To all,

I think that I've recently been spending too much time in the philosophy and religion thread. I emerge to find R.C. a lightning rod for criticism, and that apparently much of this criticism has to do with his religious views.

Now I just haven't had the time to catch up on all the relevant threads (although I've done some skimming), so I may have missed something. Can someone do a brief recap for me?

Oh yes, I'm not referring here to his apparent lack of links, real names, other sources, etc. That's another issue that I'm interested in, but I'd like to keep this thread focused on the religious angle.

Thanks,

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 23, 2000

Answers

Check this out Eve...I used to work for Storer Cable, when there "was" Storer Cable (now Comcast). In any case, the guy who ran the place, our "local" CEO if you will, was a great business man, wonderful to work for, intelligent, kind...everything you would want to have in a boss. I had heard he was also a minister.

One day I ran across his web site www.hiddenmeanings.com (link impaired) and was shocked to discover his "way out" bible interruptations. (Worth looking at if only for the interesting views he has) It never changed my opinion of him or his leadership abilities as General Manager...because I knew him...but I have heard people refer to his as "that nut" since then, and I think it's a shame. I think it makes him all the more fascinating.

In short..to have different beliefs than the mainstream, and to present those beliefs TO the mainstream..takes a lot of courage and confidence, and shows the ability to think for ones self. Whether I agree with his beliefs or not doesn't change that. To judge someones character solely on their religious convictions, well, it's a form or bigotry, plain and simple.

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), January 23, 2000.

Eve:

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.

As with just about all the posts here, RC's comments and predictions had to be taken with some salt -- a little or a lot, depending upon your view of him. Heck, that rule applies to me, too. I'm the guy who reported the military build-up in the albany area. What I found most interesting was the fact that he was "outed" just when several of his oil-industry predictions seemed to be coming true. When he couldn't be challenged/attacked on his facts, he was blindsided by ad hominem attacks on his religious beliefs, which have about as much relevancy to the topic at hand as the color his house is painted. FWIW, the polly/trolls here have a long history of mounting vicious attacks whenever their pollyism seems threatened. Some have wondered if it's organized, but I tend to follow the old rule: Never blame conspiracy for something that can be attributed to outright stupidity.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), January 23, 2000.

Tis always the way. If you can't dispute what a person says, attack their credibility. Works everytime.

If RC was to continue researching and posting what he found about oil industry, the ugly truth would be fully revealed. "They" couldn't let that happen. If he dissapeared, some people would wonder why and perhaps give more worth to what he posted in the past.

Best way to stop the flow of info and urge everyone to think his posts on oil were total nonsense was to expose his beliefs and attack his credibility. It's sad that so many are blinded to the truth, and others don't want to accept the truth when they see it if it conflicts with their beliefs.

For the record, I had nothing to do with it and all the above is pure speculation.

-- You Don't want to know (cant@tell.ya), January 23, 2000.

Political Correctness is infecting everything now. Pathetic situation. No one is supposed to have an independent thought process anymore. Oh well, I'm going back out to the pasture to graze with the herd for a while. Moo.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), January 23, 2000.

eve, it's a disgrace. RC was very interesting and generous in his posts. For someone to be attacked on the basis of a set of beliefs, whatever their validity is a terrible shame and shows the quality of thought of many of the attackers here. That an anonymous person could come in and savage a respected poster here and cause him to leave is just SAD!

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), January 23, 2000.

Eve:

I think what I posted in the original thread Oh My Goodness! THIS is your "Oil" Expert? is the answer why. I repost my comments below again:

----------- LMAO:

Can't say you're wrong. [i.e. the person whose site LMAO found was not RC's] BTW How *did* you run into RC's site?

-----------

LMAO:

Agreed. [to a very good point LMAO put and has since been deleted] RC may be still right, but the probabilty just went down a notch (lets say a few) IMHO.

In the anonmyous internet game, credibility is everything. Credibility can only be assesed by providing facts that can be verified, or by understand where you stand and the assessor's perspective on your stand. We didn't know where RC stands on things until now. So now people can assess for themselves how much or little faith they'd like to put in him. [Some therefore will say therefore since we can't know anything else about him, we'll have to at least assess his credibility on oil based on the credibility we can put on his interpretation of other topics we can judge him on that are not based on anonymous sources. Some will say he's crazy, others like myself will say well its just not looking too good. Notwithstanding this, he must have known that he would be attacked the moment this was found out and his credibility called into question, whether or not it is proper to do so. So if his interest was to provide a message on oil, he should have done so anonymously, as everybody believed he was doing to begin with. Perhaps that was a mistake that he made and didn't realize it when he started]

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 23, 2000.

Interested Spectator,

Was his credibility attacked because of his religious perspective? That's the issue I'd like to focus on here. If so, please explain it in this thread. Thanks.

kritter, Mara, snooze button, et al ,

Thanks for sharing your thought-provoking perspectives.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 23, 2000.

I happen to be aware the RC not only put his fine, scholarly research skills to work on the oil situation, as in other interest areas, but passed along information from those actually within the oil industry who could not speak out for fear of loosing their jobs. He became a voice--one of many on this forum--for those who could not/would not speak.

For this he was crucified for his personal beliefs and research by not so very anonymous trolls.

Sad. Id like to take this opportunity to encourage him to post again.

Stand tall... walk your talk. And just be all the multi-faceted person you are.

Diane

(Who also wishes she could read the Dead Sea Scrolls in their orginal language).

See also, a fine essay...

I, Troll

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 002OT4

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 23, 2000.

Oh, her *Sigh*ness speaks!

Yes, "R.C." gave voice to many afraid of "loosing" (sic) their jobs; and for good reason. He posted BS. And if it actually came from "insiders", it doesn't make it any less BS.

Dunno about you, but people who believe in grand Masonic conspiracies involving the founding of America, are probably just a little more likely to believe in grand Y2k conspiracies to "coverup" the "truth".

And "R.C." was so proud of his "fine, scholarly research" that he immediately yanked the web-pages from view.

-- LMAO (too@funny.here), January 23, 2000.

eve:

I can't speak for others, but I can only speak for myself. All I can say about it I have already said in my post. I find his relgious beliefs inconsistent, and since that is all I have to work with when it comes to assessing the quality of his analysis of a given topic, unless he can demonstrate to me with proof that he is an accomplished or seasoned expert in the oil industry, I have to assume that some of what he posted about oil may not be consistent with reality so I say he may still be right, but the probability went down.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 23, 2000.

So, LMAO,

You want to say who you really are or do you continue to snipe from behind the mask?

DNS now: 216.34.244.73 maps to ... izar.anonymizer.com
DNS now: 216.34.244.105 maps to ... sirrah.anonymizer.com
DNS now: 216.34.244.46 maps to ... draco.anonymizer.com

All the ISPs you used to out R.C.

Clearly, you haven't done any historical research. Only the hysterical kind. You can go back to DeBunkers now.

'Nuf said.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 23, 2000.

Interested Spectator,

Do you find his religious beliefs at all pertinent in determining his credibility on oil issues? If so, please explain this connection.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 23, 2000.

Mara:

R.C. was ALSO an anonymous poster, and I doubt very much that ONE post revealing his writings was the reason he left. You use the term "made him leave" [or something like that.] Nobody can MAKE someone leave a forum based on words, Mara. It's a personal choice when one decides to leave a forum. It was a personal choice that Mr. Coombes elected to remove his website and then leave. He chose to blame others for forcing him away. He even chose to blame others for his website being gone. You can believe this if you want, but I don't, and I'll tell you why I don't.

First of all, from the very first response to R.C.'s first thread on this forum, he responded to Y2k optimists using the term "You Pollies." NO professional uses that term, Mara, nor does any courteous person. He went on to call Y2k optimists morons, etc. No professional does that EITHER, Mara. He claimed to be a retired reporter, yet later claimed that he'd worked in the trenches with the power folks and that anyone who disagreed with him knew NOTHING. They just weren't THERE!

I spent many months posting using my full name and real E-mail address on this forum, Mara. I've worked for two electric companies and two oil companies. I'd seen positive results in remediation at all four. Mr. Coombes did nothing but insult me on this forum....as an anonymous poster, I might add. Why can't a retired reporter post using his real name? Did he FEAR that someone would associate him with his off-topic writings? It sure seems so to ME.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), January 23, 2000.

RC didn't fear anything. He was just sick of all the polly trolls like you posting lies about him as you're doing now. If you felt so insulted by him, why did you keep coming back? And why are you still here? Looks to me like you just enjoy trolling.

-- (brett@miklos.org), January 23, 2000.

Brett:

You said, "RC didn't fear anything. He was just sick of all the polly trolls like you posting lies about him as you're doing now. If you felt so insulted by him, why did you keep coming back? And why are you still here? Looks to me like you just enjoy trolling.

-- (brett@miklos.org), January 23, 2000."

My optimism regarding the unfolding of Y2k never has, nor ever will be a source of disgrace to me, Brett. I mention Mr. Coombes' insults only because some here have displayed him as being "ever so gracious" and are setting him up for martyrdom. I stay because I choose to stay [at least for a while longer.] If you consider an honest expression of an opinion TROLLING, Brett, so be it. I do believe we are ALL entitled to an opinion until we "step over the line."

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), January 23, 2000.

Brett,

Whether or not I agree with her, as far as I know, Anita's posts have been honest and civil. You don't have to agree with her, but treat her with a little more respect, ok?

mushroom, Cash, You Don't want to know,

Up above, in recognizing your contributions, I had grouped you collectively as "et al". Well, I'd like you to know I've been wracked with guilt all day about this, and knew I had to recognize you individually. So, seriously, thanks for your interesting angles on this. (But honestly, now, do you think I need therapy for the guilt feelings?)

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 23, 2000.

Actually, Oh One of Many *Sighs*, I did do quite a bit of "historical" research. It was posted on the thread that you and the other censorops decided to edit.

There are many documented statements by "R.C." that fall into the "hysterical" category.

But, you go ahead and "vouch" for him, just as you did "c4i".

By the way, was your "angel" part of the "Invasion Force"?

-- LMAO (too@funny.here), January 23, 2000.

eve:

Therapy? Nah, just don't sweat every detail.

LMAO:

I strongly suspect I would dislike you in person. Just a suspicion from the "character clues" you show in your posts.

Please, dig back and find the little bits of info I've been able to pass on. I'm a recruiter. I talk to people. People who work with embeddeds, Electrical Engineers, senior Mechanical Engineers and so on.

Some thought it would be OK. A pretty high percentage thought it could be trouble. As one BSEE told me, who had spent the last 10 months remediating control devices and panels for a manufacturing company in the Midwest, "It's going to be hell next year".

Most of those posts can be found under Jon Williamson. Email mostly jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com

You want my company website? Want to look for dirt there? Just ask. I'll be glad to forward the URL.

As for you, personally, I hope only that you get the chance to surround yourself with persons just like yourself. Sweeter revenge, I could not imagine.

Sleep well.

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

To all,

I'm pretty sure there were one or more persons who attempted to make the religion-oil opinion connection to begin with. In any case, it's interesting that no one showed up here yet to defend it.

muhshroom,

Thanks for your concern about my guilt thing, but no need to worry...it was an exaggeration. But, you know, I did notice that during the course of the afternoon I had developed three new facial tics... :)

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 24, 2000.

Eve,

I don't see that anyone has actually stated that RC's religious research influenced his oil opinions.

What I see as actually happening is his religious research influenced others opinions of his views on the oil industry.

It's a shame, but as has been said, "They're only human." [Personally, I have doubts about some folks claims to membership in the human race.]

Seems to me that if he put as much effort into his oil research as he apparently did in the religious area, then his views are worth considering. I was not able to view the web site in question, but hope that it comes back up soon. My opinion is that it went down because of the huge traffic volume created when the URL was posted here.

I do not have any major contacts in the oil industry. I read various opinions, theories, and 'alleged' evidence here. Then I go and search out the 'net for information to back them up. Sometimes I find it and sometimes I don't. I look in other places, too. And sometimes I even call businesses. It's amazing what you can find out about a company just by calling them, or writing. Then I decide for myself what I am going to do about it, if anything.

I do not blindly accept other's views. But, if some people want to do that, well, it's their choice.

Now then, back to the question. Did RC's religious convictions influence his oil opinions? I would say yes. The reasoning behind that statement is very simple. My religious convictions influence every facet of my life. So why can't his?

Now, if you want to ask a really good question, here is one:

What difference does it make what his religious convictions are in relation to his opinions on the oil industry? What if he was Jewish and had a website pertaining to that religion? Would there be this much of a to-do over it? What if he was Islamic, and his website put forth that religion as the one true religion over all others? Then what? Or Catholic? Or Wiccan? Or Aztec?

Well, I for one, do not see that it makes any difference. But, it's all up to the individual. And some individuals are very narrow-minded and can't see the forrest for the trees.....

-- Postman (ringstwice@lw.ays), January 24, 2000.

Postman,

Could you clear up a couple of things for me?

You said,

"seems to me that if he put as much effort into his oil research as he apparently did in the religious area, then his views are worth considering."

Are you implying that if he spends 500 hours per year in oil and 600 hours in religion, you'd discount his oil take by that fact alone? Alternatively, if he spent 500 hours in oil and 50 hours in religion, then his oil views would be more credible? You're kidding, right? Actually I hope I've completely misread you here.

You said,

"My religious convictions influence every facet of my life."

Do they influence whether or not you choose to open your door with a key, or just kick it in because you'll get in quicker that way? Do they influence whether or not you should take your heart medicine?

Do you think R.C.'s religious convictions influenced his opinion on the temperature requirements of crude oil?

Again, as this makes absolutely no sense, and you seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, I must have misread you, and for that, I apologize in advance.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 24, 2000.

Postman,

Oh yes, and should I take it that your religious convictions have clouded and permeated your message, such that I should automatically assign less credibility to it unless I can find a corroborating, more objective source?

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 24, 2000.

Eve, I think I agree with Interested Spectator's take on this.

An ad hominem attack is not a valid way to win a debate on a subject, but knowing if the messenger may have an agenda based on personal beliefs is useful when the "facts" are being presented in the way that they were.

Did RC have an agenda that was affected or based on what most people would consider "extreme" cosmological views? That would be tough to prove, but I really think that in this case those views suggested a tendancy for paranoia, which makes a good case for an agenda.

But it's up for each individual to decide and act accordingly. And I do think it's a sliding scale for most people - the more extreme the views, the more likely people will take them into account when assessing the validity of the current argument. That's why I hesitate to use the term "religeous views" here, because I don't know if most of the views in question really qualify as a "religeon", but I guess it could be categorized that way.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@people.com), January 24, 2000.

Bemused,

Thanks for your interesting take. Interested Spectator's post seemed to hint at this, but I wanted to get him/her to clarify a bit. Are you saying that in R.C.'s case, the views were so extreme, and so potentially related to the ramifications of his oil positions, that it was likely to have led him to be deceitful, or at least clouded his positions on his oil views?

But if a reasonable person couldn't come to such a conclusion from what we've had available to us so far, I think R.C. should at least have been given the benefit of the doubt here.

Also, wasn't it possible to read his stuff and get something substantive out of it -- maybe even assimilating/agreeing with the whole of it (rightly or wrongly, of course), with the reader nevertheless being able to sever it from a possible paranoia factor that might have driven it?

But if it was potentially this bad, maybe I'd better do my part and go back and read the material more thoroughly. Was most of it in his final, long post?

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 24, 2000.

Eve,

To answer your questions in the order in which you asked them:

1. Are you implying that if he spends 500 hours per year in oil and 600 hours in religion, you'd discount his oil take by that fact alone?

1a. No.

2. Alternatively, if he spent 500 hours in oil and 50 hours in religion, then his oil views would be more credible?

2a. No.

3. You're kidding, right?

3a. I don't know what you mean by this.

1-3 What I am saying is that he spent considerable time with the religious theories and research, so he appears to research and think before he spouts opinions. His views are not of the 'on the fly' type, in my opinion. I hope that helps.

4. Do they [[your] religious convictions] influence whether or not you choose to open your door with a key, or just kick it in because you'll get in quicker that way?

4a. It actually wouldn't be quicker to kick the door down. All I have to do is talk to it, and it opens.

5. Do they [[your] religious convictions] influence whether or not you should take your heart medicine?

5a. There is a religion on this planet, the name escapes me at present, that does not allow for any extraordinary measures in the matter of health care. They believe that if you get sick, it is God's will. If you get well, it is God's will. If you don't get well, it is God's will. There are other religions that do not restrict a person from getting any needed medical attention that may be available.

4-5. My religious convictions influence every facet of my life. I think that you asked a question or two that my statement had already answered.

6. Do you think R.C.'s religious convictions influenced his opinion on the temperature requirements of crude oil?

6a. Quite frankly, I don't see why it would matter whether they did or not. It seems to me that one can get that information easily enough by asking someone who knew what those requirements were. That is what my religious convictions would guide me to do.

7. Oh yes, and should I take it that your religious convictions have clouded and permeated your message, such that I should automatically assign less credibility to it unless I can find a corroborating, more objective source?

7a. I think it would be safer to say that my religious convictions have clouded and permeated your perception of my message. But, if you do find a corroborating, more objective source to my message, please let me know. You may assign as much or as little credibility as you like to my opinion, as presented by me.

Now, I have a question or two for you. Are you going to ask what my religious convictions are? If so, why do you want to know? If not, why not? If I don't explain them, what would you infer from that? If I did explain them, what would that information do for you? Why?

-- Postman (ringstwice@lw.ays), January 24, 2000.

Eve,

: Are you saying that in R.C.'s case, the views were so extreme, and 
: so potentially related to the ramifications of his oil positions,  
: that it was likely to have led him to be deceitful, or at least   
: clouded his positions on his oil views?"

I think it's more likely that they may just affect his perception, and that he's using observational selection on the facts. The extremity of his other views suggests both paranoia and a lack of metacognition (ability to judge one's own judgements.)

: Also, wasn't it possible to read his stuff and get something 
: substantive out of it -- maybe even assimilating/agreeing with the 
: whole of it (rightly or wrongly, of course), with the reader 
: nevertheless being able to sever it from a possible paranoia factor 
: that might have driven it? 

I'd say it's completely possible to do this, and yes, I think you could probably get something of substance out of his oil discussion. Maybe a lot... If you had no exposure to the oil industry before, it could at least provide a good intro to the terms used, logistics involved, etc.

I do think you could sever his cosmological and political/historical views from his oil argument in a direct debate on the facts, but if you find yourself making decisions based on his arguments, then you owe it to yourself to look at credibility issues also. The "smell test" always has been and always will be a very valuable tool if you find yourself in unfamiliar territory. Everyone has different aromatic tastes, though... :^)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@people.com), January 24, 2000.

Postman,

Apparently I misunderstood what you were trying to get across. But, remember -- I apologized in advance, so I don't have to now, right? (Cheshire cat grin)

It seems that you don't see any reason to believe that R.C.'s oil opinions were unduly influenced by his religious perspectives, although you feel that he, as well as many others, are influenced, in general, a great deal by their religious perspectives.

You did seem to sidestep some of my specific questions (eg, the door and the medicine), but that's ok.

Then you said,

"I think ...my religious convictions have clouded and permeated your perception of my message." I have no idea what you mean by that.

To answer the questions in your last paragraph: It depends on the context.

If I was interested in oil and you had some expertise in the area, I would have no interest at all in your religious views. I would trust that your religious views would be within a reasonable range.

But in the context of a purely religious discussion, I would be very much interested. And there would be a range of other subjects we might be discussing, such as art, literature, or philosophy, where I might be interested in your religious perspectives, depending on the specific circumstances.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 24, 2000.

eve, it isn't his religous beliefs, per se.

However, the webpages revealed that RC was apt to believe, or at least profess belief, in plots and conspiracies. Such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson being part of a conspiracy of FreeMasons. And NASA covering up evidence of UFO Sun-Cruisers. And that UFO's were apparently evidence of an Invasion of Angels.

Had RC been dealing with interpretation of verifiable information, this may have been completely irrelevant.

But RC's postings here and elsewhere were made up almost entirely of passing along "inside information", made anonymously. The only verification came from RC himself. So the credibility of RC himself becomes crucial in being able to interpret his information.

It doesn't help that RC has apparently removed his webpages. Or that he tried to deny some of the more outrageous statements he has made.

-- Trying to Help (not@here.now), January 24, 2000.

Bemused,

Very nice insights. I'd love to explore this further if I can find the time.

For now, I'd like to make one comment on your last paragraph, where you mentioned the importance of looking at credibility issues in the specific context you gave:

This is fine, as long as we're careful to distinguish between purely religious views and "real world" views that are more paranoiac in bent. The latter are, in general, more likely to skew the individual's outlook on various day-to-day issues.

Trying to Help (and Bemused),

Thanks for a fine clarification of the issue here.

If this is the case, then R.C.'s situation is more problematic than I had originally thought. You know, since there are a lot of details I'm unaware of, and I don't really know R.C., I would feel uncomfortable hazarding a reasonable guess at his psychological makeup. On the other hand, Bemused and you have offered up some good insights, and I now understand more fully the difficulty he's in.

Whew -- well, it started out pretty clear cut for me, but now It's a tough call.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 25, 2000.

.....I apologize for being the perpetual Johnny-come-lately to an interesting thread, but with time at an ever-dwindling premium, I have far less time to spend on the forum than I would like. I printed this thread to read at leisure last night and feel compelled to respond.

.....Outside the question being asked, Im afraid I truly must respond first to Brett; having read literally hundreds of posts by Anita, and having spoken to her personally in Boks room, I have found her to be far removed from the category of troll. Having an opinion at variance with your own would hardly qualify her as such. I was in your corner when you tangled with LL on that previously record- breaking thread, and was unoffended by the use of strong wording at that time. However, in this particular case, you are speaking to a lady, and someone undeserving of such scorn. Anita doesnt need me or anyone else to defend her or her position; that is not necessarily my intent. I feel that what needs addressed here, Brett, is your callous disregard for common courtesy. While Im aware that chivalry on a collective basis is practically gone, that is certainly no excuse for the individual to feel unrestrained on a public forum. If you are to walk away from this situation with your manhood intact, if in fact you have yet achieved such, might I suggest that an apology is in order?

eve...

.....You drove the nail halfway home with one blow when you stated, RC and many others are influenced a great deal by their religious perspectives, (summational quote). We all are, in fact, even those that adamantly reject any desire for religious knowledge. Are we able to separate that which we know, (spiritually), from our daily lives, to an acceptable level to perform in the working world? That is an interesting question to me. I personally am able to separate the two, yet only to the degree that my conscience will permit; this is not to say that I fail to stand firm in my convictions, only that I tolerate in others that which I would never tolerate in my own behavior. Can we make professional decisions apart from our spiritual convictions? That is a question that each individual must answer for themselves. Obviously many are capable of so doing, or at the very least, they find themselves capable of rationalizing the bothersome things away.

.....The larger question would have to do with RCs actual credibility. This, in my mind, would have to borne out of his actual, verifiable oil experience and/or his research of of the industry at large. Herein is where the credibility question lies, and while I cant speak for anyone but myself, I dont have the time to track down everyones track record to see if they are, in fact, who they say they are. I would hope that that can be established or denied here on the forum. Why would anyone speak to that which they dont truly know? Theres a question for the ages; yet it happens every day. I was a bit skeptical, as I always am, when the bona fides are missing, and the anonymity factor should always weigh heavily. That said, I think the only indication of accuracy will now lie in the tally of how his predictions either prove accurate or inaccurate, so thus far, his record is mixed, and still a tad to the lower side. Ill say the jury is still out on both RC and y2k.

.....Youve also asked, Was his credibility attacked because of his religious perspective? My answer is no, it was attacked prior to any knowledge of his belief system, the attack went after his religious perspective due to failing on the professional level. The fact that the attacks had more success after the disclosure of his beliefs is the truly sad part. He was reviled as an extremist along with other derogatory comments. In every religious faction there are extremes, as well as between the various religious belief systems. I didnt take time to investigate his beliefs, so I cannot comment on them. What I will say is that Christ stated that, Straight is the way and narrow the gate, and few there be that find it. To me this indicates that inspite of popular belief, the majority is always wrong, and that the truth comes at such a premium, that its a wonder that anyone finds it. It will be a comparatively small number that discover truth, and a smaller number that accept it. So, I guess what Im saying is, when the minority beliefs are held to be extreme, it only makes sense that, in light of Scripture, the truth lies somewhere in what mankind calls the extreme.

.....Ive never been one to toss a couple pennies on the table and walk away, so if someone wishes to take issue with my views, and they can maintain a civil tongue, (keyboard?), I will be happy to discuss them. Please allow me time to get back to you, and I will do my best get back in a timely fashion.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), January 25, 2000.

Eve [you grass snapping devil you; ;0)]:

You are good at this.

Best wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 25, 2000.

Z (May I call you "Z"? -- I mean we're friends now, right?), my mycotoxin mentor! :)

I appreciate your kind words.

Hi, Patrick,

Thanks so much for your thought-provoking input. I'll be pretty busy over the next day or two, but if I can find the time, I'd like to respond to it.

But don't be concerned about coming late. Over on the philosophy/religion thread I'm still seeing new people after two weeks! And you know, we can keep this one alive just as long, if enough people contribute.

For now, regarding Brett: I remember him from other threads -- treating people similarly. And he seems like the hit-and-run type; I wouldn't expect an apology. In other words, Brett has a problem -- hopefully Anita won't take it too personally.

Talk to you soon, Patrick.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 26, 2000.

Patrick,

You've raised a lot of interesting points. Can we take this in "coffee spoons"?

When you're a religious person discussing truth, I think you have to distinguish between spiritual truth and what I'll call scientific ("real-world")truth. Scientific truth really can't be determined by majority or minority rule, or by how extreme it is. It's discovered through the process of the individual human mind interfacing with the facts of reality through sense perception followed by formation of concepts, use of logic, and other methods which together constitute the process of thinking.

Before I even attempt to get into spiritual truth, I'd like your take on this so far, Patrick. Talk to you soon.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 28, 2000.

eve...

.....This may be one of my shortest posts to date. I agree wholeheartrdly. I realize that some of what I say could lead one to think that I am a "religious" person, however, I would rather consider myself, "Scripturally knowledgeable" and am very careful not to fall into the trap of measuring myself on someone's arbitrary scale of "religiousity". I believe the Scriptural message is steering mankind away from the ritualistic and into the use of the faculties that we have been given. I refuse to believe that God has given man the tools of perception, reason, discernment and control only to have man put those things on the back burner and blindly follow the majority. No, I do not portend to be "religious", per se, and I do try to greatly exercise my reasoning abilities.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), January 28, 2000.

Patrick,

Hey, Patrick, we're really breathing some new life back into this thread, eh?

I'll be pretty busy this weekend, and my mom's in the hospital with some breathing problems (she'll be ok), so I may not get a chance to respond for a bit, but I promise -- I'll really try.

See you,

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 29, 2000.

Patrick,

Your last post clarified your position on this quite a bit; it was especially nice to see how much you value man's greatest gifts the way you do.

Patrick, do you have an example from your life where you felt a genuine, difficult conflict between what you believed to be your duty from a religious perspective, and the use of your reasoning and judgment? How did you resolve this?

This isn't a test...I'm really interested to know.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 30, 2000.

eve...

.....My how you do have a tendency to make one think... In scanning my memory in regards to your question, I can recall several such instances, though none that would truly fit into the difficult category. I guess Ive been lucky in that regard. I dont think the conflict that you speak of is so much between ones reasoning/judgement and their own spiritual leanings, as those same reasoning skills and judgement, at least as far as my own are concerned, are what helped me to seek truth in Scripture, and therefore should be credited as such. The conflict would lie more in what a superior may wish to require of you, and whether the intestinal fortitude was in abundant enough supply to just say no regardless of the consequences. Also, I would have to say that in my own profession, (artist/illustrator), I really would be hard-pressed to come up with a scenario in which my convictions would come into conflict with any performance, as far as my work goes. I would think that would certainly come more into play in some of the more consequential professions such as brokers, politicians or law enforcement officers; perhaps many others as well.

.....I think that I have also been careful to let those around me know where my particular lines are drawn, and having been working for years with a great bunch of people, Im pretty fortunate that that type of issue isnt something I have to give a lot of thought to. As an aside, I did, however, many years ago, let my band break up over the issue of satanic lyric that I flatly refused to sing; does that count? :o)

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), January 31, 2000.

Patrick,

Thanks for sharing part of your past. Yes, the band situation might have counted for a lot -- it depends on how important keeping the band together was for you, whether you agonized over the decision, and so forth. But I respect you for showing courage and integrity in standing up for what you believed in.

I have to go now, but I might want to comment on other parts of your post soon...

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 31, 2000.

Hi, Patrick,

It's been awhile since I last posted, and before I comment on other aspects of your posts I need to know if you're still checking this thread.

Take care,

-- eve (123@4567.com), February 05, 2000.

eve...

.....I am.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 07, 2000.

Patrick,

Hi, again.

You said, that you believed that

"...the Scriptural message is steering mankind away from the ritualistic and into the use of the faculties that we have been given...perception, reason, discernment and control..."

Now, this is very interesting to me. Can you show me some verses that would point to this? Talk to ya later, Pat...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 10, 2000.

eve...

.....As far as the portion about steering mankind from the ritualistic, the entire Scripture is replete with examples of Gods admonishment to lay these things aside. One huge example is Hosea 6:6, where He states that He desired mercy, (lovingkindness), and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. This knowledge in this verse compares to chapter 2 of the same book, verse twenty, where He says, I will even betroth thee unto Me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the Lord. This speaks to the sign of Israels blessing, ( compares to Isaiah 11:9, 54:13, Jeremiah 31: 33, 34, John 6: 45). Their evils came from the not knowing, (Isaiah 1:3, Luke 19: 42, 44). One of the greatest commandments that Christ gave the apostles was learn of Me. That learning will certainly show the error in that which I term ritualistic here.

.....For the faculties given to man, (ish=mankind; no gender implied), there are many verses that speak of eyes to see which means to perceive as opposed to the light merely bouncing off the optic nerve to facilitate vision; I believe youll find this in Acts 28 around verses 25 or 26 as well as other places. This perception is vital, and oftentimes, man must be made to learn to look as opposed to simply seeing. Likewise with the ears to hear which means to understand, (same area of Acts). How would understanding be accomplished, were man not to use these faculties that he has been given? Did Paul not suggest to let us reason together? In days past, discernment was considered a virtue, (Ecclesiastes 8:5), yet today, it is not; a discriminating man was considered a compliment; today a felony. For further verses on these great gifts of the Creator, begin with Proverbs 1.

.....The Scripture lawyers of today are very impressive in that they can quote verse upon verse, at times it would seem, all day long. To the unlearned, this is almost awe inspiring; yet when they have no understanding of Gods true overall eternal purpose, they become worthless. All the Jack Van Impes in the world do great mischief with their quote upon quote, yet wallow in deep deception, and teaching it as Gods truth, and we wonder why the world is as it is.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 10, 2000.

Patrick,

At first glance, Proverbs appears to address this issue reasonably well, although I'm really not very familiar with it and I'll need more time with it. When I read the context surrounding some of your other references, however, other problems seem to be pulled into play that confuse the issue; I'll need a little more time with some of those as well. In the meantime, feel free to expand on these at any time.

When you mention Paul's suggestion to "let us reason together", what was the context? I couldn't readily locate that passage. There is, however, a very nice instruction from him in 1 Thess. 5:21, where he calls upon us to "Prove all things..." Hope to talk to you soon...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 13, 2000.