This person, anonymous, unverified, and unaccountable, had people on this forum all in a tizzy, and made a laughingstock of this forum, much to the delight of the debunkers. THe lessons to draw from this embarrasment are simple:

Do not trust ANY anonymous posts. Period. Anyone who will not reveal their real identity from the beginning has zero credibility. ZERO. Copiche?

Now the argument can be made that people will not put up sensitive information if they fear their jobs and reputations are at risk. That argument has some merit, but not very much, and any information you may not get that way is far outweighed by the near certainty that you will be lied to, manipulated, or misled, or that your Oil Guru is really a plant by flying saucer aliens. Information can be wrong, but someone who is honestly wrong can be trusted enough to possibly be right later, but the bottom line, the very beginning of any credibility whatsoever, is the courage to stand behind what what you say with your own name.

Posts that purport to be factual, without any supporting links or information, are worthless. Now, that is different from informal discussion, where you say "I think" , or "I remember", but posts making sweeping claims need to be subject to the same standards of scholarship that a high school term paper is.... of course, from what I see around me, such skills are in increasingly short supply.

In order for this forum to be of any use at all, and not just a dumping ground for unsubstantiated rumor and flummery, these two conditions should be a baseline requirement, true identity, and supporting information/ links. Any less and it is merely humor for the debunkers. Let the humiliation of the RC incident, and the fawning over c4i, serve as the lesson we need to demand minimum standards of veracity and intellectual credibility.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), January 22, 2000

Answers

Forrest

So when are you going to leave?

-- justwondering (justwondering@giveitabreak.com), January 22, 2000.

Dunno. When are you leaving?

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), January 22, 2000.

What exactly happened with RC? Can you point me to a thread?

Thank You

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), January 22, 2000.

Uh.......

Forrest, you use words such as "humiliation," "laughing stock."

You make statements such as "Posts that purport to be factual, without any supporting links or information, are worthless."

Now, I'll ignore the fact that this last statement purports to be factual without any supporting links or information, and therfore must be ignored as worthless.

Your entire post is based on the theory that readers of this forum accept anything that is said on the forum without thought. Maybe you did, and maybe that is why you are humiliated and a laughing stock.

You "demand minimum standards of veracity and intellectual credibility." These are 2-bit words that state that you will only accept information that is verified by n independent sources and sworn to in blood. By such a position you are refusing to think for yourself, to review several conflicting inputs and to form a rational conclusion based on less than perfect evidence. In other words, you'll sit at the side and ignore anything that is not proven to you, using your standard of proof.

Get off your ass, stop judging other people, and learn to function!

Oh, BTW, if you wish to make me a laughingstock, I'll laugh all the way to the bank with the profits from oil futures. And, Forrest, my decision to put my money there was not based on RC's posts, but on evidence that first began to leak and then to spurt out from any number of spigots.

Let me ask this. You are now going on about RC's posts. Why do you not think a little about why this incredible attack on him -- personally -- by LMAO? This is the type of thing that you should look at, shudder, and decry. Instead, you join in, the omega dog (far from alpha) joining the pack for the kill.

Frankly, Forrest, this post puts you firmly on the list of people who are simply not creditable: it speaks -- not to your beliefs -- to your character.

-- rocky (rknolls@no.spam), January 22, 2000.

Careful Forrest

They may be delusional but still proud of it.

-- look (at@the.facts), January 22, 2000.

rocky,

Simply exquisite!

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 22, 2000.

Forrest, speak for yourself, I will make MY mind up as to the validity of various posts.

RC, your tremendous efforts on behalf of this forum have been much appreciated.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), January 22, 2000.

I'm not revealing my confidential sources. You'll all just have to decide how credible I am.

-- Dog Gone (dawgawn@yahoo.com), January 22, 2000.

Who is LMAO? Did not read his posts.

"Frankly, Forrest, this post puts you firmly on the list of people who are simply not creditable: it speaks -- not to your beliefs -- to your character. "

Actually, it speaks to the fact that I attended graduate school, and had to back up everything I wrote. I was always dubious of RC. Looks like he took everyone for a ride here, but y'all seem to like it. Oh, well, why be a party pooper? I might miss the flying saucer ride.

But no biggie. I want to see the y2k phenomenon out to the bitter end, and as it turns out, De Jager hit it on the head when he said it was a people problem more than a technical one. Events have borne that out, so far.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), January 22, 2000.

(reposted from earlier thread)

LMAO. You have given us a finely crafted discourse on BS artists in general and one (RC) in particular. This forum is a magnet for these self- proclaimed experts and although they ultimately disappear (RC, Ron S., etc.) others cant be far behind. I suggest that they flock here because there is such a receptive audience for their delusional fantasies. This is why the Y2K hoax was so successful, the weak minded group of dummies that will buy into anything they hear. The most disturbing aspect of this phenomenon is the continued support these scam artists receive AFTER they slink away in disgrace. Pathetic as some of you are, this forum continues to be a valued source of psychological entertainment.

-- Look (at@the.facts), January 22, 2000.

Cant we all just get along?

-- Rodney King (Rodney@King.org), January 22, 2000.

Don't let'm get to you Forrest. Some ppl here just love the rumore' mill. "Oh mah GAWD! I better go get another bucket of rice". Fantasy is so much more exciting than reality.

I agree, show me the facts...show me your credentials. Too many just wanna blow smoke up our ___. But hey, different strokes....

Myself? I prefer real facts to dis-info. Balance and grounded people goes a looooonnng way to.

If you want financial advice - go to someone who IS sucessful.. ....Cooking advice? -- to someone that is a gourmet. Yatta yatta......the rest isn't worth the bandwidth. Opinions are entertaining, but that's about the only value they hold.

-- farf (madeupguy@hotmail.com), January 22, 2000.

farf (madeupguy@hotmail.com)

So farf what do you have to add about oil. And for that matter Forrest what do you know? Can you tell us what the following are:

Gosp

Wip

Gip

IW

Old Gas

New Gas

Shot and Killed

Some of us do work in the oil industry. What do you guys do for a living? Forrest in another thread you stated "When I was in grad school"...What was your major? Marketing? Inquiring minds really would like to know your expertise on oil.

-- justwondering (justwondering@giveitabreak.com), January 22, 2000.

farf commented:

"If you want financial advice - go to someone who IS sucessful.. ....Cooking advice? -- to someone that is a gourmet. Yatta yatta......the rest isn't worth the bandwidth. Opinions are entertaining, but that's about the only value they hold. "

farf, am I to understand that you are giving advice here??? Are you an EXPERT in adviaing folks?? I thought not!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), January 22, 2000.

Great post there, Forrest. It will rank with that pronouncement made in 1929 that we "have reached a permanent plateau of prosperity."

R.C. said that there would be problems in the oil industry, in production, shipping, and refining, that would lead to large price increases, increasing spills and accidents, and outright shortages.

Have you been following the news? Filled up your oil tank lately? Tried to buy kerosene anywhere in New England? Kept up with any of the news, from opis or the commodity markets? Heard the oil news from Venezuela, Brazil, Iraq, the US refiners, et cetera? Do you even know what oil supplies and prices are doing right now?

QED

The possibilities that R.C. reported are now happening all around us. All you have to do is look. Or not, as you please. No one is required to read or believe anything here, it is worth intrinsically what you pay for it.

The only thing that has been accomplished is that a good man has been driven from the marketplace of ideas, not by any refutation, but by scurrilous ad hominem attacks on a man's religious beliefs, and apparently by hacking his religious website. Which, as R.C. pointed out, he quite properly never made part of his discourses on oil.

Personally, I want to thank R.C. After reading his posts, I checked further myself, and I laid in supplies. All of my tanks are full, and I will not need to buy any gasoline, kerosene, diesel, or heating oil for the next few months. I can stay warm and I can get where I am going without worries of oil price or availability. Thank you, R.C. I will just about double my money on the oil products I bought at lower prices and stored, by the time this settles out. If I had listened to those like you, Forrest, I would be spending a lot more on oil products right now.

And I do hope that R.C. will reconsider and reverse his decision to leave this board. His messages have been helpful to me in making the right decisions thus far, and they have accurately predicted the problems that are occuring right now. Now what?

It would be even more helpful to have his information available as we move into the uncharted waters ahead of us. We are not going to get his information from the official channels. He has been right, so far, and the "no worries" crowd has been wrong. It would be good to have some idea of how the oil industry is doing, have we reached the place where it is as bad as it is going to be, will it get worse, or will it improve from here? The one source that I know can't be believed is the government, with the oil industry itself a close second, and the mainstream media repeating what they are told by those two.

My last hope is that all of those who have attacked R.C. have made no preparations to deal with any oil problems, or with any problems whatsoever. I hope to see you sitting in a gas line somewhere real soon.

Harvey

-- Harvey Ballwhanger (harvey@whang.com), January 22, 2000.

Personally, Forrest, I think you're being a bit hard on the guy, but I understand quite well what you're saying. For those of you who haven't followed the recent developments on Mr. Coombes, it seems that someone learned of his book and posted information on same here The thread has had major deletions since I viewed it yesterday, which may explain the discontinuity.

As I reviewed the remarks of gentlemanly behavior, I couldn't help but remember past comments made by Mr. Coombes that were less than gentlemanly, IMO. I was unaware that others had attempted to present the thread previously and had been deleted. It could be that my presentation of the thread will be deleted also. It's obvious to me that Andy [for one] doesn't want to see it presented. Mr. Coombes as having knowledge in the power industry

I'm with you on this one, Forrest. Folks come in and make claims and no one knows for sure if what they're saying is true. Of course I'm with Ray also. Folks SHOULD be able to make up their own minds. [sidenote to Ray: Do you STILL think I'm being paid to post here? I must confess that I've missed you chasing me around asking that question, Ray.]

Well, good luck on your quest for the truth, Forrest.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), January 22, 2000.

Never made any claims in the oil industry. Just sticking up for Forrest who makes some SOUND statements about CREDIBILITY. Some of us value that sort of thing. Some don't. Like I said, "different strokes".

-- farf (madeupguy@hotmail.com), January 22, 2000.

Actually, I agree with Forrest Cov.

Only those who are willing to give their full name, social security number, a small cash deposit, the name and number of their employer, their mother's maiden name, a brief synopsis of their credit history, the public school system which their children attend, and the *full* vaccination records for all household pets SHOULD EVEN DARE TO THINK ABOUT POSTING IN THIS FORUM!!!

OH! The Gall!

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), January 22, 2000.

It is absurd to think that people are going to come here and post their real names and tell us about the problems their companies are having. We are all capable of evaluating the information that is posted here. I welcome all information and will make my own judgement about its usefulness. I especially welcome RC's posts.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), January 22, 2000.

tim phronesia

You forgot blood type. Shame!

-- justwondering (justwondering@giveitabreak.com), January 22, 2000.

How do people on this thread feel about the sense-of-validity theory, that is, if someone or some source comes across as being extremely suspect in the validity of information in one area, that it is understandable to suspect them in other areas? For example, can you discount RC's views on oil because of his ideas about "mystery babylon", freemason's, UFO's, etc?

I maintain that you can, and in most cases you probably should. It seems evident that you should not invest too much emotionally in a cause or public person if they don't at least pass the "smell test" in every know area important to them that is visible to you. And I do get the sense that there is/was a lot of emotional investment in RC, Ed Yourdon, etc, based on posts like these (both pro, con, and post-action-con:^)

On a related note, lately I've been following those "competence" findings at Cornell University, as published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. It basically outlines how incompetent people tend to not know they're incompetent, and in fact are the ones most likely to have an inflated view of their own competence in a given area. The researchers attribute this to the lack of *metacognition*, or the ability to judge one's own judgements. Now, I don't know if I'd go so far as to call this RC or Ed Yourdon incompetent, but I definately think they are case studies for "lack of metacognition".

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 22, 2000.

farf,

You were giving advice without giving us your complete name and credentials. This will NO longer be tolerated!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), January 22, 2000.

Forrest,

This is a fascinating forum. The conversations are generally friendly among the regulars-- with the exception of the regular trolls. I do appreciate your interest in the accuracy and integrity of breaking opinions on this or that subject, but I don't imagine this forum could survive long if only on the few scraps that might pass the kind of litmus test that are required in making decisions well. The scraps are there and so much else, but (perhaps) more important and meaningful to the life of this forum is our collective and general interest in what's going on in the world-- real or imagined. And I really don't imagine that our friends here intend to deceive us in some mischief. Mischief is possible, but it is more likely that any actual deceit is more the effect of self-deceit than malice or profiteering. Myself, I find the opinions here to be fascinating and lively-- legitimate and questionable. And, yes, you are right to boldly emphasize that our decisions and actions require something more than table talk. On the other hand, I am not at all embarrassed by the wild and incredulous speculations that go on here. It makes our conversation (as a whole) more interesting-- if you are willing to look at it that way.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), January 22, 2000.

There are no gas shortages or price rises noticeable here since well before the rollover. However, the BP had a brief y2k impact when their machines started rejecting credit cards. I was fixed the next day and has not recurred.

The subject of RC's credibility is different from the subject of y2k impacts on the oil industry. I am curious and following this issue in places other than this one, I have the links I got here and others. The failures and explosions etc. at refineries, Opec, Iraq etc. are all noted. Of course it is not yet February, so no final verdict can be made, and indeed prices are the highest since the Gulf War. At this time, however, it does not appear that y2k effects of themselves are causing or are going to cause any fuel crisis on a 1973 level.

Although I never indulged in concrete predictions, I expected serious y2k disruptions. I placed myself in the "5" category with a big question mark. Many experts, governments, and institutions were in there with me.

Guess what? We were wrong. Big time. Now, doesn't it make sense, in light of that very recent experience, to be very circumspect in concluding, on the basis of unsubstantiated, anonymous "tips", rumors, suppositions, prophecies, auguries, innuendi, etc. etc. ad nauseum, that there is going to be a huge energy crisis, causing recessions and wars and whatever?

Note, I am not saying the y2k thing is over, or that anyone should stop watching. But what I was saying here is, C'mon people !! Surely I am not the only person here...(or am I? Mein Gott!) who has enough brains left to apply at least a minimal degree of intellectual skepticism and sophistication! Jeesh!

Well, it IS Saturday.......I always used to spend it watching cartoons.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), January 22, 2000.

It seems evident that you should not invest too much emotionally in a cause or public person if they don't at least pass the "smell test" in every know area important to them that is visible to you

Couldn't agree more. But, then how would they have their 'martyrs'?

Pollies were snipped and attacked pre-y2k, yet they had some VALID arguments...

-- farf (madeupguy@hotmail.com), January 22, 2000.

Forrest - I could care less if your email address is real. Big Deal. You predicted a 5, RC a 5-7. You are the dickhead my friend, not RC.

-- Ego the size of a Forrest (a@b.c), January 22, 2000.

Forrest, I agree with your right or anyone else's right (within normal guidelines, as set out by our sysops) to discuss, agree, disagree and debate, etc, etc. etc., to whatever extent the topic seems to call for.

Persuasive lies can be very deceiving, as we all know. Over the last two years there have been numerous examples of answers and explanations that were right, partially right, more wrong than right, some wrong and some intentionally misleading.

This thread is a good and healthy example of discussion about a sensitive subject. And I'm sure that by the end of the day most will have sorted through their feelings on this subject.

This forum, as you are well aware, has been deliberately targeted by quite a few outsiders. These outsiders have posted some extreme and abusive material at times. The obnoxious aspect of some of these posts and the difficulties they bring to our forum is that they are intended to destroy someone without giving so much as a legitimate reason for their motivation. In pleasant company most would easily shun such people and work to see them leave, even forcefully as required by the circumstances.

I feel compelled by common courtesy to reject outright a considerable portion of information and innuendo from such posts and let the person so attacked stand on his own merit.

I share some of your concerns as well and fall back to one important freedom that each of us has and that is to decide for ourselves what we believe and don't believe. I do agree that the scary rhetoric that gets handed around is sometimes unfair to the forum members, but we still do not know the full extent of where this all may lead us.

Let me share with you something that I said yesterday in another thread:

"If there are corporations and governments fixing rollover problems in the background and hiding it from public scrutiny, then there will probably be attenuated and elusive symptoms and indicia, pointing back toward those problems. I don't doubt for a minute, that there are some spectacular examples of hands-on, manual work-arounds, currently in place. It would be genuinely interesting to know of these and the results these will have."

Let me give you an example of a specific and accurate piece of information that I had several months ago, but I could not repeat at least until after the rollover, because of competitive pressures: M&M Mars Candy Company was operating fully remediated since the beginning of the summer of 1999.

Here's another from Lucent(paraphrased), We feel that we will probably make it, but we're not too sure about our customers.

There are several items that I am still reluctant to repeat (they blew my socks off) and take the chance of having them attached in some way to me, even though I don't post using my real name. The e- mail address is real and does work. These other things I'm referring to go to the very heart of direct government control over public and private corporate communications. Scary is the word I would use to describe the situation.

So where are we now ? It looks like TPTB got a lucky roll of the dice. We don't know much of the details YET. We will have to wait and if we are likewise lucky, maybe we will find out how deep the deception went and just how lucky we all have been. Until then it's good to have company. Please excuse my rambling.

P.S. - If there is a lyin', spinnin' dog out there that blows his ship out of the water, blows his cover and gets found out, I will feel somewhat more justified in the feelings that I have. I would like to see at least a few of the masters-of-disaster get identified and punished by the judicial system (So much for fiction). If that happens, I will post a gigantic BBBWWWWWAAAAAAHHAHHAHHHAHHAA.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), January 22, 2000.

some of you guys are truly frightening. on one hand you want people to post their entire personal profile before you will "allow them to post ideas or information". then when you disagree with them you this information gives you the ability to hack their web sites, harass them by email or phone, make threats against them? wow.

we are all adults, supposedly. i would think that means that we EACH sift and weigh every idea we hear against others to determine whether WE BELIEVE it credible or not. that way we don't have to wipe people out--they will lose credibility over time if they are consistently wrong.

you guys are more like nazis.

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), January 22, 2000.

Forrest, you wrote:

>>Surely I am not the only person here...(or am I? Mein Gott!) who has enough brains left to apply at least a minimal degree of intellectual skepticism and sophistication! Jeesh!<<

Some of us have been doing just that for the past 9-12 months. But the Doom Chorus hasn't been appreciative of our efforts (g).

I thought RC was full of it from his first post on electricity (Kansas City P&L - June 20/99); and have over the past 8 months asked - politely - for him to confirm his bona fides (like Dan TPM) while still retaining his anonymity. He declined......lessening his credibilty severely in my mind, but not, apparently in the minds of the hard-core regulars.

He was COMPLETELY wrong about electricity, and he is looking to be quite wrong about oil as well.

The thing about the space aliens is kind of a bonus - hands up you doomers: how many think there is even a smidgen of a possibility that this could be true? (And remember Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof".)

For all the Psych majors who will be doing research papers on Y2K mania in general (and TB2000 in particular), RC is the poster boy for doomer double standards. He's comes onto the board talking a load of bollocks and the Doom Chorus goes into a tizzy of toadying 'cuz he says what they want to hear. Opposing viewpoints presented by the non- anonymous optimists and actual in-the-field techies (Cherri, P Davis etc.) are rubbished with a series of vitriolic personal attacks.

You can do your own thinking, or you can have others do it for you. As Diane might say "Your Choice".

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 22, 2000.

Connie - I didn't see an answer to your question, but I didn't read everything carefully. I apologize if I'm repeating somebody.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Nm2

-- Mark (mark@fakeaddress.com), January 22, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Forrest said: I always used to spend [Saturdays] watching cartoons.

Sorry, Forrest, I'm afraid this is going to have to go on your permanent record, now.

I disagree that anyone should be required to put their employment at risk, or advertise the location of their Y2K stash and endanger their children for our sake. I try to provide links and photos when I have them. I like to pretend, though, that the biggest part of my value to the forum is the connections that I make in my own mind, and am willing to share. I may not be the type of person who posts enough to merrit a mention in the melodramatic farewell threads, but I still hope that my contributions will lend me some measure of credibility, here, if I should ever need to sound some warning.

As I have explained elsewhere, recently, that there can be honorable reasons to refuse to divulge your address and phone number. While I'm not so naive as to think that government interests could not come after me if they got a notion to do so, it does provide a layer of protection against your everyday sociopath.

As for relying on the validity of my chemtrails photos, don't. Please, just go outside and see them for yourself!

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 22, 2000.

Forrest,

As usual, a question or statement leads to another interesting thread. I love you guys and gals!!

But, back to the point, my personal opinion indicates more information will be gleened thru "non-link" info provided by folks "on the spot", albeit, thru spouses, cousins, neighbors or whatever.

I agree, on occasion, the info provided may be of dubious nature, and certainly not the most reliable, but I still appreciate this forum for all of the information I FOUND OUT HERE FIRST.

Many times, minutes, hours, days before it became Mainstream knowledge.

So, on occasion, we might be misled a touch, small consolation to pay based on what I receive here.

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), January 22, 2000.

Forrest,

I really do agree with you. However I feel no need to censor those who wish to present themselves as experts and yet remain anonymous. I am an adult, I can make up my own mind. If others are foolish enough to rate the "inside" knowledge of C4i, Y2kPro or RC with the same weight that they would rate an essay by Dale Way of the IEEE (or by any other truly credible source with a real name) then they are idiots and there is nothing you or I can do that will change that.

Some people just love to get all worked up over Nostradamus, conspiracy theories and cloaked "experts." The fact that these "experts" post anonymously only adds to their glamour. It makes them more intriguing and mysterious. We will never be rid of them Forrest. All we can do is just pass by them and try not to step in what they leave behind.

-- Dolma Lhamo (wh@t.me.worry?), January 22, 2000.

Dolma, ditto.

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), January 22, 2000.

Gee, Forest. What city are YOU in and can you ship me some of that cheap gas?? Here in Cleveland, the price of gas has risen about 25 cents in the last 3 weeks. Since I buy gas every day and keep my receipts (part of what I do for a living) I cvan tell you that gas prices are rising RAPIDLY here.

There are no gas shortages or price rises noticeable here since well before the rollover. However, the BP had a brief y2k impact when their machines started rejecting credit cards. I was fixed the next day and has not recurred.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 22, 2000.

Canuck the Cretin wibbles

"He was COMPLETELY wrong about electricity, and he is looking to be quite wrong about oil as well."

look at the OIL price numnutz.

nothing like it since the gulf war.

remove head from ass - it helps perception Johhny C

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 22, 2000.

PA Engineer -

Thanks - I used to work in Kingdom myself, worst and best 3 years of my life, if you know what I mean :o)

Couple of points...

1. Two i's in Shiite :o) ROTFLMAO!!!

2. This is the latest skinny from Dog Gone on another thread [PagingDog Gone...]

[snip]

The ports in Saudi Arabia are having severe technology problems. The one at Yanbu is basically toast. The one at Jeddah is "almost" fully operational. That's the good news. The bad news is that telephones are not working well at all. Maybe 30% efficiency on wireline and 50% on cellular. At this point the situation is deteriorating. Bin- Laden operatives are trying to cause trouble by stirring up passions. The foreign workers are staging a work slowdown to seek improved conditions (the Saudis don't like to do the manual work themselves). The phones are causing further complications in the whole export process.

Overall, things do NOT look good, and may deteriorate next month to the point where being a Westerner there might be a bad thing.

The local press is echoing the US line that there are no problems at all.

[end snip]

This tends to support Harry Schultze's inside information I posted yesterday...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 23, 2000.

Eve, how would you characterize the players involved in the current TB2000 cast?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 23, 2000.

Forrest:

This is a cut and paste of my posting on eve's thread about RC, up the page.

I don't see any connection. Unless he was telling us that he was getting all his information from angels......

I'm one of the agnostics he mentioned. If he has the level of scholarship in the dead languages he discussed, I'm very impressed.

Anyway, I've been pondering folks reaction to this situation. Do you have any idea how many well known historical personages had some area in which they were nuttier than a fruitcake?

The one that comes most quickly to mind was General Patton. He BELIEVED in reincarnation, and would drag his officers and reporters around battlefields, describing his actions on them during prior lives.

It didn't stop him from being one of the premier battlefield commanders in WWII.

Now, given RC's description of the work he is and has been doing in the field of ancient bible texts, accumulating facts, etc., it does not surprise me that he has done the same with the oil industry. He may be right, he may be wrong.

He has always coached his postings in probabilities, unlike some of our other regulars (stand up and take a bow, Andy {BG}). From my particular "doomer" stance, he was fairly moderate.

Folks, we are not going to know a lot of hard facts, for some time to come. If EVER. We, if we choose to follow this issue until it has time to wind down, which for me is more like July 1st, rather than January 1st, will have to sift through hints, rumors, second hand info, and read between the lines of published info,

We will get some of it wrong, we may get some of it right. It will be hard to tell.

However, if we let ASSHOLES that I strongly suspect I would NOT be seen in public with tell us who we should and should not listen to, well, go back to watching the evening news.

I have no idea what the attraction of crapping in this forum is, but there are some who certainly do so. RC was attacked by one. I will miss his input.

-- mushroom (mushroom_at_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), January 23, 2000.

Andy-Pandy

Nice side-step about RC's electricity predictions. So - I can take it that you acknowledge, tacit though it may be, that RC was full of hot air on the electricity thang.

Now, about those pesky oil prices. It's just so easy, so simple to say that "oil prices are at their highest levels since the Gulf War...it MUST be Y2K bug problems affecting production and refining."

I guess we have different standards of proof. You think that all "shortages" are proof that Y2K bugs exist and are causing these same shortages. I take the oppposite view; namely that the burden of proof resides with those making such allegations.

Back to RC: I don't give a monkey's about his religious views. They neither make his oil posts better nor worse. My problem was that he was always posting anonymously and citing anonymous sources. He also refused to have a neutral party check his bona fides while preserving his anonymity. You know, the double standard thing. But, I suppose, that's an old story around here.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 23, 2000.

Regarding Y2K: Forrest said: "Guess what? We were wrong. Big time".

I think it is very premature to be making such sweeping confessions. Some or many may have been wrong about the nature or timeliness of Y2K but may yet prove to have been correct in the ultimate effect and conclusions of Y2K. As others have pointed out, just because the embedded chip "wildcard" didn't play it's hand on Jan.1 and the power stayed on doesn't mean we won't yet experience anything from a 4 to an 8. It just means the problems may play out a little slower than anticipated before the rollover.

Forrest, I love you man. I always appreciated you posts and I've told you so. However, I think you are just a hairs breath from crossing the line though on this issue. If everyone were required to provide witnesses and cross referencess with footnotes to post on this forum it would cease to be the vibrant and interesting forum that it has become. It would die a quick death. Yes we can ASK for proof when someone makes a statement but if they can't out of fear or are unwilling to take the risk then that should be OK.

Some or much of the information that is discussed on this forum we know makes the TPTB very uncomfortable. The only reason that this forum hasn't been shut down is because such a small percentage of the population trafficks here. When someone begins to post information that hits a raw nerve with TPTB "free speech" becomes a dicey thing. It is a sad commentary on modern America when we supposedly free-born citizens have become so afraid of our government. We know that the institutionalized power structure will protect its' turf at great cost. Destroying a few little guys is a small price to pay for the greater good is always their motto. This very fact is what makes information, the kind of information that RC has posted, so precious and valuable and highly prized on this and other forums.

Let the RC's post without being dumped on and then let the rest of the community conduct our searches and interviews and shine the light of Truth to find out if this information is credible. It does appear afterall that some of RC's contentions are begining to play out. Just because the government/industria with their lap dog media want to focus everybody's attention on January doesn't mean that we need to fall for their deceptions and trickery.

If anybody should understand that Y2K is not about Jan. 1 it should be those on this forum. So let's not be obsessed with Jan. 1, 2000. When we say that "we were wrong, big time, about Y2K" we are obsessing with Jan. 1 and falling for the deception and the spin which the lap dog media have foisted upon us.

My 2cents....sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), January 24, 2000.

Why is Forrest being trashed for asking a pertinent question? "Don't believe any unsubstantiated rumors" Seems pretty reasonalbe to me. And RC had plenty of unverified, anonymous "insiders"

-- why the kicking around? (just@asking.questions), January 24, 2000.

I haven't been called Andy-Pandy since I was in infants school...

Regarding proof...

Please comment on the 500+ incidents Marcia has compiled...

Regarding this statement...

"My problem was that he was always posting anonymously and citing anonymous sources. He also refused to have a neutral party check his bona fides while preserving his anonymity."

I was in weekly communication with RC - he was and is the perfect gentleman. Not once did he bring up his religious views to me - nor i to him. And Mr. Canuck, not once have I asked you your religious views. You could be KKK or skinhead or Monk for all I know - it doesn't matter, what matters is the subject at hand - embeddeds.

Now you trolls cannot discuss the problem without getting vicious and personal - that's the only way you feel you can "win" your argument.

As for RC not naming his sources publicly, he explained his reasons both privately to me [and I am in full agreement with him], and publically on his posts his reasons for not doing so - simply the folks he was communicating would not allow their names to be made public. That simple. So RC respected their privacy and explained his reasons for doing so.

Now Canuck, what about this don't you understand??? are you really this stupid???

I don't thinks so - fact is you know his reasons yey you still continue to unfairly trash him in some pathetic effort to win over some converts to your point of "view".

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 24, 2000.

Andy babbles [I respond]

I haven't been called Andy-Pandy since I was in infants school...

[So, you haven't been called it since last week then (g) ]

Regarding proof...

Please comment on the 500+ incidents Marcia has compiled...

[I'm still not convinced that Y2K is a factor. With all the big brains around you'd think someone would be able to describe how an embedded system can cause a problem at a refinery 3.5 weeks past the CDC. We disagree on the burden of proof...so be it]

Regarding this statement...

"My problem was that he was always posting anonymously and citing anonymous sources. He also refused to have a neutral party check his bona fides while preserving his anonymity."

I was in weekly communication with RC - he was and is the perfect gentleman. Not once did he bring up his religious views to me - nor i to him. And Mr. Canuck, not once have I asked you your religious views. You could be KKK or skinhead or Monk for all I know - it doesn't matter, what matters is the subject at hand - embeddeds.

[I never asked about, or speculated on, RC's religious views. My problem with RC has never been about his religous views. Indeed, I didn't know about his unconventional religious views until LMAO's post.]

Now you trolls cannot discuss the problem without getting vicious and personal - that's the only way you feel you can "win" your argument.

[Trolls on both sides have been vicious and personal. IMO the doomers were much quicker to get personal. Witness what Dan, Flint, Decker and Hoff went through. Oh, and I'm not a troll, Andy. Being a skeptic does not a troll make.]

As for RC not naming his sources publicly, he explained his reasons both privately to me [and I am in full agreement with him], and publically on his posts his reasons for not doing so - simply the folks he was communicating would not allow their names to be made public. That simple. So RC respected their privacy and explained his reasons for doing so.

[No wonder his sources in the electricity industry didn't want their names made public. They were completely bloody wrong. As for his sources in the oil industry, they don't seem particularly on target 3 weeks in. Didn't RC talk about no oil flowing for 90 days, and other such broad predictions. Come back with some hard technical info about how embeddeds cause problems this late into January and you'll get a fair hearing. And that means describing machines and systems in some detail - not the Paula Gordon stuff.]

Now Canuck, what about this don't you understand??? are you really this stupid???

[You'll have to ask the Missus]

I don't thinks so - fact is you know his reasons yey you still continue to unfairly trash him in some pathetic effort to win over some converts to your point of "view".

[I didn't trash RC in a personal sense. I never called him a moron, dolt, Holocaust denier etc. But RC used those terms and others against his opponents in debate. I merely called into question the weight that people around here ascribe to anonymous posters who happen to provide info that backs up the "party line".

And doomers have never tried to win "converts"???]

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.