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.
isn't it sad that peter still refers to the fakes as originals?
isn't it funny that peter couldn't refute the evidence that proved his
originals were fakes?
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?
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??
how convienient.
but thats how fools operate when exposed.
so why hasn't peter been held accountable or questioned about why he
refused to disprove the evidence that proves all his research is based
fake editions?
beCuZ peter is a wolf in sheeps clothing decieving people becuz either
he's too stupid to realize he's been duped or fully aware he's been
duped and afraid to admit his lifes work is based on lies.
in any case, peter and his constituents here have lost all credibility
and should be attacked for the fools they are each time they open their
mouths and make claims that are based on proven fake editions of
nostradamus' writings.
.
|
|
| User: "Peter Lemesurier" |
|
| Title: Re: the truth about peter L wolf |
21 Oct 2003 11:30:57 AM |
|
|
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?
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! :(
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...?
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. Indeed, he suspects that 'Z' wouldn't recognise
actual evidence even if it kicked him in the teeth.
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.
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."
how convienient.
No, just sensible.
but thats how fools operate when exposed.
No, they generally continue arguing, inventing ever more preposterous
arguments to justify their ludicrous positions and maintain the
unmaintainable, and often desperately change their identities to avoid
sensible people's filters, while usually descending into personal
abuse. Which reminds me...
Plonk!
--
Peter
http://www.nostradamus500.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Lemesurier" |
|
| Title: Re: the truth about peter L wolf |
22 Oct 2003 03:15:34 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:30:57 +0100, Peter Lemesurier
<lemesur@bengaldeleteyethisvillas.demon.co.uk> either wrote or (if so
marked) quoted:
Peter has more sense than to make a habit of replying to ignorant,
malevolent and apparently maniacal trolls with chips on their
shoulders.
If, of course, I am mistaken in deducing from the original immoderate
attack that its poster (whoever it may have been) falls into this
category, then fair enough.
But if the latter really wants serious, considered answers to his
questions (which I doubt), then he would be well advised to ask them
civilly, and preferably one at a time. Otherwise he is unlikely to get
any answers at all -- which is of course why, under his original
pseudo-identity, he is now in my killfile.
Few serious scholars are prepared to work for nothing while being
kicked. Would you?
--
Peter
http://www.nostradamus500.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Claude Latremouille" |
|
| Title: Re: the truth about peter L wolf |
22 Oct 2003 12:47:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:15:34 +0100, Peter Lemesurier
<lemesur@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote to himself once again about what
*
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:30:57 +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), but has begun
to speak to himself in the third person:
*
Peter has more sense than to make a habit of replying to ignorant,
malevolent and apparently maniacal trolls with chips on their
shoulders.
If, of course, I am mistaken in deducing from the original immoderate
attack that its poster (whoever it may have been) falls into this
category, then fair enough.
But if the latter really wants serious, considered answers to his
questions (which I doubt), then he would be well advised to ask them
civilly, and preferably one at a time. Otherwise he is unlikely to get
any answers at all -- which is of course why, under his original
pseudo-identity, he is now in my killfile.
Few serious scholars are prepared to work for nothing while being
kicked. Would you?
--
Peter
*
To get a proper picture it does not hurt placing in context some
other recent pronouncements of this self-styled serious scholar:
*
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:13:53 +0100, Peter Lemesurier
<lemesur@bengal.demon.co.uk> quoted himself yet again:
*
The only people
who don't in general understand what he was saying are those who don't
understand the French he was using, and the only people who think he
went to great lengths to disguise his meanings are -- with one or two
manic exceptions -- ones who, lacking any training in the subject,
have no idea what his French actually says in its 'undisguised' form.
That's not Nostradamus's fault: it's theirs!
*
[...]
*
All that is in fact needed to grasp their real meaning is a secure
grasp of the language, thorough knowledge of 16th-century French and a
wide-ranging study of ALL Nostradamus's available texts in the context
of his times.
Anybody rational who has all of those will know perfectly well that,
in most cases, no particularly deep thinking is required to grasp
their real meaning. Anybody who hasn't will naturally tend to think
there's something 'mysterious' or 'encoded' about them.
*
[...]
*
I don't claim to be superior -- merely to have studied the facts. If
that makes you feel inferior, perhaps you should ask yourself why?
--
Peter
*
He has studied the facts, he says. (Nothing wrong with this, mind
you.) But then, *who* is determining what is a fact and what is
an opinion? Hisself, of course. Do you disagree with his
determination? Then you must be one of those 'irrational' people.
(It always works when you call someone who disagrees with you
crazy). Or else, you might have thought -- silly you -- that it
really *does* take some 'particularly deep thinking' to grasp the
'real meaning' of Nostradamus' texts. (Otherwise, why would
Nostradamus have enjoined ignorants, astrologers and foreigners
to stay away from his prophecy?)
*
Ah, yes, I was forgetting for a moment that Nostradamus did not
*really* tell foreigners to stay away from his prophecy, he just
used the Latin word Barbari (which meant 'foreigners', but this
doesn't count, as it automatically destroys the Anglo-Saxon
Nostradamus Industry).
*
But then again, *who* has a 'secure grasp of the language'?
Hisself, again. Who is saying so? Hisself, again. Because if you
dare say that he has not, then you must be irrational.
*
Then there is this business of having a 'thorough knowledge of
16th-century French'. Again, who is to tell if you have it?
Hisself, again. What about words which Nostradamus himself
invented (because he had to, so as to make his encyphered text
work), would they be part of this '16th-century French'? Of
course, not. But this doesn't count either.
*
Another requirement: Having made 'a wide-ranging study of ALL
Nostradamus's available texts'? Hmmm, I would prefer to limit
this to his available PUBLISHED texts, as I fail to see his
corespondence as being of any assistance in the decyphering of
his encyphered texts. He was not about to tell his correspondents
that he did encypher ALL of his published texts, now, would he?
What would have been the point for him to hide a secret if he was
going to tell everyone that he did? Beats me.
*
And if you don't understand what Nostradamus was saying then you
must be amongst those who do not 'understand the French he was
using'. An interesting expression, as Nostradamus is the only
writer who has ever written in this manner, something I would not
call a language at all, but which I prefer to call 'meaningful
gobbledygook'. After all, if you are the only one to use a
particular form of expression, this can't be a language.
*
Do you dare disagree? Then, you must be some of the people so
described: 'The only people who don't in general understand what
he was saying are those who don't understand the French he was
using, and the only people who think he went to great lengths to
disguise his meanings are -- with one or two manic exceptions --
ones who, lacking any training in the subject, have no idea what
his French actually says in its 'undisguised' form.'
*
There!
*
So we have eliminated about everyone on this Earth, everyone,
except... ta-daa!! You guessed it... the 'serious scholar' who
wrote the above, Peter Ewart Britton, a.k.a. Peter Lemesurier.
*
How is it that no French commentator has ever been able to
predict the future using Nostradamus' quatrains, if they are so
easy to read, but have been able for 400 years to understand them
*after the fact*, i.e., after the events they depict have
occurred?
*
Could it be that Nostradamus made his texts so obscure that it
takes the passage of time to understand what he wrote about?
*
Could it be that the most learned scholars in French, Latin,
Greek, etc., have failed to understand his texts before the fact
*because* Nostradamus did not intend them to be able to?
*
Could it be that his texts, so laboriously fucked-up, are in fact
a cypher?
*
Naaaa! Who says? The 'serious scholar' above. Why? Because he has
'studied the facts', he says. And the facts he has studied do not
reveal that Nostradamus' texts are a cypher. Why is that? Because
Nostradamus did not want his readers to guess that his texts are
a cypher. So he made sure of that.
*
Is there anyone else who might have done the very same thing?
Yes, the father of modern cryptology, Jean Trithème (a.k.a.
Iohannes Trithemius), did. And I just love the way he said so
[French translation]:
*
« J'ai fait en sorte que pour les hommes de savoir et ceux
profondément engagés dans l'étude de la magie, il pourrait être,
par la grâce de Dieu, intelligible à un certain point, tandis
que, d'un autre côté, pour les mangeurs de navets à peau épaisse,
il pourrait rester un secret caché pour toujours et être pour
leurs esprits bornés un livre fermé à tout jamais. »
*
As I do not wish to be accused of having incorrectly translated
the above French translation into English, I shall leave that
task to a British translator who has shown himself above to be...
un esprit borné... et un mangeur de navets à peau épaisse! :-)
*
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: "Sid See" |
|
| Title: Re: the truth about peter L wolf |
22 Oct 2003 07:04:15 PM |
|
|
Peter Lemesurier <lemesur@bengaldeleteyethisvillas.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kfnapvo36hqpfg424v4e6hv8i8tdts0bg1@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:05:36 GMT, either wrote or (if so
marked) quoted:
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."
So you're saying I am a fool, eh
Peter?
Well, perhaps I was - in your case -
a fool to have expected a fruitful
exchange of ideas - with a pompous
fool.
A pity you could not intellectualize
the necessity of "depth of thought"
in order to understand Nosty...
A pity your bias, preconceptions,
and closed-mindedness, are
preventing you from doing anything
of any real significance...
A pity your intellectual dishonesty
takes precedence over everything
else...
Sid
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Lemesurier" |
|
| Title: Re: the truth about peter L wolf |
23 Oct 2003 03:46:19 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:04:15 -0700, "Sid See" <sidsee@nospam.cox.net>
either wrote or (if so marked) quoted:
Peter Lemesurier <lemesur@bengaldeleteyethisvillas.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kfnapvo36hqpfg424v4e6hv8i8tdts0bg1@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:05:36 GMT, either wrote or (if so
marked) quoted:
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."
So you're saying I am a fool, eh
Peter?
I wasn't consciously referring to you at all. However, if the cap
fits, wear it.
Well, perhaps I was - in your case -
a fool to have expected a fruitful
exchange of ideas - with a pompous
fool.
A pity you could not intellectualize
the necessity of "depth of thought"
in order to understand Nosty...
Whether 'depth of thought' is necessary rather depends on the nature
of the material. You don't seem (so far, at least) to have much idea
of what that nature is.
A pity your bias, preconceptions,
and closed-mindedness, are
preventing you from doing anything
of any real significance...
Really?
A pity your intellectual dishonesty
takes precedence over everything
else...
Take care, Sid See. A pity that... the plonk file is waiting.
--
Peter
http://www.nostradamus500.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid See" |
|
| Title: Re: the truth about peter L wolf |
23 Oct 2003 01:15:44 PM |
|
|
Peter Lemesurier <lemesur@bengaldeleteyethisvillas.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j95fpv8bln577nb93aplotpslee32255si@4ax.com...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:04:15 -0700, "Sid See" <sidsee@nospam.cox.net>
either wrote or (if so marked) quoted:
Peter Lemesurier <lemesur@bengaldeleteyethisvillas.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kfnapvo36hqpfg424v4e6hv8i8tdts0bg1@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:05:36 GMT, either wrote or (if so
marked) quoted:
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."
So you're saying I am a fool, eh
Peter?
I wasn't consciously referring to you at all. However, if the cap
fits, wear it.
That you weren't 'concious' says it all...
Take care, Sid See. A pity that... the plonk file is waiting.
Take care, Peter Lemesurier.
A pity that... you'd rather hide behind
a plonk than face your inadequacies!
Sid
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: the truth about peter L wolf |
21 Oct 2003 10:18:44 PM |
|
|
Peter Lemesurier <lemesur@bengaldeleteyethisvillas.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<kfnapvo36hqpfg424v4e6hv8i8tdts0bg1@4ax.com>...
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?
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! :(
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...?
Ah, but he won't even have heard of the last nine, will he?
Vous êtes la aliéné!
Il a etudie Brind'Amour, Wilson, Chomarat,
Benazra, Gruber, Penzensky, Guinard, Chevignard, Ruzo!
Je regarde Z's la écriture. Il est raisonnable, par contre vous avez
un spectacle du mensonge.
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. Indeed, he suspects that 'Z' wouldn't recognise
actual evidence even if it kicked him in the teeth.
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.
Vous avez ci-dessous de intelligeant.
Z, il a besoin de préfére le stupide.
Don't fret it Z. He has two of the most ignorant,
malevolent and apparently maniacal trolls with chips on their
shoulders, in whome he constantly replyes too and posts too here. At
least sense I have been here from year 1999.
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:
Oui Monsieur fou,
C'est pourquoi nous ne discutons pas avec vous.
Cinq cents ans : bon anniversaire Nostradamus! :D
he has far more experience
of it than you do."
how convienient.
No, just sensible.
but thats how fools operate when exposed.
No, they generally continue arguing, inventing ever more preposterous
arguments to justify their ludicrous positions and maintain the
unmaintainable, and often desperately change their identities to avoid
sensible people's filters, while usually descending into personal
abuse. Which reminds me...
Plonk!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the truth about peter L wolf |
22 Oct 2003 06:58:54 AM |
|
|
an interesting exerpt I found that does seem to describe mr L.
+++++++
It is amazing how many have been misled in this NG by a conman
pretending to be an expert. ..... Who is Peter the Lame? The real
Peter is
a conman with phoney creditials who writes books for profit. He is a
skeptic
who writes Prophey books. He is in it for the money. He wrote a book
based on
a ludicrous theory that defies space and time. I am speaking of his book
about the Pyramid inch (Inch is an English measurement invented long
after
the pyramids were built). Peter is like those UFO experts who make up
their
fancy titles to try and impress you. Peter is not a scholor. He does not
have
a degree. His lies run long and deep. He has moved from performng street
shell games to peddling books of nonsense. Do not fall for his spell
like so
many here have. His sources are faulty and forgeries. His research is
flawed.
His delivery is haughty and pompous. He tells his fake facts repeatedly
and
backs them up with bogus sources. .....
++++++
and then the fool has the balls to say:
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?
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! :(
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...?
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. Indeed, he suspects that 'Z' wouldn't recognise
actual evidence even if it kicked him in the teeth.
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.
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."
how convienient.
No, just sensible.
but thats how fools operate when exposed.
No, they generally continue arguing, inventing ever more preposterous
arguments to justify their ludicrous positions and maintain the
unmaintainable, and often desperately change their identities to avoid
sensible people's filters, while usually descending into personal
abuse. Which reminds me...
Plonk!
--
Peter
http://www.nostradamus500.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
