accurate answer that
is deliberately vague and likely booby trapped with
misleading language that will steer you towards ruin.
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics,
you are hereby challenged to experience the solace
that only those of us exposed to the truth and in
touch with a power greater than ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
14 Aug 2006 10:49:29 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Bill Baker wrote:
Forgive me for being skeptical, but wouldn't there be at
least some people close to him that would notice him
not being alive any more?
By definition, they would all be dead as well.
I mean sure, we could kill them too, but then we'd have
to kill the people close to them and it would just
snowball.
I have no idea what you're imagining.
Simply that Osama had people close to him and those people had people
close to them and so on, and it would take a lot to track down every
last one of them to kill. Every last supporter of bin Laden on the
planet might even have to die in order to keep the secret. And that
could prove extremely difficult, even for the U.S. government.
But we are talking
about a man who had been on the constant move, refusing
to be near any "real time" communications, keeping as
low a profile as possible & trying to not let the secret of
his location out... all BEFORE the invasion of Afghanistan.
All anyone would know is that they hadn't heard anything
directly. Attributing statements to Bin Laden is easy. It
always was. But, starting even before the war, direct
contact with Bin Laden was out of the question.
If what you're saying is true, was he still alive just before the 2004
election when his last video was broadcast?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
14 Aug 2006 10:59:01 AM |
|
|
Bill Baker wrote:
Simply that Osama had people close to him and
those people had people close to them and so on,
and it would take a lot to track down every last
one of them to kill.
When you say "close" you mean emotionally close,
or perhaps that they were "important" to each other.
Right?
But what you don't mean is anyone who was in
communication with Bin Laden or those travelling
with him.
Put another way: A dead Bin Laden represent little
or no change from what they were experiencing
when Bin Laden was alive.
Every last supporter of bin Laden on the planet
might even have to die in order to keep the secret.
The "Secret" you speak of is that Bin Laden vanished.
But a vanished Bin Laden -- as opposed to a martyred
Bin Laden -- is the goal.
Again, it's not like there was a circle of people close
to bin Laden who were in contact with their own
friends & family. The overwhelming majority of people
surrounding Bin Laden had already, in effect, "vanished."
Afghanistan was a long, long way from their homes,
their families and their friends.
If what you're saying is true, was he still alive just
before the 2004 election when his last video was
broadcast?
No.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
14 Aug 2006 11:05:45 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Bill Baker wrote:
Simply that Osama had people close to him and
those people had people close to them and so on,
and it would take a lot to track down every last
one of them to kill.
When you say "close" you mean emotionally close,
or perhaps that they were "important" to each other.
Right?
But what you don't mean is anyone who was in
communication with Bin Laden or those travelling
with him.
Put another way: A dead Bin Laden represent little
or no change from what they were experiencing
when Bin Laden was alive.
Every last supporter of bin Laden on the planet
might even have to die in order to keep the secret.
The "Secret" you speak of is that Bin Laden vanished.
But a vanished Bin Laden -- as opposed to a martyred
Bin Laden -- is the goal.
Again, it's not like there was a circle of people close
to bin Laden who were in contact with their own
friends & family. The overwhelming majority of people
surrounding Bin Laden had already, in effect, "vanished."
Afghanistan was a long, long way from their homes,
their families and their friends.
OK, what you're saying sounds at least somewhat plausible. And if it's
true, Bush is a lot smarter than I gave him credit for. His domestic
policy still sucks, though. :-)
If what you're saying is true, was he still alive just
before the 2004 election when his last video was
broadcast?
No.
Was it even bin Laden in the tape? Because he did mention Kerry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
14 Aug 2006 11:11:21 AM |
|
|
Bill Baker wrote:
If what you're saying is true, was he still alive just
before the 2004 election when his last video was
broadcast?
No.
Was it even bin Laden in the tape? Because he did
mention Kerry.
I never inquired about that particular tape -- the question
on bin Laden's fate was addressed prior to that -- but
previously they had combined old footage with new
material.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
14 Aug 2006 12:52:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Bill Baker wrote:
If what you're saying is true, was he still alive just
before the 2004 election when his last video was
broadcast?
No.
Was it even bin Laden in the tape? Because he did
mention Kerry.
I never inquired about that particular tape -- the question
on bin Laden's fate was addressed prior to that -- but
previously they had combined old footage with new
material.
OK, I'm satisfied with that. Let's try another question. One that
Sunshine, Bernadette, Lurlean, et. al. could not answer, even with
their supposed connection to God. Am I gay, straight or bi? And if
you choose bi, leaning more towards same sex, opposite sex or exactly
in the middle?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
14 Aug 2006 08:21:34 PM |
|
|
Bill Baker wrote:
OK, I'm satisfied with that. Let's try another question.
One that Sunshine, Bernadette, Lurlean, et. al. could
not answer, even with their supposed connection to
God. Am I gay, straight or bi? And if you choose bi,
leaning more towards same sex, opposite sex or exactly
in the middle?
Who needs Nostradamus for that?
You either are intentionally ignoring the criteria I laid
down, or you yourself doubt your sexual identity.
And, yeah, if you have doubts then it's for a reason.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
14 Aug 2006 08:33:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:21:34 -0700, wrote in message
news:1155604894.161794.252470@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bill Baker wrote:
OK, I'm satisfied with that. Let's try another question.
One that Sunshine, Bernadette, Lurlean, et. al. could
not answer, even with their supposed connection to
God. Am I gay, straight or bi? And if you choose bi,
leaning more towards same sex, opposite sex or exactly
in the middle?
Who needs Nostradamus for that?
You either are intentionally ignoring the criteria I laid
down, or you yourself doubt your sexual identity.
And, yeah, if you have doubts then it's for a reason.
I don't have any doubts about myself, but I want to see if you can discern
it.
--
Funny Lurlean quote #77:
"Do you make a lotta noise when you and old Craig fool around? You got
any tapes?" --Lurlean's Bible-on-tape just doesn't cut it for her anymore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
14 Aug 2006 08:42:38 PM |
|
|
Bill Baker wrote:
I don't have any doubts about myself, but I want to
see if you can discern it.
So you're saying that you intentionally ignored the
criteria I laid down?
You know, if you want honesty then you've got to be
willing to give a little yourself...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
14 Aug 2006 09:16:31 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:42:38 -0700, wrote in message
news:1155606158.189733.134500@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Bill Baker wrote:
I don't have any doubts about myself, but I want to
see if you can discern it.
So you're saying that you intentionally ignored the
criteria I laid down?
You know, if you want honesty then you've got to be
willing to give a little yourself...
So it has to be something I don't know and would like to know? OK...will
the Democrats take over the majority in the Senate this November?
--
Funny Lurlean quote #32:
"Did you even hang on to your bloody sheet? I sent mine to my daddy and he
framed it and put it on the wall in the den along with some of the deer and
bear he shot and had stuffed."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 06:58:29 AM |
|
|
Bill Baker wrote:
So it has to be something I don't know and would
like to know?
Well, by definitition, if you already know it then the
information itself is not the goal. Something else is.
In the example of most people it's a kind of "test."
OK...will the Democrats take over the majority in
the Senate this November?
Short answer or long answer?
The short answer is "No."
The long answer is that it really boils down to bunch
of individual races, the future is not set in stone and
in each and every one of those races there are
individuals who can change the outcome.
--
Funny Lurlean quote #32:
"Did you even hang on to your bloody sheet? I sent mine to my daddy and he
framed it and put it on the wall in the den along with some of the deer and
bear he shot and had stuffed."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 11:48:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Bill Baker wrote:
So it has to be something I don't know and would
like to know?
Well, by definitition, if you already know it then the
information itself is not the goal. Something else is.
In the example of most people it's a kind of "test."
That's what I had in mind.
OK...will the Democrats take over the majority in
the Senate this November?
Short answer or long answer?
The short answer is "No."
I was afraid of that.
The long answer is that it really boils down to bunch
of individual races, the future is not set in stone and
in each and every one of those races there are
individuals who can change the outcome.
So in other words, if the elections were to be held today, the
Republicans would retain their majority, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 12:31:04 PM |
|
|
Bill Baker wrote:
So in other words, if the elections were to be held today,
the Republicans would retain their majority, right?
Yes.
But I don't like to encourage fatelism. The future can be
changed. Though it's true that on this kind of scale it
would be difficult, it can (and sometimes does) happen.
If you seek a different outcome then work hard for it.
Most people will not, I understand, but if everyone who
is willing to work would do so, that alone would likely
change the outcome in a few races.
Get organized. Concentrate your efforts. Or at least
support some group doing so. It's the only way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 02:08:36 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Bill Baker wrote:
So in other words, if the elections were to be held today,
the Republicans would retain their majority, right?
Yes.
But I don't like to encourage fatelism. The future can be
changed. Though it's true that on this kind of scale it
would be difficult, it can (and sometimes does) happen.
If you seek a different outcome then work hard for it.
Most people will not, I understand, but if everyone who
is willing to work would do so, that alone would likely
change the outcome in a few races.
Get organized. Concentrate your efforts. Or at least
support some group doing so. It's the only way.
Understood. On the lighter side, what's the deal with the F.U.C.K.
bunch? You know, Bernadette, Sunshine, Thurgood, Lurlean, etc. Do
they really belong to an organization that believes everything they say
they do? I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I'd like to hear what
you have to say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 02:31:17 PM |
|
|
Bill Baker wrote:
On the lighter side, what's the deal with the F.U.C.K.
bunch?
Just someone out to have fun.
You know, Bernadette, Sunshine, Thurgood, Lurlean, etc.
Do I know the person behind them? No.
Do they really belong to an organization that believes
everything they say they do?
No.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 03:34:31 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Bill Baker wrote:
On the lighter side, what's the deal with the F.U.C.K.
bunch?
Just someone out to have fun.
You know, Bernadette, Sunshine, Thurgood, Lurlean, etc.
Do I know the person behind them? No.
Most likely Max Varazslo.
Do they really belong to an organization that believes
everything they say they do?
No.
I figured as much. But they sure are entertaining! :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
13 Aug 2006 01:01:07 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 22:01:12 -0700, jtem01 wrote:
Bill Baker wrote:
I have something I've been wondering for some time now. Why haven't we
caught Osama bin Laden yet? Are the U.S. troops working hard to find
him, or does Bush have no intention of ever trying to find him because
of some sinister motive?
Also, are we due for another 9/11 type attack, and if so how can we
avert it?
Please, just one question at a time.
Hokay, what are the orbital parameters of the next trans-plutonian planet
we discover?
For a bonus point, what's its mass?
--
=======================================================================
= David --- No, not that one.
= Mitchell ---
=======================================================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
