Relocated: -Greetings from 2025. -

Have it your way, then....banned by username until Raul decides permanent fate.

1) I regard personal freedom more highly than any arbitrary rules which benefit nobody.

That's nice. Unfortunately, this board is made possible by private funds. And what the owner of the board says, goes.

2) Profanity is not bad. We're all adults here.

And you are so certain kids do not read here.... how?

3) You're not admin on this forum.

This is true, but that does not mean I should not be looking out for the interests of the board Mop and owner. And if you keep up childish things like this, I just may end up as Admin here too.

4) Even if banned, proxies will still work.

You are banned, and your username will no longer work. If you re-register with another username and are caught, that will be banned too. Keep abusing and your ISP will be contacted. Raul has done it before and will not hesitate to do it again if people act disruptively.


I am doing the job I was asked to do. Perhaps it is you who needs to do the growing up. I learned to control my language long ago.

RMT
 
And it certainly can’t be Darby’s suggested “sharon, quake disasters...” because that solution set only has four s’s, when the original anagram of “ashorn, squeak, adistress” had five s’s.

'Course it can. Only The Z Person knows for sure if "New iconic savant fame: severe online sos fun" isn't an anagram in an anagram.

I kinda like the joke, if its a joke, posed on folks by TZP as s/he giggles at the various interpretations.


BTW: I'm with Ray re. the uncalled for profane quip about your religion.
 
Zeshua wrote:

You won't believe what is going to happen to you next.

Would you believe ... Katrina II?

This looks like a virtual duplicate of the first Katrina disaster, another Cat 3 or higher hurricane directly hitting New Orleans on almost the exact anniversary of Katrina I. How many hundreds of thousands of people all over the world will have the exact same thought run through their heads when this hits, "I can't f**king believe this is happening again!"

- Peter
 
sharon, quakes, disasters, oh eight worse nine eleven, assassinations, influenza, vaccinations, fema, symptoms, election

2008 is not yet worse than 9/11 was, but we HAVE now seen FEMA in action in 2008, in Galveston.

- Peter
 
2008 is not yet worse than 9/11 was, but we HAVE now seen FEMA in action in 2008, in Galveston.

Or IS it already worse than 9/11?

There were thought to be about 90,000 people who stayed on the coast that Hurricane Ike hit, and no one knows how many were killed, or how many were swept out to sea. Fox News is now reporting that it may be months or years before we know the true numbers of the dead in the Galveston area.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424303,00.html

Headline : Some of Ike's Missing May Have Been Swept Out to Sea
 
Zeshua said that 2008 would be worse than 9/11.

Slightly under 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks.

Tens of thousands more than that are unaccounted for in the Galveston area after Hurricane Ike.
 
"ashornsqueakadistresshegohitnewsevereonlineastainassinsosfuninzealiconicsavantfamestompsmyclonetie"

ashorns queak adistress he gohit newse vere online astainassinsos funinzeal iconicsavant fame stompsmy clonetie
sharons quake disasters oh eight worse nine eleven assassinations influenza vaccinations fema symptoms election

Ok, let's take another look at the string "oh eight worse nine eleven". Zeshua said that all these things would be found in the news headlines between 2007 - 2009. Today, we find this same phrase in today's news. For example, at http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm we find

One of the most pressing questions of the day is "Was yesterday IT?" Heck no. The latest HalfPastHuman (HPH) advisory explains why: What we're hearing is not emotional release language, it's still emotionally building language: "Salve omnes, we are hearing all kinds of language out and about in the MSM at this time. Note that they are speaking of the 'failed rescue' as being 'worse than 9/11' and other such phrases.

And at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-brei...1_b_127039.html we find

Worse than 9/11

When Barack Obama says that there is no need for a 9/11 Commission to investigate Wall Street, he is wrong. Senator Obama states in part, "this is not 9/11 where we didn't know who did it." By saying this, Obama seems to reveal a lack of understanding for the need for public accountability. He also seems to fail to understand that Congress cannot be trusted to investigate Wall Street or itself. [...] I have some news for Senator Obama: This Wall Street and economic crisis is not 9/11, inconceivably and alarmingly its effects on our economy look to be worse than 9/11.

And doing a search for the phrase in today's news at Google News, at http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=...tnG=Search+News , we find

Readers' Comments Stock dive worse than 9/11
Melbourne Herald Sun, Australia - 16 hours ago
US stocks suffered their worst one-day loss ever today after the House of Representatives rejected a bailout plan to ease the financial crisis. ...


Advantage 2008: Current economic crisis worse than impact of 9/11
Travel Weekly UK, UK - Sep 28, 2008
British Airways general manager UK Richard Tams said: "This is a lot worse than 9/11. We are in a crisis situation. "9/11 was a short sharp shock but the ...


Worse than 9/11
Huffington Post, NY - Sep 17, 2008
And I have some news for Senator Obama: This Wall Street and economic crisis is not 9/11, inconceivably and alarmingly it looks to be worse than 9/11. ...
 
The original anagram was:
ashornsqueakadistresshegohitnewsevereonlineastainassinsosfuninzealiconicsavantfamestompsmyclonetie

This divides up into a sequence of 26 separate words:
as horn squeak a distress he go hit new severe online a stain ass in sos fun in zeal iconic savant fame stomps my clone tie

Now, without changing that sequence, we find that these words can be organized into 10 groupings :

ashorn, squeak, adistress, hegohitnewsevereonline, astainassinsos, funinzeal, iconicsavant, fame, stompsmy, clonetie

which are anagrams for
sharon, quakes, disasters, oh eight worse nine eleven, assassinations, influenza, vaccinations, fema, symptoms, election

Zeshua originally posted this anagram on February 22nd, 2008. Many here at TTI have argued that these anagram solutions are not viable predictions because they are so vague that almost anything could be pointed to as proof that they have come true. However, after almost a year has gone by, it is obvious that this argument doesn't hold water. Most of these ten predictions have not been found in any of the year's headlines. Nothing has happened to either Ariel Sharon or the Plain of Sharon, there have been no notable assassinations, and no major stories about influenza, symptoms, or FEMA have made the news.

The only one that HAS come true is "oh eight worse nine eleven", and that only from an economic viewpoint. Word sequences like that have appeared in our headlines on numerous occasions over the last year, as I have pointed out here previously. I find this quite remarkable, and think that the likelihood of it occurring by chance must be almost nil. For, did the mainstream media ever run stories or headlines suggesting that 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007 were "worse than 9/11"? No, of course not. It would be ludicrous to even suggest so. But they did do so with 2008, repeatedly, and Zeshua predicted in advance that this would be the case.

So the argument that these anagram solutions are too vague to make viable predictions has been proven incorrect. They are disprovable, which means that if/when they DO come true, those successes will indeed be provable.

If they are disprovable, they are also provable, which means that they indeed are viable predictions.

- Peter
 
from Hdrnovak


So the argument that these anagram solutions are too vague to make viable predictions has been proven incorrect. They are disprovable, which means that if/when they DO come true, those successes will indeed be provable.


If you admit they're disprovable, then that means they've already been disproven. They can't come true. hence you should've already gave up and let it go.
 
Zeshua originally posted this anagram on February 22nd, 2008. Many here at TTI have argued that these anagram solutions are not viable predictions because they are so vague that almost anything could be pointed to as proof that they have come true. However, after almost a year has gone by, it is obvious that this argument doesn't hold water.

Peter, you are so full of chit that your eyes are going to be permanently stained that color! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Not only does this argument still hold water (and perhaps your incontinence could explain your obstinance in promoting Zeshua) but it will always and forever hold water, speaking from a scientific standpoint. Because you are taking something that someone else has written, and re-interpreting it, that means YOU ARE CREATING THE PREDICTIONS. But since you have so convinced yourself the argument does not hold water, please properly falsify it. (But I won't hold my breath)

So the argument that these anagram solutions are too vague to make viable predictions has been proven incorrect.

How, exactly? Certainly not from your ridiculous soliloquy above, because it starts with a false (unproven) premise. You cannot start a proof with something that is not easily seen to be true (axiomatic) and expect to say "I have proven". God, you are clueless.

If they are disprovable, they are also provable, which means that they indeed are viable predictions.

This is incorrect. I take it you have never taken a class in predicate calculus, Peter? No...I didn't think so. Not likely that you would even want to study predicate calculus so you can show yourself why your statement above is bogus (people like you, infected with confirmation bias, have no interest in seeking data that proves them wrong). So let me save you some time: Karl Popper built an entire career around the fundamental fact that "nothing is eminently provable." Things can only be disproven (falsified). For you to say that because something is falsifiable (disprovable), then therefore it must be provable, would have Popper laughing you out of his class with a big, fat, F on your back.

But for what you are trying to do, you don't need science, do you? You just need eyes on you. Even your marketing skills are substandard.

RMT
 
As stated previously, Zeshua provided me, and certain others, with the solution sets to all her anagram riddles so far. She gave us the simple textual solutions to the anagrams, but not their interpretations. That she left for us to figure out on our own.

The solutions themselves are not my interpretation, nor my creation.

As for my interpretation of those solutions, well, yeah, you have a point, they are my creation. But only to the degree that everything anyone says is open to interpretation. All language sets, i.e, all finite strings of words, are invariably subject to the interpretation of the reader. For example, lawyers regularly use 500 or more words to try to nail down the meaning of something that most of us would feel we would be able to get across with a simple sentence. And yet other lawyers feel justified in using another 500 or more words to argue for a completely different interpretation of those same words. For another example, the Bible has spawned hundreds of denominations, precisely because humans cannot agree on the correct interpretation of its contents; and because of the nature of subjective interpretation, we never will fully agree on that.

Everything is subject to interpretation. My words, your words, Obama’s words, Zeshua’s words. Everyone’s words. Fortunately, this hard and fast rule does not prevent us from discussing things.

As for your academic tackle over my use of the words “provable” and “unprovable”, I think you will find that there are more than one valid definition of those words. However, perhaps my argument would have been better served by using “arguable” and “unarguable”. My two points, which you adroitly and tellingly avoided, was that :

(1) while most of the solution sets for her Feb 2008 anagram predictions do not SEEM to have come true yet, the solution set “oh eight worse nine eleven” does seem to have come true, especially given that numerous news articles in the major media have now used those same words, and

(2) this was not the case for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007, and so it cannot be chalked up to being a commonplace statement. She specifically predicted that our news stories would be saying that 2008 was worse than 9/11, and they did. Oh, what’s that you say? That she did NOT specifically say that 2008 would be worse than 9/11, only that “oh eight” would be? Well, you got me there. You read it out, I read it in. But I think that most reasonable people would feel it justified to read “oh eight” as “2008" in this instance.

- Peter

P.S. If you wish to preempt all discussions of possible proofs in this forum, there will be no more successful way to do it than by repeating Popper’s maxim "nothing is eminently provable" (the idea of which, BTW, Popper borrowed from Socrates, whose philosophy was summed up as “nothing can be known for certain”). Popper and Socrates were correct, of course, but at the same time, some things are more apparent than others.

One of which was that Zeshua was right about 2008 being worse than 9/11. Another or which was that Zeshua's anagram predictions come with the qualification that they come from news stories in 2008 and 2009. Not only did her anagram predict that "oh eight" would be "worse" than 9/11, but also that the media would run news stories saying as much. Which they did. Just as she predicted they would.

P.P.S. Perhaps you have already noticed that the media is calling Israel's recent attacks on Gaza a new Massacre in Palestine?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20081227/twl-hamas-condemns-gaza-massacre-3fd0ae9.html

A few quotes from news stories so far include: “Hamas Condemns Gaza 'Massacre”, "Palestine has never witnesses an uglier massacre", and “one of the bloodiest days in decades of the mideast conflict.”

This of course would seem to fulfill another of Zeshua's predictions : the words "Massacre in Palestine" appearing in the major media.
 
As stated previously, Zeshua provided me, and certain others, with the solution sets to all her anagram riddles so far. She gave us the simple textual solutions to the anagrams, but not their interpretations. That she left for us to figure out on our own.

The solutions themselves are not my interpretation, nor my creation.

As for my interpretation of those solutions, well, yeah, you have a point, they are my creation. But only to the degree that everything anyone says is open to interpretation. All language sets, i.e, all finite strings of words, are invariably subject to the interpretation of the reader. For example, lawyers regularly use 500 or more words to try to nail down the meaning of something that most of us would feel we would be able to get across with a simple sentence. And yet other lawyers feel justified in using another 500 or more words to argue for a completely different interpretation of those same words. For another example, the Bible has spawned hundreds of denominations, precisely because humans cannot agree on the correct interpretation of its contents; and because of the nature of subjective interpretation, we never will fully agree on that.

Everything is subject to interpretation. My words, your words, Obama’s words, Zeshua’s words. Everyone’s words. Fortunately, this hard and fast rule does not prevent us from discussing things.

As for your academic tackle over my use of the words “provable” and “unprovable”, I think you will find that there are more than one valid definition of those words. However, perhaps my argument would have been better served by using “arguable” and “unarguable”. My two points, which you adroitly and tellingly avoided, was that :

(1) while most of the solution sets for her Feb 2008 anagram predictions do not SEEM to have come true yet, the solution set “oh eight worse nine eleven” does seem to have come true, especially given that numerous news articles in the major media have now used those same words, and

(2) this was not the case for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007, and so it cannot be chalked up to being a commonplace statement. She specifically predicted that our news stories would be saying that 2008 was worse than 9/11, and they did. Oh, what’s that you say? That she did NOT specifically say that 2008 would be worse than 9/11, only that “oh eight” would be? Well, you got me there. You read it out, I read it in. But I think that most reasonable people would feel it justified to read “oh eight” as “2008" in this instance.

- Peter

P.S. If you wish to preempt all discussions of possible proofs in this forum, there will be no more successful way to do it than by repeating Popper’s maxim "nothing is eminently provable" (the idea of which, BTW, Popper borrowed from Socrates, whose philosophy was summed up as “nothing can be known for certain”). Popper and Socrates were correct, of course, but at the same time, some things are more apparent than others.

One of which was that Zeshua was right about 2008 being worse than 9/11. Another or which was that Zeshua's anagram predictions come with the qualification that they come from news stories in 2008 and 2009. Not only did her anagram predict that "oh eight" would be "worse" than 9/11, but also that the media would run news stories saying as much. Which they did. Just as she predicted they would.

P.P.S. Perhaps you have already noticed that the media is calling Israel's recent attacks on Gaza a new Massacre in Palestine?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20081227/twl-hamas-condemns-gaza-massacre-3fd0ae9.html

A few quotes from news stories so far include: “Hamas Condemns Gaza 'Massacre”, "Palestine has never witnesses an uglier massacre", and “one of the bloodiest days in decades of the mideast conflict.”

This of course would seem to fulfill another of Zeshua's predictions : the words "Massacre in Palestine" appearing in the major media.

This is a perfect example of why I find you obnoxious and annoying.


You've been proven wrong time and time again, but you continue arguing, It doesn't matter how many times someone points out the flaws in your argument , you just ignore everything they say and keep on cutting and pasting.

You're an obnoxious troll, and I laugh at the idea of anyone here believing you.
 
So, what you are implying, is that English is an awful way, or through its interpretation, to use, to transfer/exchange ideas.

Here, I have a fix for you, Peter.

Post the original information/emails, in the original format/language, we do have the ability(all of us) to translate, IN FACT, we have people around here that can explain the nuances between languages, JUST in case we "miss something".

By doing that, though, it kindof makes you a "third wheel", or "just a messenger" , does it not , Peter?

This was your suggestion though.

So I expect you to, post the original messages, in the untranslated form.

I will accept anything that you post in the forum, except for one thing, your translation.


Do this, upon your return, or I can give NO credence, to anything you say.
 
Peter is like Zeshua's Centinel,hahahaha,man poor guy for real! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Back
Top