I see the sysops, in there infinite wisdom, have seen fit to extensively edit the thread on "R.C.":

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

As such, I doubt if this thread will survive long. If (when) deleted, it will be reposted over at the Deleted Threads forum:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=TimeBomb%202000%20%28Y2000%29%20Deleted%20Thread

Andy illustrates the main point nicely, though these posts were editted as well. Andy repeatedly brought up articles by David Icke, regarding George Bush and Oil.

For all I know, David Icke may have something substantial on George Bush. But, am I supposed to trust Icke's "research" and "conclusions"? From the same person whose supposed "research" has led to the "conclusion" that George Bush is a "shapeshifting reptilian", among many others? See his list:

http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/listsatan.html

Sorry, but I'll pass.

The point is even more important in the case of "R.C.". Icke at least attempts to back up his articles with some verifiable research.

To a one, "R.C."'s posts consisted almost entirely of supposed "inside" anonymous sources. Am I to take the mere word of "R.C." that these are legitimate? Again, trust his "research" and "conclusions"? From someone whose "research" led him to the "conclusion" that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were part of a grand Masonic Conspiracy? That America is "Mystery Babylon", and will be destroyed by Angelic Invasion forces from Outer Space?

Sorry, but again I'll pass.

And now "R.C." joins in the Great Revisionism. "R.C." claims "blatant, libelous mischaracterization and misrepresentation".

Why, then, did he immediately remove the web-pages? Why must he resort to rewriting and rewording his "articles", instead of pointing to the originals? Why must he rebuild his web-site?

Couldn't be that he used the same sensationalism? Couldn't be that anyone reading the actual articles on his site would come to the same conclusions?

Didn't think so. Though I've yet to determine any other reason for removing the pages from view.

"R.C." says "I never said the oil industry would collapse". Yet this posting claims:

"BTW, on Y2K... My sources in the oil industry tell me that the oil biz is likely to be reduced by 80% or more... Very little crude oil will get pumped and the tankers will likely not be compliant and the pipelines are likely to go down. Sources...[snip--personal information--per request--Sysop]... much of the oil industry could be virtually shut down for a year or so. Minimum of 90 days. Hearing other stories from a source high up within the Fed's that they're expecting 2-3 years of massive disruptions... and complete loss of the power grid for an extended period. We're hearing stories here in whispers that a minimum of 3 days of downtime on the GRID itself... but... more reliable sources indicate the grid will likely go dark and stay dark for 90 days minimum."

http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/Newsletters/News990222.html

And again, from his very first posting on this forum:

"BOTTOM LINE on Oil Wells: Expect a near complete stoppage in crude oil pumping on Jan 1, 2000."

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000xLU

And yet again, we here from his "inside sources" claiming "3 Week Power Outages":

http://fleet.mail-list.com/archives/nhneffacu/msg00007.html

And more on his "inside sources" in the electrical industry, all apparently "heading for the hills":

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000ylY

"R.C." has been the source of a tremendous amount of unsubstantiated rumours. In the words of Jay Abshier, "Bullshit". His postings spread throught the internet.

Yes, "R.C." can hide his web-site, and attempt to reword his articles.

Yes, "R.C." can attempt to revise his documented statements.

Yes, people here can continue to ignore the facts, and seamlessly "morph" from one catastrophe to the next.

And I'll still be LMAO.

-- LMAO (too@funny.here), January 22, 2000

Answers

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.

LMAO = LOOK ... self-promotion at its worst. Is the debunker site down again?

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

justwondering....

I am promoting mental health...you should get some.

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

LMAO wrote:

I am promoting mental health...you should get some.

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

Come on now...its time for you to take your Mesoridazine. Stat 400mg and off to your 72 hour admission. You will feel better on Tuesday.

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

LMAO,

You must have some real deep-seated insecurities. To attack anyone so viciously for the reasons you provide is a good indication of a slightly unhinged brain. Did your father beat you? Perhaps make you go to church against your will? I feel sorry for you.

...and I have some advice too. Ask yourself why R.C. bothers you so much. If you're honest with yourself the answer might reveal more about your character than you care to know.

Hope you get well,

-- jonny (jonnyb@good.com), January 22, 2000.

"R.C." bothers me because, for the past year, he has posted unsubstantiated bullsh*t about the Oil and Electric industries. Backed by nothing more than his mysterious "inside sources".

"R.C." bothers me because, when confronted with the facts, he choses to hide the information.

"R.C." bothers me because he epitomizes the absolute worst of the internet. Posing as an "expert" with "inside information".

Ask yourself, why it does NOT bother you?

-- LMAO (too@funny.here), January 22, 2000.

LMAO,

R.C. doesn't bother me because I filter everything I read in this type of environment with my own criteria of what is legitimate, what is questionable and what is downright trash (with a number of shades in between). Isn't that our inalienable right? Why do you think that you have to 'enlighten' the rest of us poor souls with your version of what's right. The conclusions that you come to may or may not be mine, but I make no pretense of trying to tell you how to filter the data we see here.

So stow it, and at least do the rest of us a favor and let us come to our own conclusion.

Ultimately there will be no subjectivity as to whether R.C. was right or wrong, and that reality should serve to help each of us learn to either tweak our BS meter or continue to rely on our intuition/ability/discernment/etc.

jonny

-- jonny (jonnyb@good.com), January 22, 2000.

So jonny, you're saying you would rather not have actual information posted?

Believe what you like. I'm not telling you what to believe. Just providing more information with which to evaluate.

But jonny, maybe you can explain why "R.C." immediately removed the web-pages?

-- LMAO (too@funny.here), January 22, 2000.

LMAO wrote:

But jonny, maybe you can explain why "R.C." immediately removed the web-pages?

-- LMAO (too@funny.here), January 22, 2000.

To avoid trolls like you. LMAO, you are new here? What name did you use before?

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

LMAO - The Y2K related oil crisis is underway. Wake up son.

Look - If you want to believe "Y2K was a hoax", that is your prerogative, but its sounds as convincing as Ickes "reptile theory", which for some reason LMAO decided to associate with R.C., who probably would have never heard of Ickes.

-- (@ .), January 22, 2000.

LMAO,

You take the liberty of assuming that "(I) you would rather not have actual information posted?" and in so doing, you make a classic mistake. I can find no premise in my post to lead to that conclusion. Suffice it to say, I'd certainly prefer 'actual information' (I'll do you the favor of assuming that you mean true or verified information) but I'd also prefer world peace, no taxes, etc. I also know that I'm not holding my breath waiting for these things to come about - and hence, I work hard to fine tune my "BS filter", learn which of my instincts I can trust and which I'd better not rely on. As I told several of my closest friends and collegues before the rollover, regardless of what happens after Jan 1, I will have learned much about myself and my ability to distinguish fact from fiction.

-- jonny (jonnyb@good.com), January 22, 2000.

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.

-- (@ .), January 22, 2000.

No, I never associated Icke with "R.C.". Andy brought up Icke on that thread, though the posts have now been "editted".

jonny, I can only make assumptions from your posts. You seem to have a major problem with the information I've posted regarding "R.C.", his actual statements. You say you would rather "let us come to our own conclusions".

Harvey, no, the possibilities "R.C." posted did not and are not occurring. The electrical grid did not go dark for three weeks. The oil industry did not shut down for 90 days. There was not a complete stoppage of crude oil pumping.

Get a grip. Oil prices have risen. They may go higher. They may not. It ain't TEOTWAWKI.

-- LMAO (too@funny.here), January 22, 2000.

Oh, and to justwondering, it sure seems to me that the best defense against "blatant, libelous mischaracterization and misrepresentation" would be to merely point people to the actual statements.

Instead, he yanks the web-pages from view, and attempts to rephrase and reword his statements.

Pretty strange defense. Must be missing something here.

-- LMAO (too@funny.here), January 22, 2000.

LMAO doth protest too much. Many who lurk here are probably asking themselves why anybody would expend all that effort. Why do you try so hard to save us? hmmmm?

-- Will (righthere@home.now), January 22, 2000.

And of course, no one ever wonders why people expend so much energy spreading innuendo and unsubstantiated BS, do they?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled TEOTWAWKI channel.

-- LMAO (too@funny.here), January 22, 2000.

Will, save you? Hardly, we're laughing at you. GI?

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

Oh, pardon me.. I guess my increased fuel cost must be my imagination, even though an OPEC spokesperson said "can't increase production".

Laughing at us/me? you must be very hard up for entertainment.

Many who lurk here probably see the irony you create, by posting I am definitely reveling in it...., now that is slightly entertaining.

-- Will (righthere@home.now), January 22, 2000.

On another note:

LMAO said "And of course, no one ever wonders why people expend so much energy spreading innuendo and unsubstantiated BS, do they?"

No I guess everyone here is not smart enough to evaluate things for themselves, that's why you're here, right? Are you Sister Theresa? huh? Florence Nightingale perhaps? our collective Guardian Angel then?

You see, all you've done is said he's wrong and provided nothing real to back it up. When called on it you claim your here for a laugh.

Do you have any idea how pathetic you look?

Drop your preconceived notions and think about it.

-- Will (righthere@home.now), January 22, 2000.

Guardian Angel? Hardly. Just posting information. You do want information, don't you?

No real back-up? Did the power grid go down for 90 days? Three Weeks? Three Seconds?

Did the Oil industry shut down for 90 days?

What "backup" do you need?

Perhaps I am pathetic.

Some people get their entertainment by clinging to fantasies of Doom. Some get entertainment by weaving stories of impending Doom.

I get entertainment by laughing at them.

-- LMAO (too@funny.here), January 22, 2000.

You are babbling about a fringe element, your focus occurs from ignorance or...?

Many who lurk here understand the sand in the engine analogy....do you?

Dazzle us with your insight in June. For two years I said I will relax in June, I would bet many others understand this.

Do you see how your focus is useless. The year 2000 problem will unfold without RC, get it?

-- Will (righthere@home.now), January 22, 2000.

June, huh?

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll find some other "looming crisis" before then.

You got your pick here. Chemtrails? Oil? Global Warming?

It doens't take "insight" to see the failure of "R.C."'s statements. Just eyes.

Yes, the "crisis" will unfold, with or without "R.C.". But Y2k has been clouded with the huge billows of smoke spewed by people like "R.C.", which have to be waded through.

Somewhere, someplace, doesn't this bother you in the tiniest bit?

-- LMAO (too@funny.here), January 22, 2000.

jonny, I like the way you think.

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

Yes, June,.. care to disagree?

You are the one babbling about crises, putting words in my mouth makes me wonder about your interpretation of RC's remarks.

You said:

"Somewhere, someplace, doesn't this bother you in the tiniest bit? "

No,

-- Will (righthere@home.now), January 22, 2000.

Yes, June,.. care to disagree?

You are the one babbling about crises, putting words in my mouth makes me wonder about your interpretation of RC's remarks.

You said:

"Somewhere, someplace, doesn't this bother you in the tiniest bit? "

No, not one bit....we are all adults here and can analyze (or not)for ourselves, your attempt to discredit is pathetic....

It's possible your confused....is that it?

-- Will (righthere@home.now), January 22, 2000.

LMAO

Anyone who makes life decisions based on the web mutterings of anonymous posters (such as me and you) is not using their critical thinking skills. I understand your frustration with people who claim to be real experts and yet present themselves as fictitious persons.

This forum is infested with such "experts" on all sides of any given issue.

You sound angry, disillusioned even, and as though you are looking for someone to vent on. The truth is you are not likely to find a lot of supporters of "RC" to rumble with here. Anyone who took him or C4i or even Flint (with all his massive preps) seriously would hardly admit it now. Anyone who took such anonymous posters with a grain of sale to start with, will have no reason to be upset.

Are you seriously shocked that people lie, spin, obfuscate and dissemble? I doubt it.

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

Thank you DL.

There are no experts, even some of the experts agree on this. The chest pounding seems like anger to me....anger is usually rooted in fear or ignorance.

-- Will (righthere@home.now), January 22, 2000.

Will, "my interpretation" is merely reposting actual statements.

Other than "R.C."'s web-site. And you wouldn't have to rely on "my interpretation" if "R.C." hadn't yanked the web-pages from view.

Yes, I'm angry. Angry that someone like "R.C." could mislead so many. And that it was allowed, for the most part unchallenged, and even encouraged, on forums such as this. Even now, there are those here clamoring for "R.C." to continue.

Well, enjoy yourselves. This forum is what you make it.

-- LMAO (too@funny.here), January 22, 2000.

Australia - where the Kangaroos are afraid, and LMAO wears wellingtons all the time.

-- 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.

LMAO said

"Angry that someone like "R.C." could mislead so many."

Proof please..... perhaps your omnipotence does not allow you see that RC is not a messiah to this forum, no person is ....unless your babbling about that barely tangible fringe again...are you? Well?.... Are going to wallow in anger because a couple people took RC *seriously*....hmmmmm?

Oh and Andy you forgot to mention the velcro gloves. :)

-- Will (righthere@home.now), January 23, 2000.

LMAO writes like Decker.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 23, 2000.