User talk:Sollog/Archive 8

What's Encyclopedic about Mr Ennis?
He fills this page with irrelevant gibberish for the express purpose of clogging it, rendering it unreadable (and more lately, provoking archiving events, which effectively "hide" productive discussion). -He then cries "censorship" in order to further distract the thread.

I strongly doubt whether Ennis has ever posted here so this isa baseless accusation. Where is your evidence - as you seem to think evidence is so improtant - for your accusation that Ennis posts here at all?

The Number 17:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, to summarize. After over a month...


 * There is still zero evidence of even one actual member of TOH.
 * There is zero evidence of any actual "fan" of Sollog.
 * It is widely accepted that John P. Ennis is Sollog
 * John P. Ennis has a history of sockpuppetry and impersonation on the USENET, Internet and "offline" extending back for years.
 * Ennis has been a prolific USENET spammer for many years.
 * There is evidence of only scant serious discussion of Sollog "prophecies" (which have been clearly shown to be a rather mundane form of cold reading and post-shadowing), but there are thousands of USENET and Internet forum posts ridiculing him.
 * There is overwhelming evidence Ennis mines random visitors to his Sollog site by diverting them to at least dozens of interlinked websites (most of which, in early January, seemed to be in or near the same rack in New Jersey) selling everything from used exotic cars (always by linked proxy to non-Ennis sites) to pictures of dead bodies (most of which can be seen elsewhere for free if one knows how to use a search engine).
 * His "music" contains no meaningful, polyphonic harmonic elements or structure, and there is no evidence it has ever been independently reviewed, much less distributed.
 * His "mathematical" commentaries have been shown to be either unremarkable, error-ridden restatements of long-published work, or plain nonsense.
 * There is no evidence any of his many books have ever been independently reviewed or published.

The only (even marginally) encyclopedic topic about John P. Ennis is his well-documented history of prolific spamming, impersonation and harassment. I do hope the article will eventually express this more clearly (and as briefly as possible). Wyss 03:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is zero evidence of any actual "fan" of Sollog.

Someone posted today saying they were a 'fan'.

Naturally their post was deleted.

The Number 17:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Fans from UK post but then get deleted. What proof is required? The Number 03:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Wyss, why be so harsh? You say: There is still zero evidence of even one actual member of TOH. Yes there is: Ennis/"Sollog". There is zero evidence of any actual "fan" of Sollog. Yes there is: Ennis/"Sollog". Also, you fail to acknowledge the artistic work of "Sollog".
 * As for the rest, though, I agree with you. Essentially, he's an energetic and vindictive bore. -- Hoary 04:18, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
 * :) I have serious doubts Ennis believes any of his own propaganda (even his claim to divinity is semantically hedged or fuzzed), which is why I hesitate to count him as a "member" or a "fan". I did forget to mention his scribblings of genetalia, along with his self-comparisons to Picasso which have gotten him laughed off at least one art forum (as in banned). Wyss 04:42, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, so it's far too late over here. Shoot me. There are only two ways I can see to express his notability properly:
 * Alright, I hereby vote for inclusion of this sentence: "The only (even marginally) encyclopedic topic about John P. Ennis is his well-documented history of prolific spamming, impersonation and harassment."
 * Delete the article. Hah, I think not. We didn't save it just to now conclude our work should be all in vain after all. Nominate it, if you will. I predict any such nomination will be easily shot down. And that's not because all our contributors are vile inclusionists.
 * Trim the article to the barest minimum, mentioning, in essence, only "his well-documented history of prolific spamming, impersonation and harassment". Sure. But what's he spamming about? How do we know he's impersonating? Who has he harassed and why? So let's expand the article... Hmmm.
 * An encyclopedia article can mention the notability of its topic directly only when that notability is independently established. The Beatles are clearly big, and you can find ample reason why. Sollog is clearly not big, but apart from newspapers dismissing him (which is in the article), nobody goes to lengths to establish absence of notability, for obvious reasons. Is Sollog of any importance to anyone but himself and the few people unfortunate enough to have run across him? No. Can we still afford to have an article on him that mentions everything known, in an accurate, neutral way, a way that, I point out, gives him not an ounce of credit more than he is due? Yes, of course. Could this article conceivably be reduced and merged with something else? I don't see how. Conclusion? Keep this article, remind everyone that Wiki is not paper, that you must be be bold in editing if you think that's what it takes, and that the only responsibilities you have here are the ones you assign to yourself &mdash; stay cool, and step away if the topic itself starts to repulse you. Finally, send a box of WikiLove to Wyss, and wish everyone a happy Wikipedia Day. And John, if you're listening? We have not been trolled. YHL. HAND. JRM 04:48, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
 * And with the crew of conscientious editors here, I doubt we will be. There are a few other cranks and inept cult leaders with articles on Wikipedia; Mantak Chia and Li Hongzhi for example. Ennis is seemingly of a piece with them spiritually, if not materially IMO. They actually have followers, after all. Perhaps we should have a crank or maybe a spammer template? Due to the distinct lack of meaningful support for Ennis or his idiosyncratic temple, and being increasingly persuaded that he harasses just to garner more deathporn hits, if the Sollog article were to go back on VfD at this point I'd vote to delete it. Fire Star 05:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Readers might take a look at those two examples to see how short they are. I wouldn't mind seeing the article deleted entirely, but given the unlikelyhood of that, I think it could do with an assertive trimming down to a mention of his spamming of unremarkable post-shadowed content which links to his many web mining sites, along with some brief reference to his long history of impersonation. I see no reason to mention his "other" activities at all, since he's plainly not known or recognized by anyone but himself as an author, musician, artist, mathematician, religious leader [sic] or whatever. Wyss 05:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of revisiting the last issue Wyss brought up. We discussed this point before (someone in the art business weighed in, remember?) and I thought there may have been an emerging consensus that the labels musician, artist, etc. should be removed.  How about changing the first paragraph to "John Patrick Ennis (born July 14, 1960), also known as Sollog, is an American numerologist, mystic, psychic, and self-published author.", removing the bit about "self-described artist, musician, poet, and filmmaker"? --MarkSweep 06:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * For me, a partial trimming would be much more misleading, since it would only lend added credibility to the remaining labels. numerologist, mystic, psychic, self-published author, self-described artist, musician, poet, and filmmaker is rather self-explanatory as it is, don't you think? In my opinion, these unfounded claims should be removed entirely as unencyclopedic, or left as they are. Wyss 06:20, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Given that we're going to have the article at all, it should be as informative as possible. That means including every verifiable fact that is either "actionable" or "interesting".  Just because he isn't known for his music doesn't mean it isn't an interesting fact about him.  dbenbenn | talk 06:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, so let's re-open this debate. Is it fair to say Sollog is an artist?  There is no evidence that his art has ever been exhibited by a reputable gallery, or that professional art dealers, journalists, or critics are even aware of his existence.  So it would be misleading to call him an "artist", and we don't call him that.  We do call him a "self-described artist", but now the question is, how is that notable or actionable?  An argument for it being actionable could be made by noting that his works of art are for sale on his website.  On the other hand, many other things are offered on his website(s), and cataloging these different kinds of items is not our job.  As for notability, Sollog's notoriety does not derive from his artistic output.  At least not unless you consider his entire act a piece of performance art. --MarkSweep 07:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The two criteria at Informative are interesting and actionable. That's the whole point.  I agree that Ennis' art is not at all notable, but I personally find it interesting.  In particular, his "artistic" antics are one way in which he is "distinguished" (see the last paragraph of Informative) from other people.  dbenbenn | talk 18:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * ...and taken together, the "actionability" of all his potential roles (represented by the myriad of things and services he at least offers to sell on his many sites) adds up to almost random noise, which describes him rather well: Objectively, John P. Ennis is a noisemaker, a spammer, an impersonator. The evidence does indicate he impersonates a religious leader, a psychic, an artist, a musician, a mathematician... even his role as a deathporn merchant is a sort of impersonation. None of that particular "product range" seems unique or acquired professionally, but more likely nicked from other websites over the years. Whether or not this noise is encyclopedic I suppose depends on how much it has influenced the surrounding culture. Wyss 07:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I AM A FAN HOW OFTEN MUST I SHOUT THIS AND WHAT PROOF DO YOU WANT? Sollogfan 09:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "Sollogfan", you are indeed the username of somebody who likes to proclaim that he or she is a fan of Sollog. But I don't see any more reason to believe you really are a fan than to believe that, say, the self-proclaimed members of the extremely tiresome so-called Gay Nigger Association of America are, well, gay niggers. Also, I note that all your "contributions" to WP are Sollog-related, suggesting to me that you are less than three dimensional. But perhaps you have a point, and the article should say something like "Sollog appears to have one fan (whose predilection for CAPITALS when agitated suggests that he may be Sollog himself)." -- Hoary 13:45, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Comments pertaining to the article
Note: JohnyDog moved the following comments made by The Number to the top section here at 18:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC). (Thanks!)

Sollog/Ennis's name in legal proceedings
Sollog/Ennis was charged under the name 'God' in court. The Number 17:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[See] [t]he article: The Number 17:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it's not at all clear from the article what name or names were actually used in court. The definitive source would be the court documents, but people here have tried and failed to locate them. --MarkSweep 18:29, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog/Ennis's current residence
OK: The Number 19:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be nice, number, if you could indent your comments with a * or : at the start of any response, so that conversation can be better followed... But, I don't really think that I post on Yahoo groups is the most reliable of sources known. - Estel (talk) 20:07, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * But it isn't 'just a post'. It's the Founder of the Group quoting from an email from Sollog/NE etc. That's a big difference. It is also supported by a post from 'Legal' on another group at another time. The Number 21:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"In case you haven't heard, Sollog is a recluse that lives in South America. There's three people that run a company Sollog is an owner in. " Source: See posts by 'Legal'. The Number 19:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Please do not add original comments to the top section. - JohnyDog 21:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Link to Guardian article
Thanks to The Number for adding the link to the Guardian article. That is a useful reference from a verifiable source. Now we're getting somewhere. --MarkSweep 18:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have put this reference twice before The Number 19:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It would have helped if you had structured this more clearly. The way things were going before, the signal-to-noise ratio was low and useful information got lost.  All the more reason to keep the talk page tidy and on topic. --MarkSweep 19:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * But it isn't 'just a post'. It's the Founder of the Group quoting from an email from Sollog/NE etc. That's a big difference. It is also supported by a post from 'Legal' on another group at another time. The Number 21:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The tone of that brief mention is totally dismissive, and uses the adjective outlandish. Wyss 21:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interview
Mind you I can see why some automatically assume Sollog posts here under an asumed name...but not UK surely? Here is a link that you'd claim I assume, is Sollog talking to himself. Others say he is being interviewed by someone else thus proving Sollog is not, for example, DE Alexander:

Sollog interview with Alexander that city paper claims is Sollog 

Real Audio of Alexander and Sollog interview proving the city paper lied 

The Number 19:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before. The audio file doesn't prove anything, certainly not that the city paper lied.  It's an edited interview provided by an Adoni web site.  It's possible, even likely, that this is just one person talking to himself, thanks to voice modulation. --MarkSweep 21:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As previously discussed, he probably used something called a harmonizer (which can change the pitch of something in a recording). These can be had in lots of audio software programs. It's obvious because the pitch of the background noise is raised along with the voice, then drops again when the other cuts back in. Also, the two characters seem to talk with the exact same regional accent and vowel sounds, with none of the slight variations one would hear even between two people from the same neighbourhood. Wyss 21:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I should add, Howard Altman reported that Ennis once impersonated D.E. Alexander in a telephone call. Wyss 03:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog's supporters
On the articles page it is suggested that Sollog has no supporters. I would suggest that 'supporters' includes people that agree he has predictive powers but may well disagree about his abilities as a translator of Nostradamus.

Assuming you agree then i would suggest that the Romanian writer Ionescu is a supporter. Here's why:

From the International Centres for Nostradamus Studies Ionescu writes:

"I fully respect Mr. Sollog for his talent in predicting and divination power, but I don't understand his wish to be a Nostradamian exegete too"

This seems to be to be support for predicting but not for translating. A supporter does not have to support everything about him. I 'support' Manchester United - but I don't support Roy Keane. The Number 00:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC))


 * Hmmm. From the article, it seems he's not a supporter at all.


 * it plainly states he condemns Ennis for his translating abilities but respects his powers of divination.

81.86.68.162 11:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * But Mr. Sollog ignores what even a beginner knows: that Nostradamus very often changes the form of a word in order to suggest new meanings. Some of the most frequent of his figures are: Apheresis (reducing the beginning of the word), Apocope (reducing the termination), Syncope (missing from the middle of a word) Epenthesis (intercalation of one of more letters). And what about the Metaplasme, by which two words are melted together to form a single one? Ex.: "Mont Gaulsier" (a mount in Provence) suggest the combination "Montgolfier", the name of the inventors of the hot air balloon ("la montgolfière"). Here is a word completely invented by metaplasme: NORNEIGRE, which hides: NORIcum + monteNEGRO = NORNEIGRO.


 * In my work of 1976, I presented not only the 19 figures of occultation studied by Le Pelletier, but many others discovered by me, including the "cabala hermetica" (the secret language of the alchemists), never used by my predecessors, but which allowed me to find many solutions (not interpretations!), even for the future events.


 * To say, as Mr. Sollog did, that, if a term from the quatrains doesn't exist in the dictionary, this means that we have a "typo", is not only a mistake, but it proves an inexcusable ignorance in the field of Nostradamian exegesis.
 * He doesn't know that Nostradamian exegesis for obtaining solution, not only interpretations, is like the geometry of Euclid. You have to find first the solution of every enigma, figure of speech, analyzing thoroughly every word, and secondly, to see how each of them responds to the unity of intention which underlie the text, considering that the Prophet himself stated that each of his quatrains has only one "intelligence" or meaning and is intended to only one event or a couple of well connected events.
 * He doesn't know that Nostradamian exegesis for obtaining solution, not only interpretations, is like the geometry of Euclid. You have to find first the solution of every enigma, figure of speech, analyzing thoroughly every word, and secondly, to see how each of them responds to the unity of intention which underlie the text, considering that the Prophet himself stated that each of his quatrains has only one "intelligence" or meaning and is intended to only one event or a couple of well connected events.
 * He doesn't know that Nostradamian exegesis for obtaining solution, not only interpretations, is like the geometry of Euclid. You have to find first the solution of every enigma, figure of speech, analyzing thoroughly every word, and secondly, to see how each of them responds to the unity of intention which underlie the text, considering that the Prophet himself stated that each of his quatrains has only one "intelligence" or meaning and is intended to only one event or a couple of well connected events.
 * He doesn't know that Nostradamian exegesis for obtaining solution, not only interpretations, is like the geometry of Euclid. You have to find first the solution of every enigma, figure of speech, analyzing thoroughly every word, and secondly, to see how each of them responds to the unity of intention which underlie the text, considering that the Prophet himself stated that each of his quatrains has only one "intelligence" or meaning and is intended to only one event or a couple of well connected events.


 * Then near the bottom (after lots of criticism of Sollog), we get:


 * My opinion is that Mr. Sollog could be a very good psychic, like Edgar Cayce. There have been thousand in history. In Romania, from where I recently came, there are two of the most outstanding kind. But all the Psychics or clairvoyants have nothing in common with the prophetic phenomenon.


 * That's right. He could be a very good psychic. He doesn't say he thinks he is. I do not find this to be support for Sollog. In fact I find it to be quite the reverse. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like polite ridicule to me... Wyss 05:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog attack on Wikipedia at h2g2
I've just noticed that, last December, Sollog (or, conceivably, one of his alleged followers) posted his standard anti-Wikipedia screed as an h2g2 entry:. I posted a response with a brief summary of his Wikipedia history. The same hootooite (h2g2 Researcher), NDC777, has also written entries on Sollog's prophecies, the Temple of 'Hayah, and "How Society Is Destroying Itself". You can see the up-to-date list here. h2g2 is not a wiki; you can't edit any of these entries. JamesMLane 01:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Back on Track
Of late I have been reading through this forum, here. It's on a website where people trade domain names, and makes for fascinating reading; the post by 'Namedropper' towards the bottom (search for 'imposter') neatly encapsulates Ennis' method, particularly in the final paragraph. It would appear that Ennis fancies himself as a domain name broker, and has registered lots and lots of them primarily for the purposes of selling them, such as www.g-0-d.com, although that seems to have fallen into disuse. There is also mention of credit card fraud seven posts down. Tangentally, I have acquired a copy of 'Jesus is Not God', which reveals amongst other things that, in 1995, Ennis wrote everything in CAPITAL LETTERS, although it does not explain why. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If you look at www.whatshotin.com and look at Ennis's original screed about LOTR etc etc you'll see he always wrote in capitals. The original Creator Formula was in Capitals. The Number 17:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Your apparent familiarity with all things Ennis is very impressive! Have you ever met him? Wyss 02:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I can safely say that I am more familiar with Ennis/Sollog than any other contributor here - including Cardinal Chunder. I have not personally 'met him' as in 'seen him face to face'. I am in the UK and I 'don't think' Sollog has ever been to the UK. The Number 03:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Going on the theory that Ennis is just a domain name broker, I will not visit 'whatshotin', as he presumably uses hit counts as a means of adding value to his stock of domains. Perhaps that's his entire methodology, and the 'prophecies' and porn are just attempts to build up hits to his website for the sole purpose of selling the domain names, in which case he reminds me somewhat of Hans Gruber from Die Hard, using a dramatic fake crime to hide a simpler, more mundane crime. This would explain a great deal of Ennis' behaviour. The url in question also begs the reply, 'what shot in what?' -Ashley Pomeroy 22:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * How much did you have to pay to acquire JiNG? dbenbenn | talk 13:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a single one of our British pence; as per the convulted terms of international copyright law I downloaded it via the ever-excellent Emule, strictly for the purposes of research and review. The fact that it was available suggests that at least one person has actually bought a Sollog e-book, albeit that (a) on a network which contains several songs by the ultra-obscure DJ Hellshit, 'Sollog' returns one hit and (b) one of the two people sharing it might have actually have been Ennis himself. There is a sample copy here, as a PDF, on its own dedicated website -Ashley Pomeroy 14:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have skimmed through 'Jesus is Not God'. On Ennis' criminal record, he states that the policeman he crippled was in fact a liar, and that "as soon as the cop was caught in his lie we rested our case, yet the jury which was filled with minorities convicted the rich white boy who condemned them all for being on a jury since their lord Lucifer had told them Christians should not Judge anyone".

The actual book is only 18,000 words long; there is as much again made up of poems and screeds of the 'you ignored me / now you will pay' variety, and articles about him. Throughout, he mis-spells 'Der Spiegel'. On economic matters he predicts disaster for "THE TRIANGLE CONTINENT OF THE RED PEOPLE", which by a process of elimination must be India. I don't think that Sollog is virulently racist; I just get the impression he hasn't met many non-white people, or indeed (pause) people.

The impression I receive is of an extraordinarily narcissistic chap who would benefit greatly from spending time in prison and/or in the army, or indeed anywhere where he is forced to interact with other people on a personal level. I cannot believe this man has any regular contact, social or otherwise, with other human beings at all. Given that he once drove and owned a car - which must at least have required personal contact with the man selling the car - it is possible that he was once relatively normal, and that he has deteriorated.

I couldn't find any interesting quotes, although "I personally told the Secret Service that I came to terminate Jesus Christ in 1995" is quite good. Most of the book's content is padding, available in the sample posted above. The few 'prophecies' are, as noted elsewhere, only decipherable after the event which they supposedly predict. The numerology attempts to divine universal, universal truths by manipulating the values of the Earth's circumference in miles, ignoring the fact that miles are entirely arbitrary, human-created dimensions. I know that the British Empire is undergoing a mild cultural rehabilitation, but I don't think even David Irving has yet argued that God himself designed the universe with Imperial measurements and/or 2'6" gauge railways.

Elsewhere he argues that the United States of America is a lot less safe now than it was before 1995 on account of the threat from nuclear terrorism, totally forgetting the entire Cold War; an impressive feat for a man approaching fifty years old. Sollog's style is considerably cruder and less persuasive than Gene Ray's Time Cube stuff; and whereas Ray's philosophy seems cheerfully zany, Ennis' worldview is filled with resentment, egoism and hatred. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to comment on Ashley's Enni's social liaisons thoughts. Ennis is, according to his own website, married - his wife Nikkee, whom he refers to as a Goddess of Victory, has been a subject of a dedicated (same abstract style) musical piece. So, if he was married, he would have most certainly been more socially active than dealing with a car reseller. (from 193.217.123.180)


 * That's a big if; and Fred West was married, too. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Your point being...? Oh, yes, you are suggesting Sollog is a mass murderer and that Nikkei (Mary) has sex and tapes it for Sollog (Fred) to watch? The Number 21:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sollog and Nostradamus
The TOH (Temple of Hayah) claims to have made a movie that proves the  1568 Edition of Nostradamus is a fake. This is something that, presumably, can be checked and authenticated, or not. TOH is run by Ennis/Sollog. Adoni Films is run by Ennis/Sollog. The author of the film is Ennis/Sollog.

Therefore there are three possibilities:

a. it is a fake for several reasons and no-one has previously pointed this out. I tend to agree with this view. b. it is a fake but this has already been proven c. it is not a fake

The Number 02:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As fascinating as the logical puzzle you present is, The Number, Wikipedia does not do original research and the question of which of (a), (b), or (c) is the case is of no relevance to this article. Removing the logic puzzle from consideration, the only thing that remains is that Sollog/TOH has made a movie about a book about Nostradamus. As this fact isn't particularly notable, it's probably sufficiently covered by the lines "self-described... filmmaker" and "[h]is ebooks explore a number of paranormal themes, including... Nostradamus". Perhaps "ebooks" could be changed to "publicatons" if it doesn't sufficiently cover films. Perhaps the only thing that could be added to the article is something about how Sollog self-identifies as a Nostradamus scholar, but if that's all there is to the point you're making, go ahead and add it to the article somewhere appropriate yourself. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 03:20, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

CASE
Are the capital letters on the top of the main article necessary? They look to me to be quite messy, and notably unencyclopedia. It is the fact that there are capitals that attracts the readers attention on immediately opening this page. Can it not just be noted that the phrase was CAPS? - Estel (talk) 22:27, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * The capitals ARE necessary as they are all part of the Sollog code. He has been writing in code since 1995. The capitals appear in all prophecies and are just indicative of the layers of meaning of his work. The Number 03:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * In code? Ah -- so it just looks like bull, but actually it makes sense when you crack the code. Suggestion: Ennis should cut the code mumbo-jumbo and just say clearly what kind of disaster (he seems fond of these) will occur when. If we're impressed, we (well, some of us, and probably not me) become "fans of Sollog" and thereby work up some kind of appetite for decoding the layers of coprolite encasing his Wisdom. Till then, let's just take ramblings as ramblings. -- Hoary 06:20, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

We now read:


 * An alternative explanation, as set out in his eBook Jesus is Not God, is that "L LOGOS OR THE WORD OF GOD IN GREEK IS A GREEK PI OR WORD JUMBLE OF THE WORD SOLLOG! SOLLOG IS A HIDDEN NAME THAT MEANS THE WORD OF GOD!". For reasons so far unexplained, during 1995 Sollog communicated exclusively in upper case.

Maybe he thought he'd sound more impressive that way. And maybe a bit later it dawned even on Ennis that ALL CAPS makes you come off looking like a Nigerian soi-disant widow, etc.

An eminent scholar of my acquaintance always uses Times New Roman. Maybe he admires the slightly earlier typography of The Times; maybe the large number of graphemes in the Windoze edition is useful for him; maybe TNR is how his word processing software came set up and nothing about it irritates him to the point where he wants to change it. He never comments on it; I've never asked him: there are more important things to discuss. If I quoted him in Wikipedia, I wouldn't slap in  or similar. Should I?

Ennis aside, who the hell cares about his OrtHOgrAPHy? This is just Sollogcruft. -- Hoary 03:32, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)


 * Agreed&mdash;the orthography is independent of the content. It looks butt-ugly and should put in sentence-caps. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 03:44, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep it all caps, that's how it was written, and it provides insight into the character of its author. Wyss 03:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's still butt-ugly and hard to read. Would parenthetically mentioning that the quote has been sentence-capped from all-caps be enough? I think that would actually make a more pointed statement of character than simply leaving it in all-caps would. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 03:52, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think leaving it in all caps is more pointed and more accurate. Wyss 03:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So if I were to quote this acquaintance of mine (all of whose books are set in Times New Roman, or something pretty close to it) in Wikipedia, I should do so in Times New Roman? Or do we only pay such a degree of attention to the writings of self-styled religious leaders? Yes, quoting Ennis' FULL CAPS makes it slightly more obvious that he -- how should I put this NPoVly? -- has a certain kind of personality, but readers will get a bellyful of other evidence for this elsewhere in the article. I propose that his purported prognostications (etc.) should stand or fall on their accuracy and precision, not on their orthography. -- Hoary 04:21, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)


 * Capitalisation and punctuation transcend typefaces. Anyway what objective method could you use to convert to lower case letters? Where exactly do we draw the line at editing the capitalisation of quotes from an articles subject? :) Wyss 05:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * My objective method would be to limit caps to the start of sentences, names, individual letters, etc. Thus "L logos or the word of god in Greek is a Greek pi or word jumble of the word Sollog! Sollog is a hidden name that means the word of god". But I wouldn't object to "L Logos or the word of God in Greek is a Greek PI or word jumble of the word Sollog! Sollog is a hidden name that means the word of God" or similar. Hard to be really sure, because (as so often in the oeuvre of "Sollog") it doesn't make much sense -- which is another good reason to cut the whole thing. -- Hoary 06:13, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

About the capitalization: note it's the same situation as the 911 quote given later in the article, which was changed to lowercase.

Frankly, I feel the quote should be removed. It basically says that "Sollog" comes from "Logos", but that fact is already covered in the previous sentence. The bit about communicating exclusively in upper case is kind of snide; whereas NPOV requires a "positive, sympathetic tone".

Anyway, if the quote is to stay in, we need 1) an entry in the References section, and 2) a page number citation.

dbenbenn | talk 02:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Removing the caps is an improvement. Mentioning Ennis' graphic idiosyncrasy is fine, but reproducing it was mildly off-putting. Whether someone is or isn't Ennis is immaterial, what is ultimately material (and actionable by an admin) is their interpersonal style. I'm satisfied that following Gamaliel's lead with The Number will take care of things with a minimum of fuss. Fire Star 05:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ashley, we still need a PAGE NUMBER for the QUOTE from SOLLOG. I'd do it, but it doesn't APPEAR in the SAMPLE you provided. dbenbenn | talk 21:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry 'bout that. I've put in a citation, with a page number, although it's an eBook and thus each page is only about 250 words long. I'll tone down the bit about him communicating in upper case; Ennis actually says "In 1995 I wrote almost everything I created in all capital letters. It was an intentional style I used that year. In later years I often used capital words as a hidden code within some of my prophetic warnings. If one connects the capital words in many of my later prophecies, the hidden meaning of some of my writings is then very clear to the reader. I have not changed the uppercase appearance of these writings. So hopefully, you won't find the usage of all capitals too annoying". -Ashley Pomeroy 21:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, that bit sounds interesting. It would be a good tidbit in a "Writings" subsection of "Activities".  dbenbenn | talk 22:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Editing and Zapping
Please feel free to edit my comments as you wish (including this section)! I understand the urge to do it, and accomplished what I wanted. Thanks all for your patience with me, it is truly appreciated. Wyss 05:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The same goes if anyone would like to to delete my "debates" with The Number. He wasn't listening, and the rest of you seem to post and edit conscientiously as a matter of course. Fire Star 05:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the meta-talk here (comments on the handling of comments on the article), but I was surprised by Ashley Pomeroy's snipping of a largish chunk of comments (which I have just reinstated). In general, comments added to talk pages stay, don't they? If comments are blatantly irrelevant, offensive or asinine, yes, go ahead and zap them, but if they're mildly irritating they should surely stay. And being rendered obsolete by changes to the article is, also, I think, no reason to delete them -- they show why the article is the way it is. However, even I can't get too worked up about AP's change. Some of the comments (certainly including some of mine) are certainly longwinded. -- Hoary 10:50, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that; no malice intended. I was looking over the edit history, which seems to have had a lot of trimming recently, and the red mist descended etc. For the record I removed the 'CASE' section, which could perhaps be replaced with "Although many of SOLLOG's pronouncements are in upper case, the article should quote them in sentence case for the sake of readability" - is there a Wikipedia 'quoting style' guideline somewhere? I also removed the the 'Nostradamus' section, which seemed to be a pointless argument, and what appeared to be some unfortunate 'The Number'-baiting. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

''Some of the material above was later cut by Sollogfan, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASollog&amp;diff=12035792&amp;oldid=12030882 this unexplained edit] (with no edit summary).''


 * Well said. And as I reread or anyway re-skim-through the stuff you cut, it strikes me as boring indeed and inherently cut-worthy. Meanwhile, I like your summary of the Work of Sollog that you perused. -- Hoary 14:02, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)


 * You must remember that each new discovery Ashley makes is heralded by hyenas whereas in fact if he bothered to look more carefully at what Sollog(ites) say and do then a lot of his half baked opinions would flounder. The Number 21:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Psychic or self-proclaimed psychic?
I re-added the "self-proclaimed" qualifier before "psychic". Compare Uri Geller ("alleged" psychic) and Miss Cleo ("self-proclaimed" psychic). Dictionary.com says a psychic is someone "apparently responsive to psychic forces". Sollog's "responsiveness" is not apparent; hence self-proclaimed. dbenbenn | talk 22:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, many people do not think psychics exist, therefor any claims of someone being psychic need to be qualified. --fvw *  22:13, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * Eh? If you'd said "Many people actually think psychics exist, and therefore any claims of someone being psychic need to be qualified", I'd understand. As it is, I'm lost. (Just a typo perhaps?) -- Hoary 02:42, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
 * I agree too. There's nothing special about the term "psychic" that makes it evident to all our potential readers that it's guff. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 22:22, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, no argument from me. I'd have thought that otherwise sane people would realize by now that ESP etc etc doesn't exist, and thus that a "psychic" is either deluded or a charlatan. But yet the newspapers tell me that thousands -- for all I know, tens of millions in the US -- subscribe to "creationism" and all sorts of bizarre notions. So yes, maybe it all has to be spelled out for the public. -- Hoary 02:42, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
 * I find it rather sad, that one cannot assume the term "psychic" (or even "creationist") conveys the idea charlatan or superstitious to almost all the readers of any encyclopedia. Wyss 16:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if you don't believe in psychics, the point is that the word psychic means someone who can sense things supernaturally. By calling him that, the article claims these people exist. Just as if Mama Cass had claimed to be an invisible pink elephant, we would write that she claimed to be an invisible pink elephant, not that she was one, even though anyone can logically deduce invisible pink elephants cannot exist. --fvw *  17:15, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. I removed it because there was already two self- in the introduction. So I thought that removing one in front of psychic did not alter the meaning that much, for the reason that most of them are self-proclaimed anyway. One has yet to discover a real one! Glaurung 14:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Scholar"
One thing we haven't mentioned in Sollog's laundry-list of professions is his self-description of being a Biblical and Nostradamus scholar and translator. The mention of Nostradamus and Bible codes as topics of his writing in the Activities section gets at that very tangentially, but it doesn't explicitly state that he has (seemingly) put a lot of effort into claiming his expertise in these areas. Does it deserve a short sentence in Activities? &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 22:20, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * A lot of effort into acquiring expertise? Or just a lot of effort into claiming expertise? The article already makes it pretty clear that he's a tireless self-publicist and attention-seeker, and that his expertise in anything is minimal. -- Hoary 02:47, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that Sollog/Ennis is a Nostradamus "scholar" (although his sockpuppets would certainly disagree). Ennis is a spammer, who, like many others, vastly misquotes and invents freely from the allegorical poetry of a medieval French physician. Wyss 03:48, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * My consideration is whether a significant activity of Sollog is claiming to be/masquerading as a Nostradamus scholar, not that he is one. The evidence so far seems to indicate that he is worse than a neophyte when it comes to interpreting Nostradamus, but that he has gone to considerable lengths to stake a claim, no matter that it's illegitimate, to expertise might be worth mentioning. I'm sure the people at alt.nostradamus (or whatever the newsgroups actually is) would appreciate a sentence for the grief he's caused there. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 21:50, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

"music composed by him"
We read of "CDs of music composed by him". Didn't someone say earlier that it sounded like generic porn-video muzak, or anyway the aural equivalent of clip-art? (Never having heard any music allegedly composed by him, let alone having watched any porn videos, of course, I can't start to judge.) -- Hoary 02:53, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)


 * Look, I don't wanna seem like a polarized Sollag/Ennis-basher, but his "music" is nothing but endlessly cycled, single "riffs" played rather ham-handedly on a keyboard with no polyphony, no harmony, no musical structure, no fluidity. I've posted this URL before... http://www.sollog.com/music/ ...one can download two MP3 files and hear for oneself. Calling it "generic porn-video muzak" is amazingly generous IMHO. Wyss 03:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Sollog/Ennis as a minimalist composer? Nah. --MarkSweep 18:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've downloaded it, and listened to it. To even call it 'muzak' is IMNSHO extremly generous. The very idea of listening to a CD full of it makes me want to hide in a corner with my hands over my ears.
 * Then you won't want to miss the music video of 'Nikkee'. It's a interminable montage of NASA stock footage that I'll Bet Sollog thinks is profound. http://www.1adoni.com/trailers/nikkee.rm APL 02:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * However, fair is fair, it's actually not painfull to listen to. In some ways, it reminds me of a child just learning to play the kayboard. WegianWarrior 08:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * These reactions by WP users, along with no evidence of CD sales or distribution, or any shows, or any other musical background. If his "musical" activities (or claims) are encyclopedic enough to be mentioned in the article, how might they be characterized? Wyss 22:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe a nice big sales chart in a sidebar, with colourful bar graphs for the official sales figures of his works in each of the categories "books", "music", "films", etc. Of course, the colourful-ness of the graph would be completely lost, since each bar would be riding flush with the bottom of the chart.
 * Or maybe we can just say that no evidence of a sale of any of his works has been found. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 22:29, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sollog's Superbowl prediction
Hey, has anyone seen Sollog's Superbowl prediction for this year? DJ Clayworth 04:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The Number posted a superbowl prediction, but he didn't deign to say where it came from or what year it was supposed to predict. I rather suspect that it was this year's prediction, if this is any indication. It's in the history (I don't think it got archived) if you really want to look it up and google for it. If you can't find it online, perhaps we can ask The Number to divulge his priviledge source. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 06:02, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sollog's Super Bowl 39 Prediction - i tried to replace that TheNumber's post with this google link but Saxifrage was faster with deleting :) - JohnyDog 10:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Could be worth including as he predicted that the Steelers would make it past the Pats. Dead wrong!  Any moron could see the Pats are going all the way again. hfool/Roast me 03:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * yes you should include it as it will be proof that what Sollog says is right. You'll be able to learn at first hand that his prophecies are correct. I am not talking about anyone's interpretation as that may be wrong but after the event you will see very clearly how it was correct. Sollogfan 13:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. If the obvious reading of the "prediction" is not fulfilled, Sollog will issue an alternative interpretation. Notice how only Sollog can interpret his predictions, and everyone else's interpretation may be wrong. Sounds to me like Sollog talking to himself, or perhaps the world's smallest in-joke. --MarkSweep 15:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I see sweep can tell the future - or thinks he can. The honest and ethical approach would be to wait and see the result and when Sollog explains it, then you might realise how accurate it was. Do you think others can interpret Nostradamus's prophecies better than he? Of course not - and so it is with Sollog.Sollogfan 11:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's only a prediction if it predicts stuff. If one can't tell what is being predicted, it's entirely useless.  Which is the whole point of the Randi challenge: it has to be patently clear to an untrained observer what the prediction is and how to tell whether it has been fulfilled.  The honest and ethical approach would be for Sollog to spell out exactly what is being predicted beforehand, and to see if the predictions are borne out by real events without further comment. --MarkSweep 17:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Some might say it's unethical to assert psychic or "prophetic" abilities when the overwhelming evidence shows these to be misleading labels for cold reading and post-shadowing. Readers may wish to consider that if Sollog really could predict the outcome of sporting events, Sollogfan might be too busy making money on wagers and loathe to publicize his source of "information", since if everyone could listen to Sollog and know the future with any useful accuracy, casinos and betting houses (for starters) would have no reason to be. Wyss 16:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Post from The Number at 17:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) removed by Fire Star. Please no personal attacks as, per policy, they will be removed on sight. If they continue, the poster's account can be blocked. Fire Star 17:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apropros of nothing, I had to do a double-take when I read this article, which is currently near the top of the Drudge Report. Man Accused Of Threatening Super Bowl With "Big Bang" is the headline, and it's about a cranky Florida resident who telephoned a local dignatory and had a lot to say. "In the message, the man said Jacksonville didn't deserve the Super Bowl and said he wanted the mayor, city council and members of law enforcement to resign. He said police had tried to kill him several times. In the message, the man described himself as a scientist intent on stopping the Super Bowl, that he believed in the Big Bang theory and was "obsessed with the size it needs to be." It's about a man called Albert Strickland, who is older than Ennis, but it's spooky. Perhaps the article could mention something about how Florida is filled with strange people. -Ashley Pomeroy 13:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup. We're all crazy down here.  Me and Jimbo pass out handbills down at the streetcorner about the end of the world every week. Gamaliel 23:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sollog's Super Bowl riddle told you the Patriots played LAME. They didn't cover so you won betting the Eagles like Sollog's riddle suggested. See http://www.247news.net/2005/20050206-superbowl.shtml I won a ton taking the Eagles just like other Sollog fans did. You bet the Eagles like Sollog said you were a WINNER, the Patriots played LAME they didn't cover. haha


 * Err... sorry. He said they would play against the Steelers. Did you forget that part? Looks like 247news forgot that too. Vivin 22:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This is his best yet. The Patriots were 'predicted to win' because they were mentioned first and last. He might have written "The Patriots are complete crap, so the Eagles will beat them; bet on the Eagles rather then the Patriots" and this would have been a prediction of a Patriots win!. DJ Clayworth 23:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

old news
just some bored lexisnexus surfing:

HEADLINE: Diana's Death Brings Out the Good, Bad and Ugly on the Net BYLINE: Victoria Shannon, Special to The Washington Post

The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, has brought to the fore the very good and the very bad of the Internet. ...

Still another interprets Diana's death as vindication for an oracle named Sollog who is said to have forecast it:

"Sollog has been GUARANTEEING major world events in US Federal court records and on National US radio shows, to prove what he says about the future of 13 large cities is real. He says 13 cities have been GUARANTEED to be destroyed by the year 2001!"

As has been noted countless times before, online services and Internet software make everyone a publisher. Sollog can get the same screen space on your computer that Dan Rather does, but the resources, the quality and the degree of the sources are at opposite ends of the spectrum. LOAD-DATE: September 08, 1997

HEADLINE: Web sites question air safety

BYLINE: Edward A. Mazza II Special to The Daily Yomiuri ; Yomiuri

In the lunatic file, a self-styled seer claims to have predicted all the recent air disasters at a site called "What's Hot" (http://www.whatshotin.com/features.shtml). Solog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni has even written a book about it. It seems that either "the government" or the number 113 is behind the spate of recent air disasters. Sollog has also predicted that Clinton will die in office, and the United States will come to an end by the year 2001. LOAD-DATE: December 3, 1996

...at 04:15, 2005 Jan 29, Alterego forgot to add four twiddles to the above


 * Irrelevant comment coming up: Sollog can get the same screen space on your computer that Dan Rather does, but the resources, the quality and the degree of the sources are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I disagree. When I last heard, CBS News had farcically few resources in most of the world (no office in Seoul, for example). It would marshal them for anything immediately involving or threatening to involve US citizens -- especially (All stand to attention, please!) the Commander in Chief -- but matters that primarily involved people whose first language wasn't English (and whose relatives didn't wield major power within US politics) were largely ignored. CBS News was respected because ... well, it had always been respected, and of course it wasn't as obviously as farcical or superficial as Fox or CNN. Of course, there's a case for saying that TV watchers get the news they want: for month after month, O J Simpson seemed to be of more interest to many Americans than did the populations of entire nations. And now, back to regularly scheduled sollogy. -- Hoary 04:46, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * Yeah, U.S. news is tacky window dressing for corporations busily making money elsewhere. CBS' parent company makes nukes for Dubya's armies, for example (which perhaps undescores another motive for Rather publicly falling on his sword to Dubya's great benefit). Fire Star 05:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * CBS news lost most of its integrity and authority about the time See It Now became CBS Reports, or, as wags called it, "See It Now And Then." The last really important piece of reporting to come out of CBS News was probably Harvest of Shame. When television was new and exciting, the Paleys and Sarnoffs of the world wanted respect from their New York friends and felt that the prestige of television reflected on their personal prestige. Can you imagine any modern-day commercial television network having its own symphony orchestra, as NBC did? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I've read rather a lot about Paley and Sarnoff. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century broadcast news struggled to achieve a level of professional acceptance comparable to that of news in print. Quality news reporting was and is way expensive. CBS' news division lost tonnes of money for decades, being subsidized mostly by the entertainment side. For whatever reasons, the majority of people who watch TV aren't too interested in deep, high quality news content, so the economics tend to inevitably drive commercial news coverage into mediocrity. Wyss 14:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * These pages are not for 'irrelevant comments'. Please desist. The Number 21:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen that second headline before, but the first is already in the external links section. --Cchunder 11:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sollog templates
FYI, the Sollog templates have been listed for deletion: Templates_for_deletion. Though they may have been misapplied once or twice, they have been useful, so please consider registering your opinion there. But only if you want to vote keep ;) Gamaliel 18:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Request withdrawn by submitter (me) as it is a unanimous keep. Vacuum c 02:54, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the sock puppet tagging template to User:Sollog/Puppet. Seems like it belongs outside the template space, since it related only to this one god-being. -- Netoholic @ 16:26, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)


 * That may be inappropriate as the consensus was that User:Sollog was in fact an opportunistic prankster, not Sollog himself. I can't think of a good place to put it, though, not being familiar with the in-and-outs of templates and the various namespaces. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:07, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not keep it right here? --MarkSweep 04:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I've no opinion where to put it, but it may be useful to recall that this family of sockpuppets has been responsible for vandalism all across Wikipedia (centered to be sure around this article). Wyss 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sollog Postshadows
HAHA I sure bet the EAGLES. Thanks to Sollog saying the Patriots played LAME. I got 7 points, the Patriots were LAME they didn't cover. Once again Sollog gave the winner for bettors. See http://www.247news.net/2005/20050206-superbowl.shtml

He hit the exact score of the Patriots too.

Did Sollog somehow manage to say the Patriots would win even though they played LAME. The first and last team Sollog named were the Patriots the winners. Yet all his fans were betting the Eagles.

Once again Sollog hits his Super Bowl riddle. If you bet the Patriots you were a LOSER. You bet the Eagles like the Sollog riddle suggested YOU WON.

Sollog rules.

... at 04:25, 2005 Feb 7 216.74.127.98 omitted to add four twiddles to this contribution.


 * Worst. Post-shadowing. Ever. --MarkSweep 05:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You're talking about betting the spread. If you wanted to back the Eagles and win the maximum amount of money, the way to do it would have been to bet the money line.  When you bet the underdog on the money line, you don't "get" any points, so the underdog must win outright for your bet to win.  As compensation, however, when you do win, your profit is more than the amount you bet, whereas with a point spread you win less than the amount you put at risk.


 * So, did His Eminence (or however ToH protocols call for addressing Sollog) ever caution his followers to avoid this trap? Did he take time out from the execrable poetry long enough to say something useful, like, "Take the points"?  Or did he not bother, figuring that his disciples wouldn't have any working capital left anyway after the shellacking they took in the conference finals? JamesMLane 05:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * When you bet Football you get or give points, that's the whole point of the line. If you bet the Eagles like the riddle said, you won since you got 7 points. Anyone betting Football and not getting or giving points isn't betting Football. The riddle was for the Super Bowl not anything else. Does it say conference game riddle? No. Face it, the Patriots didn't cover the point spread so if you bet the Pats you gave 7 points and lost. Like Sollog said the Patriots play LAME, they won but didn't cover the spread. Exactly as Sollog wrote. What two teams were joined from the same state? Eagles and Steelers both lost to Patriots.


 * If you sincerely believe what you're writing, then it's a clear example fo the tunnel vision that helps Sollog and so many other charlatans stay in business. The tunnel vision is manifest in your ability to ignore inconvenient facts.  Read what I wrote.  You can bet the point spread.  You can also bet the money line.  Here's an example from one of tonight's NBA games, Indiana at Washington.  I checked  an online sports book that's offering Indiana getting four points at -110.  That means if you bet $110 on Indiana, and they win the game or lose by fewer than four points, you win $100.  The same book, though, is also offering Indiana straight up at +160.  That means you can bet on Indiana without getting points.  If you bet $100, and Indiana wins the game, you win $160.  You can also bet the favorite, Washington, at -180, meaning you bet $180 to win $100.  (I'm not giving you a link for this online betting site because I don't want to give them a free plug on Wikipedia.  I'm sure The All-Knowing One can find a way to get his money down, whether he likes Indiana or Washington -- assuming that his mystic powers extend to basketball.)  I don't know what the money line was on the Super Bowl but I'd guess it was at least +200, meaning that if you had $1,100 to bet on the Eagles, you could win $1,000 if you bet the point spread but you could win $2,200 if you bet the money line.  Anyone who really believed that the Patriots would "play lame" would have gone for the extra dough.  And, by the way, "lame" is not an adverb. JamesMLane 13:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Why don't you read before you speak, Sollog has given super bowl riddles for 11 years in a row, his fans know who to bet in the game each year. The riddle was clear to Sollog fans bet Eagles, that was the talk for three weeks in Sollog forums. Now, if you read all the Sollog Super Bowl riddles for the past 11 years on his site and all the news articles on several sites about how to understand them, you would have known too BET EAGLES. In past riddles Sollog did the same thing when you had to bet a certain team due to points. So the riddles are constructed according to how to bet. You bet the team that will win according to the line. That is how football is bet. You play the line on your bet. That's how over 90% of the action on the super bowl is bet with the line. Sollog hit the riddle and all his fans knew to bet the Eagles, it was all over his forum for three weeks. Sollog says EAGLES. Sollog fans betted the Eagles and they all got 7 points, they all won. You should have read his previous riddles and all the articles and you would have won like all the Sollog fans did. Guess what I BET THE EAGLES AND WON BIG. Did you win on the Super Bowl? NO. You're a loser. You didn't bet the Eagles and got 7 points.
 * Posted by 216.74.127.98 who once again forgot the pair of twiddles

Out of curiousity, why haven't the IP numbers 65.34.173.202 and 216.74.127.98 been banned yet? Their contribution history consists entirely of vandalism and I assume they're open proxies. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * At least one of them was banned for a month in December, but that block has since expired. --MarkSweep 20:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sheer codswallop and as implied above, mind-numbingly inept post-shadowing by Ennis. Wyss 19:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, didn't the "prediction" mention the Steelers a lot? And that the Patriots would play against the Steelers? Notice how his eminence skipped that part... Vivin 22:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Utterly the most pathetic yet of all your alleged Super Bowl "predictions". --Cchunder 23:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sollog's darker side
It has come to me as a great surprise that nobody here seem to have been to Usenet groups reading the original Sollog messages from 1998. On alt.paranormal, where his famous 9/11 prophecy was posted on September 11 1998, his nickname was eLnIn. This post is considered the best proof ever on the supposed "big hit". Apparently, Sollog wrote under several accounts. All of his writings are easily recognizable by heavy usage of CAPITAL letters as well as his XTIANS abbrevation for Christians. Click on show options right to the nick and find more posts by same user. What you will discover is a series of vulgar, highly offensive language usage, threats and swearings, made by eLnIn. Here, for isntance Sollog gives impression that he strongly believes Clinton won't survive his second term. In fact, I believe no one would disagree that Sollog expected, way back in '98, a precocious end of Clinton's 2 nd term somewhere on 13th August or November And when that happens, according to Sollog, it would 'prove' that, quot "ALL CHRISTIANS are BRAINWASHED SATANISTS". Curiously enough, Clinton fulfilled his term. What does that proves, then? Apparently, Sollog ceased using vulgar language for a while ago. However, his notorious writing style is still highly relevant. Also, consider this interview on Sollog's twin site: (snip) Here he further reveals his deep antipathy for the Christian Faith. Quote:

JP: Ennis isn't that the hidden name to mean NINES as well.

Sollog: Yes JP, as I have explained in my writings, I AM ENNIS as I AM SOLLOG. Both names fulfill prophecy. Sollog is LOGOS L or WORD OF GOD the hidden name mentioned in Revelations as is ENNIS. NINES is 999 or 666 upside down. I have indeed come to DESTROY THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. It is corrupt. It is not of GOD EL SHADDAI. The other paths are of ONE. In the future there is NO CORPUS CRISTI. That is my entire mission. DESTROY THE FALSE PROPHET OF ROME.

Although Sollog claim he is merely anti-Jesus, not anti-Christ; and that all religions lead to God anyway; and that the number 666 are signs of miseries and misfortunes (wich is also a sign of Jesus, see link below) - Sollog nonetheless ascribe both numbers to himself, that his entire mission is to destroy Corpus Cristi, wich strongly contradicts to the alledged "non anti-christian" stance (Corpus Cristi - Body of the Savior). Please also keep in mind that occultists and the Illuminati often refer to Lucifer as "The One", "God", etc. According to Sollog again: [www.sollog.com/666.shtm]

I SEE THE PUBLIC RISING UP AGAINST THE CHURCH AND POPE. THEIR SHRINES TO LUCIFER SHALL ALL FALL IN A SHORT TIME! THAT IS THE WORD OF GOD! THE ANTI CHRIST IS GOD!

Which then clearly implies that Sollog view himself as the Anti-Christ, as well. When Sollog claims all religions (as well as everything else) comes from God, yet Christian church "is not of GOD", we have a terminal contradiction wich, in my opinion, should leave no further doubt of Sollog's state of mind. I hope this little section gives some grasp on Sollog's picky way of 'logic'.


 * Note: the above was contributed by User:193.217.123.180, who signed as evirated12345 --Carnildo 18:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * One can't help but think a real anti-Christ would have a greater ability to attract followers, I mean "fans." The thing is, most of us have concluded that Ennis' ravings are actually in aid of driving up hit numbers on his websites. That is to say, personally, I believe it is all a sham and Ennis doesn't believe the twaddle he spouts any more than we do. He only seems to be doing it because he thinks he can make money by getting people curious enough to visit his deathporn sites. So, it isn't that no one hasn't seen the obscure messages he wrote in 1998, it is more like they aren't notable enough to mention in the face of all the other manufactured blather he generates. Fire Star 15:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say that's about as spot on as need be. Wyss 18:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * When will you people realise there is a difference between the Anti-Christ (Mabbas of Palestine) and being Anti Christ? Still, you revere Ashley for his corrections and yet on his own pages he refuses to admit that 'cowardy' is not a word. Who cares - Wikipedia is beginning to be acknowledged not as a resource but a game for University people. 21:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)The Number


 * And as you enjoy the inevitable block you'll receive for referring to everybody except myself as a 'hyena', I direct you here - albeit that it's used in this context as a pun on Noel Coward's name, 'cowardy' is to 'custard' as 'niece' is to - MOTHER? DAUGHTER? AUNT? UNCLE? Or DREADNAUGHT? -Ashley Pomeroy 21:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't you be signing yourself as The Reverend Ashley Pomeroy? Fire Star 22:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The inbred reverend Ashley Pomeroy, no less -Ashley Pomeroy 23:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Insult removed by Fire Star 23:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Fire Star, but that's still important (ie his earlier mistakes and abuses). Few mention his Clinton prophecy (or, should we say, very strong assumptions) mistake, or his failed Olympics prediction . Or much of his swearings. Although we might not believe in the blather, some people certainly get carried away with it reffering to his forum (can't find the link right now, but been there yesterday) with users addressing him as "Dear" "God" etc. In my opinion, one has to look no further than Sollog's recent past to get the whole picture. Not to mention his ring of related money-draining sites.. All this reminds me much of the Sara Freder scam, a fake clairvoyant figure who's at times extremely impressive with her automated "readings". It has later come out that "she"'s 100% fake, never respond to personal replies, and in fact, doesn't even exist. However, the readings has such a profound psychological influence that scammers manage to drain out 100's of $ of each month, before their victims realize the catch - wich is, by then, too late (Money back guarantee on their sites, of course, doesn't work). This in spite that quick googling on Sara Freder reveals the scam . Yet, new victims comes in every month, and the site has never been closed - though it was several times reported to FBI and their host ISP. I believe we should spread as much info as possible about such scammers. That's a decent way we can prevent others entering the trap. Authorities doesn't care anyway. evirated12345 03:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * And if Wikipedia were a scammer-awareness newsletter rather than an encyclopedia, that might be relevant to the article. As it is, Sollog's methods have already been thoroughly (very, very, unfortunately, thoroughly) reviewed and weren't considered encyclopedic.
 * Besides which, there's no indication that the "money-draining" websites try to scam anyone&mdash;the only people they're going to suck in are people who want to read his drivel or see his porn, and they're probably going to get exactly what they pay for. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 05:12, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Wyss 02:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

English style
I've just gone through the article, tidying up the English and style. That mostly consisted of making usage consistent &mdash; both in terms of the use of different stylistic preferences (e.g. ebook–e-book) and of U.S. vs British English. (Such inconsistencies are almost inevitable when many people are involved in editing, of course.) I couldn't make out what the original intention was, so I standardised it to my own style &amp; usage. It doesn't matter much, I'd have thought, but if anyone feels strongly that I made the wrong choices, perhaps we could discuss it. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Wyss: why did you change my corrections in the list of newspapers? The version you seem to prefer uses the definite article for the first and last papers in the list, but not for those between; why?
 * As for the change from the Temple believes to the Temple states the belief, the latter is clumsier and makes no more sense (Temples can neither believe nor state anything, unless what's referred to is the membership of the Temple, in which case the former is still correct and the latter clumsier and possibly PoV). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think your revisions are for the most part quite awkward and would prefer if you would revert them. Wyss 13:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, religions (even fake ones) don't believe anything, their believers do. Wyss 13:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you please clean up your duplicated comments in this section, then revert your changes to the article so we can discuss them here? Wyss 13:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peculiar; after I saved (after the Edit Conflict), I saw only the second version of my comment, yet on returning I found both. Anyway, I've reverted the changes, but left in your excision of the definite articles in the list of newspapers (I think that awkwardness is in the ear of the behearer, but let it pass). I've tried to find out enough about the Temple to tell me how one should refer to it, but have failed. The definite article is surely needed, unless Sollog or the Temple insists on non-standard English. The question as to whether temples can either believe or state beliefs is a fair one, though if the temple is a religion, then certainly common usage includes statements like: &ldquo;Christianity believes that...&rdquo;. I didn't write the original formulation, and I'm not committed to it, but I think that a change should actually improve the sense. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say we agree about ears of behearers :) So far as the "Temple" goes, my personal opinion is that it's a scam for mining Internet traffic, which further complicates the syntax choices. I don't agree it's correct to say Christianity believes... rather the bible states that... or Many Christians believe... or whatever. As I say, when discussing Ennis, the question's even dodgier because words chosen can lend more credibility to the scam than any evidence suggests. Wyss 15:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the &ldquo;Christianity believes that x while Buddhism believes that y&rdquo; usage is odd, but I come across it fairly frequently (Religion is one of my professional interests as a philosopher). Without knowing what exactly the Temple is, though, I can't work out what best to put in its place (I'm sure that you're right about its being a scam, but is it a fake-religion scam, a fake-Temple scam...?). It feels odd trying to get the article right when my gut feeling is that it deserves to be no more than a short entry in a list of kooky con-men. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a web-mining scam (IMO, from the evidence we've seen so far)... I think we totally agree about the odd feeling one gets when making any word choices for this article, and why that is so. Wyss 18:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed sentence
I've just removed this peculiar sentence from the article, posted by an anon. user to the end of the 911 prediction section: &ldquo;The fact that Sollog actually posted the prediction on the internet AFTER the event is considered by his "followers" to be irrelevant to the beliavability of the prediction.&rdquo;

I'm assuming that it's simply a mistake caused by careless reading of the story there; if I'm wrong, I can recast it into decent English and put it back. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I just now saw this, but I think the only problem with that statement is the complicated grammar. This is all checkable, but if I recall correctly, the details of Sollogs prediction were posted after the event. Alleged Sollog followers dismiss that as unimportant. They say that does not make the prediction unbelievable. Actually from what I have seen is they claim that he really made the prediction before, but can't provide any evidence of that. That is essentially what the above sentence is trying to say, although the dismissive POV could stand to be toned down a bit. The facts are so clear that the dismissiveness isn't needed or helpful. - Taxman 22:10, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

$10 million fine
This may be of some interest to people contributing to this article. Arno 08:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That's old news. Guess where we got the ToH logo? --Carnildo 08:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is now a page, www.wikipediasucks.com (I won't link it because I won't give it the credit of a PageRank increase) which cites the 'religious hate crimes' against Sollog as as basis for Wikipedia's suckiness, among other things. --Saforrest 12:54, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's where I got that page from. The site itself is something that I came across yesterday, and until then I hadn't heard of Sollog or this wikipedia article. Of special interest is its claim of "New Info added Daily ". Of what, I wonder?Arno 06:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing, so far as I can see. It seems to have been dormant for the past few months. Which is to say, that Sollog abandoned it, shortly after creating it as a personal soapbox and quickly learning that it wouldn't get us to change the article one whit. He seems to think that it would create credible bad press for Wikipedia, somehow. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 23:39, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Check out the members list on the wikipediasucks forums. I'd estimate at least 2/3rds of the list are sockpuppets of wikipeidans monitoring the forms or slashdot vandals and not Sollogites, if there are any. Gamaliel 18:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What else did you think the latest Wikipedia fund drive was for :) --Cchunder 23:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Gee, can this site raise 10 million dollars??? Arno 06:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Probably not easily, but it certainly wouldn't be given to Sollog if it could be. Note that Cchunder was being facetious. :) &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 23:35, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sollog the jailbird?
One of the socks (or could it be an actual follower?) has posted a couple of times to his Usenet haunts claiming the Feds have gotten him. ,. The sock / sole fan neglects to mention why the FBI might have him but a lot of ideas spring to mind. Does anyone know why? There might be something said in his forums if anyone has the membership to see. Alternatively, could it be related to his Wiki outbursts? His wikipediasucks site sailed perilously close to the wind but seems have been toned down a bit recently --Cchunder 19:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If he's been arrested by the FBI, it's probably for death threats, most likely against the president. He keeps predicting that important people will die violently, and the feds seem to take a dim view of that. --Carnildo 20:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sollog has not been arrested - it's a publicity stunt.The Number 14:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please cite your source. Wyss 15:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I can safely say that Ennis would have a hard time getting arrested in any town. [[image:Ironyalert2.gif]] Fire Star 16:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks like John Ennis has been arrested. Here is a link to a John Ennis being held in Florida and it does seem to be the one this page is about. Don't know what this is all about yet, though.Lazi

User:The Number asserted that Sollog has not been arrested and that this claim is merely a publicity stunt. Despite being asked repeatedly by several other editors, The Number has refused to document his assertion or state if this was a fact or an opinion and instead has chosen to taunt the other editors. I have removed a couple days worth of trolling for the sake of sanity. Gamaliel 17:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Database searches?
I'm new to Wikipedia but I found this article and I think it's quite good. I'm curious, has anyone looked through newspaper and magazine databases such as Lexis-Nexis and EBSCO host? I can do a hunt through the services provided by my university but I don't know how far back the records go and which newspapers are indexed. I would imagine just searching for "Sollog" would probably turn up anything on Ennis that's in the databases. orporg


 * I think that might be interesting; why not give it a shot? (I really miss being at a university and having access to the resources of a university library). Dpbsmith (talk) 02:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is good. Indeed, it's hugely better than it needs to be. "Sollog" should really fade back into the well-deserved obscurity enjoyed by most usenet monomaniacs and nutballs. If you have those search engines at your command, great -- but why not use them for some worthier Wikipedia end? You say you love cats and game consoles, and I must confess that I don't share either enthusiasm -- but surely there's something there (or elsewhere) that's underrepresented on Wikipedia and more significant and interesting than poor "Sollog". -- Hoary 03:04, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)


 * Well said, Hoary! :) Wyss 03:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * (er, 'cept that crack about cats... good thing ours was downstairs doin' his job- eating friskies- when that scrolled by on the screen, heh heh)Wyss 03:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hypocrites. :-) JRM 03:38, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'd still vote to delete this one... but I'm glad it's well written and based on the evidence. ;) Wyss 03:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Shall I put it on VfD, or shall we skip that experiment? :-) JRM 03:45, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
 * Ha! Won't touch that one, even with a rolled up Philadelphia City Paper! Wyss 03:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It narrowly escaped being a featured article. I'd love to see what happens when someone nominates a featured article for deletion. I wonder what the maximum length of a VfD discussion has been? Dpbsmith (talk) 03:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * IMO, Sollog never stood a chance of FA-hood, even if you think it was "narrow". If an actual FA was put up for deletion, however, the nomination would be considered bad faith, and rightly so. By the time it gets to FA, you do not get to argue it shouldn't exist anymore. I'm sure this is written in stone somewhere. JRM 03:57, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

I ran a couple Nexis searches and nothing came up other than the Washington Post article that's already in the article and an article (9/4/98) about the Swissair 111 crash in the North Bergen (NJ) Record that briefly mentions him: "Sollog, the notorious on-line numerologist, quickly claimed to have predicted such a disaster a year ago. It is only logical that it involved the Swissair plane, Sollog's Web site said. Here's the reasoning: Sept. 2 is 9/02, or 209 in reverse, and the sum of 902 and 209 is 1111, which is close to the Swissair flight number." Gamaliel 15:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

headings level change
I'm nothing like brave enough to jump in and edit this article, so I'll make my suggestion here:

The headings are currently:

Activities Sollog's supporters Predictions Methods The 911 prediction Xinoehpoel Sollog and his critics Legal problems References External links

I think "The 911 prediction" should go under "Predictions", as such:

Activities Sollog's supporters Predictions Methods The 911 prediction Xinoehpoel Sollog and his critics Legal problems References External links

WikianJim 12:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Be bold? Wyss 01:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, the big red BOLD's spurred me on! WikianJim 12:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Political beliefs of Sollog
A good chunk of the stuff Sollog puts out is political, so it seems if Sollog is notable at all, the things he preaches should be mentioned.

Some notable snippets:


 * The website godsayskillfags.com, which seems to be ran by Sallog, advocates murder of gay people.
 * Anti-Bush on religious grounds "GEORGE W. BUSH IS A PRACTICING BLACK MAGICK OCCULTIST! ... GEORGE W. BUSH IS A SATANIST!"
 * Anti-Israel "ISRAEL means literally I WANT EVIL GOD"

A rare falsifiable prediction: "[Surface Air Missile] is how Saddam will attack ISRAEL when the USA attacks him. He will unleash SAM's with chemical weapons and NUKES on ISRAEL." WikianJim 13:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Mine's only one opinion, but I think Sollog's statements amount to advertising noise. If he's at all encyclopedic, it's as a spammer. The SAM bit is funny but everything I've seen of his is a post-shadowed miss. Wyss 13:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the SAM prediction is worth mentioning under Methods because it does not fit in with any of the methods we document there. To imply he only gives vague predictions is not quite true (in this case he also give a very specific, albeit wrong, one)


 * Something like:
 * Sallog will occasionally give predictions relating to specific people and events which are falsifiable within a reasonable time frame. Without room for later interpretation or post-shadowing, these are often simply dropped from Ennis's repertoire if they do not come true. Such an example is his prediction that "Saddam will attack ISRAEL when the USA attacks him. He will unleash SAM's with chemical weapons and NUKES on ISRAEL". Since this prediction, Hussein has been taken into custody, and there is no sign he has ever been in control of nuclear weapons.

WikianJim 13:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Sollog does give specific predictions but not often because they are always so monumentally wrong that he looks an idiot. Instead, his modus usually (aside from the usual vague numerology) is the shotgun style where he reels off a whole bunch of things and hopes he can steal some momentary glory if one lightly brushes against reality. Last year he was loudly proclaiming Athens to be the "games of death", complete with some lurid and awful prose warning people to stay away . Just count the number of contradictory lines in that one "prediction". It's shotgunning pure and simple. As usual for Sollog nothing at all happened, so he fell back and claimed hits for a fires in a school in India and in a supermarket in South America . Why? Because one line said 100 would be slaughtered and he dragged in a '13' connection. Never mind that the deathtoll in both events was not 100 (it was over 400 for one of them) or that the people weren't slaughtered, or that it didn't happen in Athens, or that it had nothing to do with the Olympics in any way whatsoever. This is (after all) Sollog we're talking about. Reality and he are ships that pass in the night. --Cchunder 17:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RFC
Users who have edited the Sollog article and talk page might want to have a look at this RFC regarding The Number. Wyss 13:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Latest reversion
I've removed the following addition: ''To date, no person has ever identified himself, and claimed to be a follower of Mr. Ennis. The consensus opinion of usenet participants is that Ennis himself is indeed his only supporter.''


 * 1) There's been an agreement to refer to Ennis within the article as "Sollog". (I disagreed, but I was in the minority.)
 * 2) On various occasions, persons have claimed (i) not to be Ennis/Sollog, and (ii) to be followers (fans, devotees, or whatever) of Sollog. I suppose that you could say they've identified themselves about as well as people normally identify themselves on Usenet, etc. Still:
 * 3) This paragraph says nothing that isn't in (other than possibly an oversimplification of) what came slightly above it.

-- Hoary 11:59, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)