User talk:Sollogfan

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Sollog (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to User:Saxifrage/Userwatch#Sollog for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Successful Prophecy: Pope

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.paranormal/msg/1a40505ce703d497

This time stamped prophecy made by Sollog connects clearly to the death of the Pope. The prophecy is called the 902 Prophecy. Even the title of the prophecy connects to the death of the Pope because the Pope died on the 92nd day of the year (2nd April 2005). Apart from the number 902, the prophecy also mentions the number 169. This number was described in the prophecy as being the square of 13, the number of death. The date of 15th October was also mentioned in the prophecy as a date connecting to the Pope's death. The Pope died exactly 169 days after 10/15 of last year. So, the number 169 and the date given in the prophecy for the Pope's death both connect to the actual date of his death.

The number 13 is mentioned several times in the prophecy and is described as the number of death. The prophecy, which was released just a few days after the death of Princess Diana, also states the following :

"The GODDESS of the MOON from ancient Rome just died on the day of the 3 and 1, the 31st or reverse of the 13."

The Pope's death also connects to that of Diana's because the Pope died on the 31,000th day of his life. Yes, amazingly, he was 31,000 days old exactly when he died. So he also died on the day of the 3 and 1, or the reverse of the number of death, 13. Just like the example given in the 902 prophecy!

The prophecy also connects to some other very famous deaths too, including Ronald Reagan, the Pope of Satan (Anton Lavey), and the political death of Clinton. So the prophecy had already been partly fulfilled even before the Pope died. See below articles for more :

http://247news.net/2004/20040605-reagan.shtml

http://www.theeunderground.com/Features/features132lavey.shtml

Sollogfan 09:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing other people's user and user talk pages. Thank you. --MarkSweep 13:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting how people like Pomeroy and Kafir treat Mark Sweep with contempt. Sollogfan 11:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for extreme rudeness [1]. Even if you don't know n good faith what a sockpuppet is (in spite of the link...), you are supposed to know that you are expected to behave like a civilised person. Rama 13:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your blocking mechanism is working as I am sure Ashley is still posting. He didn't seem very rude to me either. Rather persistent though. The Number 14:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-party to to all the Pomery/Sidaway abuse I find it all rather odd - is this unpleasantness really necessary? Kiss and make up ? Brookie:the wind in the grass 18:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it wrong. Pomeroy persistently vandalised SFan's page. Sidaway then castigated Sollogfan for having the temerity to retaliate. Sollogfan has not learned yet that vandalism is allowed if you're a regular contributor elsewhere. In Islam there are two angels on your shoulders - one recording good things, one bad. Pomeroy's actions, I surmise, are that the good things he does outweigh the bad things - hence his untouchability by Sidaway and others The Number 18:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And the irony is, in the example above, [2] Sollogfan is banned for insulting himself, in a round-about way.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

According to Wikipedia:User page, "Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere." As per this policy, I have removed all personal attacks from this page. Gamaliel 07:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Just letting you know that I have filed a request for arbitration against you. --MarkSweep 09:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]