Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Theodore7 (talk | contribs) at 13:54, 20 December 2005 (→NPOV tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archiving

OK, David, I've taken the bull by the horns and deleted everything except the last couple of entries to serve as a 'carry over'. It seemed simpler than the method you were suggesting. Anybody can of course access all the previous correspondence simply by clicking on the 'History' tab. --PL 16:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Where's the link to the archive page? - DavidWBrooks 17:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

See below. So if anybody wants to archive the previous version... (Hope I've not put my foot in it!) --PL 17:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Nostradamus, Judicial Astrology & Green Language

In order to properly balance the subject matter of Nostradamus, there needs to be much better sourcing than the materials there - especially the materials cited, which have so many astrological errors, they cannot be taken seriously in any discussion of Nostradamus.

Here we go again! Please state which of the books you are referring to, Th7, and which errors you are criticising. Dupebe, for example, contains no astrological information other than Nostradamus's, so how can your criticism possibly apply to him? Seven of the works cited are by Nostradamus himself, for heaven's sake! Please confirm which of the other sources you have actually read. None? --PL 11:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: Go to Leoni's extensive work. Moreover PL, your tone is hostile, and not condusive to consensus. You make assumptions here and this is one of the problems I have with your POV entries on this subject. I am quite versed on this subject and suggest you at least first give the benefit of the doubt as we continue this discussion and you will see that I am quite versed on the subject. Your attempt to use "sources" as a ruse is weak and does not lead to better expansion of the subject. Suggest you work here to reach balance, rather than very pointed POV. Thanks.Theo

Ah, so you're still refusing to tell us which of the reputable quoted sources you have actually read, and feel threatened when I remind you that Misplaced Pages expects all articles to be based on verifiable sources?

Moreover, the language used in the quatrains are associated with the language of judicial astrology; which many commentators - "supporters" and "detractors" of Nostradamus alike, are simply are not versed in - accounting for numerous errors, mistatements and plain wrong facts.

Are you versed with Brind'Amour's penetrating analysis of it? Are you aware of Nostradamus's three (or four) different methods of domification, of his inability to calculate the Ascendant, of the specific published ephemerides by professional astrologers that careful analysis has shown he based his horoscopes on, of the fact that he normally asked his clients to supply him with their birthcharts (!!) and that, when he absolutely had to do his own (14 out of 28 of them), he always made errors (planets in wrong signs, for example) and neglected to adjust the figures for their time and place of birth - or even of his proneness to 'do' people's horoscopes by working from whatever page the ephemerides happened to fall open at? This being so, how reliable is his judicial astrology likely to have been? Have you even read the contemporary professional astrologer Videl's penetrating critique of it?

Response: Yes, I am, but he is only ONE source PL, and you keep citing him which, considering all the materials out there by others like Chavigny, Jaubert, Chevalier de Jaut, W. Atwood, and many others.

Let's see: Chavigny, first published in 1594; Jaubert, 1656 – yes, yes, very contemporary! Given that Chavigny (who only knew Nostradamus during the last five years of his life) is the nearest to being contemporary, care to tell us what he says about Nostradamus's childhood?

I am not ignoring your question. There are many commmentators of note and I disagree with your obvious POV choice on this particular one - Brind'Amour - who is one of many, many commentators. What is your fascination with this guy? You will not quote Nostradamus himself but Brind-Amour? What is that? Theo 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, he (having done the most extensive research) is only the seminal source for virtually all modern work in the field!

Or are you just going to ignore the question as usual? --PL 11:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: See above. And referring to "as usual" - I am new here, and yet you write as if this is common or something. Listen PL, I can tell that you are up to something, and I am asking you kindly to please back up a bit and take a look at what you are trying to do with this subject matter. I can read, and so can others. I suggest again that balance, perspective, and insight is sought here. You are venturing into muddy waters here concerning your POV insertions that appear to come from your Karl Popper philosophy. This is not the subject to do this with and I suggest you take some time to revisit your intentions.Theo 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This includes the statement that nothing is known about his childhood. This not factual. Plenty is known and has been published about the childhood of Nostradamus and the major influences of his maternal & paternal grandparents in his early education. Theo 19:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, if you know of such accounts (contemporary ones, of course), name them! (Presumably you'll ignore that, too?) --PL 11:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: Not ignoring that or anything. Read Edgar Leoni's work, to start, again. And the work on Nostradamus by David Ovason. Have you read these extensive works?

Yes. In fact, in deference to your wishes, I have now included them in a new 'Further Reading' section at the end. I can't include them under 'Sources' for the article, though, because they weren't.

Also, your tone again is assumptive and rude and I ask you to please stop and work alongside me here. You continue to state I am ignoring you and your statements. I am not. I would deeply appreciate it if you would cease this line of interrogation for the sake of balance, and positive Misplaced Pages expansion on subject matter.

Balancing the facts with non-facts, you mean?

You obviously have taken a POV stance on Nostradamus that appears to want to restrict, re-direct toward POV, rather than enlighten the reader's mind with extensive information. Skeptical treatment can also be included as well, I welcome it, but the manner with which you are entering information by using this one source, while also ignoring many others - including the author himself, well, is suspect. I would suggest you please review your own intentions and work with Misplaced Pages NPOV - that is the best route. Thanks.Theo 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason why the 'Sources' section contains all the entries it does is because all of them were used, and not just Brind'Amour!

"Here we go again! Please state which of the books you are referring to, Th7, and which errors you are criticising. Dupebe, for example, contains no astrological information other than Nostradamus's, so how can your criticism possibly apply to him? Seven of the works cited are by Nostradamus himself, for heaven's sake! Please confirm which of the other sources you have actually read. None? --PL 11:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)".

PL, I just mentioned several sources in the above responses. Not written by Nostradamus. Does the last name of Ovason, or Leoni sound like Nostradamus? Have you read them? Edgar Leoni's work (1982 Bell Publishing) is quite extensive, and includes a very large bibliography of materials of commentators, and biography of Nostradamus. It contains very well- balanced materials, including all of Nostradamus' published work, his personal letters, and even his Will & Testament. Leoni also included very copious amounts of materials from critics, detractors, supporters, alike. Very well-researched and volumious.

Yes, a wonderful work. Hugely comprehensive. Unfortunately, though, it is now very dated. Leoni had never seen an original edition, and naturally none of the extensive subsequent research either. He also didn't claim to be a professional translator – which is why his fairly crude versions show it.

David Ovason's work from 1997 (Arrow Books), also has materials that are very extensive as well and sheds much light on Judicial Astrology and the Green Language used by Nostradamus.

• Yes, it's certainly half-decent, though no other reputable scholar seems to attach any significance to his 'green language' which, far from being 'used by Nostradamus', looks suspiciously like Ovason 'twisting Nostradamus's language to make it say what I want it to say'. He also mainly relies on the corrupt Dutch edition of 1668 (produced in response to the Great Fire of London, and so just a century too late!) for the texts on which he bases it, and has evidently never heard of the original edition of 1555 (in either copy).

 Also, I am not criticising "errors" but very narrow POV which is misplaced, considering the subject matter and body of material on the subject. I've placed several sources in bold for you and will add them to the material. However, PL, your responses back to me are not leading anywhere toward any kind of start of a decent discussion. It has been that way from the start with you. Why? You are shouting back in your replies (!) to me, and answering your own questions to me ("none?") before I can even answer. For instance, you mention Dupebe, I never mentioned him.

But you said 'the materials cited...have so many astrological errors, they cannot be taken seriously in any discussion of Nostradamus'. Dupebe was one of them -- as was Nostradamus himself!

This is not proper, nor helpful to the discussion. It appears to me that you have some kind of ulterior motives here; and I've tried several times to engage you in discussion, rather than heated debate. However, I am finding discussion is becoming very difficult with you. I suggest you at least read my part of the discussion as well, because I do read your comments. And, please, I kindly request that when you pose a question to me, that you allow me to answer it before you answer for me in the very next sentence. It would be nice to actually have a calm, decent discussion without the shouting (!), insinuations, assumptions, and mis-direction, etc. That would be very helpful to proceed in a positive fashion. Thanks.Theo 11:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Curiously, I seem to remember that I was not the one who started shouting in Bold here!!

I like to add some definite clarification to what is the public astrologer Nostradamus and what is the private and professional side of him not shown in public, but illustrated in his works, mainly Les Propheties. Why? Because it helps define the astrologer argument! Here, Astrology, used as the common application of citing time, place and date in order to calculate a chart, be it for whatever various forms there are – and there are many – judicial astrology is in a totally different genre and therefore these rules do not even apply. Why would someone care about this? Judicial Astrology JA as practiced by many, not all, and more or less not even correctly in many instances, during the renaissance period doesn’t show any regard to time, and for that matter – most often then not- not even the day, or even the week – but possibly neither the month, or greater – even up to the year desired. One can ascertain this knowledge by reading some rare contemporary books on the subject or authors who have studied the prognosticators of the Almanacs during the Northern Renaissance Period. I do not have my notes at hand, so I cannot cite sources, so I will be general here. Prognosticators, as in Nostradamus’s work we also see this process, used judicial astrology to predict future current events based upon ‘a loose’ set of rules. Why a loose set? - Because judicial astrology is a cyclic cultural phenomenon (ended close to the beginning of the 17th century and was even outlawed by some principalities), and not as the continuous standard practice of Astrology utilized throughout the centuries usually to read a persons future. Therefore JA was never codified. I will explain this further. Most of what we know about it comes from a small frame in history, meaning we know that it was used by the ancients, but extremely small amounts of evidence survives, and was used in antiquity of western classical periods, albeit still some sources survive today, but yet again, only by a handful of individuals; and furthermore, these forms brings up mind-numbing dilemmas, making it more esoteric and therefore non-mainstream indicating these are the reasons they were never codified to any amount of standardizations. Therefore this makes our research in understanding who and what Nostradamus was using or how he applies this JA in his magus opus grips us to understand he is certainly seen in a public persona, and a private persona. Judging him on one field alone, a titular called Nostradamus Astrology is not fair to him. To understand this further, we’ll look at what are these things and see what they are all about.

Judicial Astrology takes its form as a perpetual concept, as applied by the users in Europe during our time in question. It’s not practiced in general today. Definitely the information and knowledge about it survives, and some carry it on. However, long gone has its applications been a form of public enquiry. One cannot go to a normal astrology outlet and ask for a judicial astrology chart, least one knows what this is, which is doubtful. Therefore this form at the moment is unique. Why? Because there are not many places in the world that discuss this matter at the moment, and it is a sensitive topic, which brings into question how are we supposed to present these concepts to the world at large?

Why is this sensitive topic? First, judicial astrology bears the notion of predestination. Second, its application is not codified; meaning any discussion of it can get heated. Thirdly, its topic is frowned upon by the western world and we have to decide if it prudent to let this out in public. This form is not on the main page, and most enquiries will not look here for further information if one comes looking for a book report or personal project. However this should be deleted soon.

Judicial Astrology, unlike basic Astrology of physiological and psychological determinates in regards to predestination, is not the genre of western astrology or the common astrology genre. One can look to any website including Yahoo on its front page and ascertain links to some type informative outlet performing normative astrological inquiries. But with its disclaimer(s), most western astrology outlets tell the person that their life is open to choice i.e. free will. This is not the case in the practice of judicial astrology. A practitioner bases his choices on a predestined outcome in regards to mundane or religious events. The practitioners lives or dies, by their choice, so to speak.

However, another part of the argument is that not all the people of the earth consider western themes and thoughts to be concurrent with their own. For example, little known to the western world, mainly because it is not a standard-taught topic in elementary academia, is Islamic Cosmology. In Islam, there is no notion of free will. If there is, contemporarily that is, this is because of recent westernization has influenced a good portion of their tradition. In the Islamic tradition, predestination plays a heavy leading role to how Muslims understand politics, i.e. from the top down, to how they individually understand themselves, i.e. from the bottom up. These references to understanding these causes are easily deducible from reading contemporary literature of the two main Islamic civilization waves, i.e. the first, Umayyad & Abbasid, and the second, The Ottomans. This brings us to understand how people of the ‘whole world’ understand life? This does apply to our discussion so hold on for a moment. The Chinese’s first tradition and still their main tradition, doesn’t believe in God, but do believe in the afterlife, and with the adoption of Buddhist traditions believes in many types of predestinations as well as some forms of free will, that still work within the boundaries of predestination themselves. Physics easily can show how free will can operate within boundaries of predestination, but this is not the focus right now. What is the focus is that not everyone agrees with western knowledge of free will and we need to take this into consideration when we formulate a biography with such a sensitive issue. I do not feel right now I want to make that decision. I just want to discuss it in a less open form that is – right here. This brings us to the second part:

Judicial Astrology has many factors to the practitioner. Does the person use all the inner planets or just one? Or, for that matter, does the person use them at all? Is the person going to use the Sun, or the Moon, and what combination does the person use with the three outer planets known during our time frame? I personally have read Nostradamus speaking of usage of the three outer planets. However, I have not formed a definite position of Nostradamus’s unique, I might add, application. The point here is that these investigations into something that may not provide definitive knowledge can and will cause disagreements. Hopefully if all heated ones arise, one can take a step back and cool off and try to continue in a constructive manner, however difficult this will be – it is still possible.

If we come to a conclusion, do we break up Nostradmaus's public persona, his charts that miss corrections for localities and his privet application a more misunderstood possibly due to his more seriously minded concerns of predestinate - judicial astrology?

To conclude, that is concluding the second topic here, we have two different forms of astrology Nostradamus uses, and this should apply to all discussions of them. In his public charts, they are, in fact, just that – public. If he couldn’t correct for locality, then should one consider a question of – did he really care? In my opinion, in his correspondence he sounded like he couldn’t be bothered and this was a public persona, or today we can say a personal relations PR to his public, a type of duty either to make a little extra cash or to keep a persona out there in the public. Judicial Astrology cares less about the day, week or even the month. That is to say that if one cared about corrections of time then this is a mute argument being that it cannot be applied. Why would this be? First, the ones who concerned themselves about times on their JA charts did it in vain. A person looking back to the past to gage a time for a historic event’s exact time is almost impossible. Records were not kept that way. Usually the day, month or year is well enough for our studies. Secondly, JA is an ancient practice and there is not enough evidence to make a conclusive decision of its normative applications. Thirdly, in the renaissance these usages are not codified by any means, or agreed upon - this discussion going back to my investigation where I witness disagreements from competitor Almanac authors in our period in question. Finally, a general biography statement that Nostradamus was not an astrologer is not constructive to our argument. He clearly has a different set of criteria for his work in Les Propheties to that of his charts for clients and what not. In addition, Clients have a dilemma as well to understanding their exact birth times. Two minutes moves a chart’s position a great deal, and serious astrologers all understand these inconsistencies - meaning one cannot make a definitive chart by the time. Modern doctors have professed to look sometimes fifteen minuets later, or they guess, at their clocks after a baby is born and then take an educated guess to the exact time of birth – which is probably not the correct time. What this means is Nostradamus cared less about people’s times, especially during his day, when accurate time could not be taken for every birth. One may want to believe it happened all the time, that is correct recording, but more often than not, these were approximate times which skewed the chart anyway and a precise reading could never be concluded on these facts alone. A person saying he gave so-and-so the correct birth time is subjective in itself. Simply casting a correct chart on subjugated times mattered more to Nostradamus’s critics, but less mattered to Nostradamus himself. Does this disqualify him as an astrologer? He is probably laughing at the serious so-called ‘experts’ in his day.

Thirdly, Nostradamus's work doesn’t fare well with the western world. Predestination is frowned upon, and is in fact, in most places, an aggravated concept. Westerners do not like to be told that their lives are predestined. This brings up the most critical point here. As westerners, we tend to place our subjugated conditioning onto reality. In reality we do not control destiny, although we like to think so. Saying this, I’m explaining that predestination is everything in our realm we cannot control, i.e. earthquakes, floods, death, human actions other than ours. These are many things Nostradmaus talked about. This ties into many skeptical westerners not understanding their subjugate knowledge placing their conditioning into their decisions to always deny prophecy in general. Too many Orientals, this argument is a forgone conclusion, there is no discrepancies to accepting manifest destiny. It is simply part of their traditions. We should not make a value judgment on them. To them prophecy, dream interpretation, reincarnation and other forms are all normative life processes. A westerner, with the conditioning or ingrained traditional productions cannot definitely say “I know the facts or the truth.” The fact is we really do not know.

What we need to do is look at Nostradamus’s different forms of astrologies and apply them to his bio with care and caution taking in to account these two different belief systems. The public astrologers today shy away from making any predictive readings, which is opposite of our period in question. When Nostradmus read a chart, we do not know if he projected JA into readings of hooray or birth charts to make his opinions. So we cannot say for certain we know his process, as of yet. Which brings up the definitive argument? JA doesn’t care about times, corrected times or anything of the sort. Therefore, his critics apply judgment to a form of astrology he didn’t use in the works we are studying and this makes it more the necessity to add this specification into his biography to give the correct respect it deserves. Letting the world know that he didn’t make corrections for his locality, be it lazy or he didn’t know how, is subjective and not useful to his purpose. His life’s work is his magus opus, and not public cast charts which a rendering of this is meant to defame him or put him in a light that castes the hue to that the western argument dominates the eastern argument and predestination doesn’t exist. This is not productive.

I’m not here to become in evolved in polemics. Nor will I be here often. What I like to see is a constructive-productive application of these concepts which addresses them, as well as investigates them for future understanding about our world.

Next year I will study under one of the world’s leading authorities, a visiting professor, on medieval astrology and astronomy at one of the premier institutions. How far we will delve into astrological applications in the 15-16th century I do not know. However, I’m set to come back with some further knowledge of these applications and see if I can shed some light on our subject. However, it is the holidays and travel awaits and friends. -A

Excellent points, A , this is one of the things many of those who are confused by Nostradamus' quatrains have a problem with - judicial astrology. It is the key to understanding not only Nostradamus, but the prophecies themselves. For instance, in Judicial Astrology, a birth time is not always required because of the precept of casting charts for the day of birth, or for prediction. Sunrise charts are cast to reveal all the characteristics of the day in question - under the precepts of judicial astrological principles. Many of these precepts emerged from the times of Christ, detailing in his lectures to the apostles in the Pistis Sophia concerning astrological practice and how to read a horoscope with the changes to the aeons. These texts found their way to Greece, and then to the Islamic world where the precepts were refined. Sunrise charts, and charts for the rising & culmination of the Sun, or Electional Charts, are common in judicial astrology, and Nostradamus cast thousands of these charts to check his visions. He says this in his Preface to Cesar, where he has to certify the prediction in the daytime with astrological calculations. Anyhow, enjoyed your addition to the discussion. Hope to see you back here after Christmas. Enjoy the holidays!Theo 12:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your huge thesis on Judicial astrology, Theo (looks as if we'll be running out of space here again before long!). However, before we jump to too many general conclusions, perhaps we should simply look at precisely how Nostradamus understood the term? For a start, it would make sense to see what he actually says about it in his Preface. If you like, I'll list and analyse it for you here. I think you might find that the answer is 'very little'. However, there is rather more to be gleaned from his Almanachs and private correspondence, as well as from his major source Roussat, who goes into it in great detail. So perhaps you should read him before we go any further (see the relevant online Links)? There's no point in going into modern usage of the term if the 16th-century version was different (and it was, as even Ovason makes clear!). --PL 12:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Note re reverted 'PL' versions

Please note that, when a 'PL' version of the article is reverted (by me, at any rate!), this is not done in order to prevent normal, rational editing, but usually only to counteract the insertion of unsourced, clearly eccentric and/or purely apocryphal material which contravenes Misplaced Pages's clear rubric stating that articles 'must be based on verifiable sources'. In all other respects my contributions are, of course, no more sacrosanct that anybody else's. Consequently, should anybody's proposed edits inadvertently get 'lost' in the process, perhaps they would be kind enough to re-insert them after reversion and/or advise me accordingly? --PL 12:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I found this- http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page

Thanks! --PL 17:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Hi. I'm an uninvolved editor. Can someone explain to me why the NPOV tag is on the article? What exactly is the dispute? Thanks, Nandesuka 01:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please look into pre-archiving talk page at

Hi Nandesuka, Well, because of the constroversy surrounding Nostradamus, there are many people who dispute his ability to see into the future - although several of prophecies did in fact come true. Because of the many commentators who range from those who knew Nostradmaus, to those who lived closer to his era, and those later; his prophetic works are controversial to some who seem to have a deep interest in making sure that their point-of-view on this subject is heard. There are many commentators who can serve as sources, but some within that group are either detractors or rapid supporters who seem to have some kind of intense self-interest in proving their point of views. The NPOV tag comes from this argument - where POV is entered into the subject matter without even quoting the author himself. Or, the use of sources who show a particular "bent" of view. As a scholar of Nostradamus who stumbled onto this last week, I decided to enter some more information to balance out the subject matter in the hope of expanding the knowledge of this subject, rather than restricting it. It seems as if there are some on the Misplaced Pages pages who throw around the POV tag a lot, I hear, and claim vandalism; but when one looks at their entries, it appears that is exactly what is being done by the accusors. It is quite something to get used to. The editors must be busy on Misplaced Pages! As a writer & editor myself, one sure sign of POV to me is the restriction of information and denying the author a voice in the subject matter; while inserting biased POV to steer a reader away from learning as much as possible. Some people seem to believe that readers cannot think for themselves. I am not one of them though. I prefer to enter as much info as possible and let the reader be free. I think that is what Misplaced Pages is about. So, the NPOV tag is important for now; considering the attempts to restrict knowledge on this subject. Hope this helps. Theo 01:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but it's still a little vague. Can you give me a specific example of what you feel has been inappropriately removed? Nandesuka 04:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, materials from Les Propheties

None of which were ever quoted in the first place -- though they are now (see under Misquotes and Hoaxes)!

and sources relating to Nostradamus' childhood;

None of which exist, other than purely apocryphal accounts!

Response: This is not true. There are letters, biographical materials. I've read them myself in France. And scholars here in America have copies. Read Leoni, Ovason.Theo

methods of prophecy; and POV added counter to the author's own words on method.

That is subject to analysis and discussion!

Response: Yes, but you will not engage in discussion. This means discussion and not yelling (!)in text. Plenty of materials on this exist as well. I have several in my personal library. Others are widely published. Again, Leoni, Ovason, and many others.Theo

Clearly missing from the page are author's own statements on reasons for writing book of prophecies, and statements thereof;

Trouble is, the article's length is running up against the stoppers as it is, and such detailed material would be quite inappropriate to a mere encyclopedia article. How much of Shakespeare's plays does the article on him quote?!

Response: Perhaps if you remove your rather sick entry on Jews as "pigs" as translated in Spanish, from the materials, as I've done, only with you to replace it, there may be more room for the primary subject matter.Theo 13:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been adding sourcing for the materials considering the sources cited are quite POV and unbalanced.

Response: Clearly playing games. You have entered some rather dubious "sources", but I said, okay, let's add a few more, since you cited this need. Now, you are attempting to block serious sources that you disagree with? Nothing could be more POV than this. You also continue to not say anything about the works of Leoni, or Ovason. Not a word. I would like to hear how these sources are "unbalanced" and "quite POV". I'm listening.Theo 13:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a statement that can be verified only by reading them. Thus far you don't appear to have done so. As for Brind'Amour, perhaps you would indicate just which pages or chapters you object to? Otherwise we can't very well discuss them, can we?

Response: How can I get a discussion with you with your tone? Brind'Amour is one of MANY commentators on Nostradamus. Just one. That is not balanced by any means. I am surprised you would think so.Theo 13:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Skeptical material should be included, in my view, to add to balance; however, this treatment is placed quite high in the introduction (second paragraph.)

I disagree. Skeptical material is as bad as credulous material. The only material that should be included is factual material. And where have you been? That paragraph hasn't been there for some time.

Response: I am not entering very poor and POV material into the subject matter PL. I am quite shocked at what you are doing. It saddens me.Theo 13:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Reason I stumbled onto this was during my own research on any new materials out there. A researcher suggested Misplaced Pages to look for this. What I found was considerably less than I expected, but was shocked to find heavy POV directed language that leaves out well-known materials; on his childhood, background, and methods.Theo 11:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Which contemporary materials are you referring to? --PL 13:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: Pl, you know, I have had enough of your games. I do not like what you are doing and if anyone who spends the time carefully reading your responses on this Talk Page and on your entries on Nostradamus would be shocked at your behavior. I clearly am. You are acting in bad faith, and like some sort of a censor, and clearly continue not to enter into a positive discussion. I have named several sources on this Talk Page, and contemporary ones - both in the present time, and in the 16th century, and you continue to play these little games that I find silly and your responses demeaning considering the effort being put forth to discuss with you.

There exists plenty of very good skeptical material that is factual, but you know - you find them DL, because it sounds like you could use the work since you continue to waste my time on this subject matter. Perhaps you ought to stick with Popper, because, from your statements and entries on Nostradamus, you know very little about the subject from my view as an expert on him. Also, you continue to fill that subject page with all kinds of material that is at best, distant from the main Misplaced Pages subject: Nostradamus. Clearly, you are up to something. I feel since I am new to Misplaced Pages that I will leave it to a trained Misplaced Pages editor to take the time to read your entries because, in my view, as a Nostradamus scholar, I find what you are doing quite shocking. I also find your references to Jews in the body of the work bordering on racist concerning your translation of the Spanish word "Pig" in the text. What does that have to do with Nostradamus? Do you realize that children and students use this Misplaced Pages resource? I do not understand why you placed it there? Please, PL, refrain from sending me any more messages because I've done my best to try to communicate with you in an effort to work alongside one another, but you are doing something that I, frankly, do not want to be a part of. You could get in trouble, and I like Misplaced Pages, and support what they are doing. I want nothing at all to do with your insertions. I think it is shameful and wrong.Theo 13:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)