Greg Stanton
I guess the points I brought up, the questions I posed to Yag, won't be addressed. Oh well.
Why not ?Greg Stanton said:I guess the points I brought up, the questions I posed to Yag, won't be addressed. Oh well.
So the Tarot of Marseilles or earlier than Thoth decks do have not this cipher in them?Yygdrasilian said:Crowley presents the actual cipher. His "flaws" are there to be corrected. Other decks either present them corrected or scramble the cipher further.
Why 'for now'? There you go again being all cryptic. You are once again losing credibility. This is not some other type of forum where you and I can talk pseudo babble. Well you can. I do not want to.This is a can of worms. I will say Egypt, for now, as it seems the family tree branches out from there. Though the 2012 implication presents some strange possibilities.
It was you that provided the context with the announcement you had something to share. The rest is being patronising. You're not a theory Teacher- I have not chosen to be a pupil. Explain in clear language, without mystery your theory.We need to have a context for our discussion to progress.
Also, the process is as informative as the result.
That is like suggesting that should be a filter on the forum "for your eyes only" How can you possible gauge what my reasons for learning something are? It is only after telling me what you have to say- that you can judge whether I will mock you. So far all I have done is given you a request to explain what YOU posted. Stop judging my worthiness to know something- that is rude and makes you look like a cult idiot.I'd say you are getting warmer, but I'm not yet sure if you're only interested in learning just enough in order to mock it.
I've been considering your post and how best to answer. I will post a reply soon.
Here? No one who posts is like that. In fact if they have a theory that they are certain is right- they are not backward at coming forward. That is what a forum is like. If everyone just lurked and did not participate- there would be nothing to lurk about for. If by this spilling the beans that you are going on about will get you into a death squad sights- thank you very much for involving us here. Take that sort of nutter talk elsewhere. My method of delivery may run a little rough sometimes, but it serves a purpose....your last comment. Do not be so bloody patronising under some sort of obscurity hush hush language.Well, it seems there has been a lineage of people who have known about this and kept it secret on purpose. While I am under no such oath, I think I have an inkling why one exists. My choice to reveal it is not taken lightly.
My method of delivery may run a little rough sometimes, but it serves a purpose.
UH huh? really? gootcha? right? hmmmmm.....my children have probably already run it by me and nothing yet has been so knowledge enhancing that I feel the need to share it by secret signs with my friends here....but I will give you the benefit of the doubt for about two nano seconds more.Because it is a part of our heritage and will illuminate our understanding of a great many things.
only 1460 days to go. Happy New Year by the Way.The irony of this last statement may become clear to you soon.
I posted them yesterday, twice. Yag has since been on here, and he even quoted something from my post in another thread. He's answered (or sidestepped) some of Rosanne's points, yet he's completely ignored mine.gregory said:Why not ?
Greg Stanton said:I'm wondering if this thread even belongs under "historical research". It's more of a "talking tarot" thread, imho.
Oh please don't worry about it too much. I have it sorted now anyway. But I won't bother you with the answer.Yygdrasilian said:I am carefully considering all of your posts and will respond accordingly soon.