Arcadia Discussion Zone

Over the past week, I have been accused of having faked the Castillon Diary, and now, spurious charges by Pascal Guillaumes that I somehow am playing another game, have also been made.
In the first example, the principal person involved, "Renne", went on the record as saying I had nothing to do with this, yet Roger and TCP continued to make snipe remarks - "old boys network" type of style - about me. David Barrett sorta apologised - don't worry David, if you're in London at the meeting on Wednesday, you came make a full and public apology - but Roger and Tim never did. Instead, Roger goes on and makes other allegations, claims, etc.

I've always said that World War III will start on a forum, and it's likely to be Arcadia's. It's clear some people here continue to make up wild allegations about me and various others - anything that is new, whether it is Ben, Patrice, Andre, Castillon, this or that, is game fair for their match - and one could almost suspect these people of having an agenda: to make sure the Rennes mystery remains infantile, and caught where it is.
Whereas there is now some moderation, this can never suffice, unless it becomes a full-time job, done 24/7. So I call upon all the rest that whenever such spurious allegations, like we constantly see here, are made, we all refrain from entering the debate and just let the silly people talk to each other. Without an audience, they'll soon die out. That's what happens to bullies.

Roger, Tim. I'm still waiting for an apology regarding the Castillon Diary. Though it hasn't stopped you from since have made up two more spurious stories about myself, colleagues and friends.

Shameful. But no doubt to be followed with further claims...

"If" Roger? There is no "if"...

As I said you would: you would continue to make claims... or make demands.

I had nothing to do with the Castillon stuff, you've been told this in your face, yet by phrasing it in the conditional, you leave it open, don't you? Disgusting.

What I see on this forum - and everywhere in life - is people who do no research, but have lots of opinions, and come to forums to spread them. I guess that's why they are called forums, as it's a market, where we all know the most ridiculous gossip of town is being talked about. But I, for one, am FED UP with it. It's bringing out the most basic instincts in people - and me - and I feel sorry for the poor interested person that stumbles in here and sees what goes on here. It's a total disgrace and Sauniere is turning himself over in his grave - his new one, that is...

So, Roger, let me get this right:

You think I am faking a document, based on someone - Bill (who? The only Bill I know in the RLC field is Kersey, and I've only met him twice, so I wouldn't think he's an expert on me)'s word.
And somehow you seem to think I have faked 100s of documents in this field too? Right? What gave you that idea? For why else give me odds of 1 in 2?
You then convince yourself it is me, or at least give me a 50% choice of it being? I assume the other suspect wasn't this Colin whomever either, who admitted faking it?
So you were wrong 100%, in your analysis of the Castillon material, correct?

Now this should somewhat highlight why I don't enter in debate with you on other material, as it is simply and utterly futile.

David since somewhere summer last year, has raked up 400 messages here, which is roughly two a day. You must average about 5 to 10 here, and no doubt on some other forums another 5 or 10. This is not normal... 10-20 letters per day on a forum, every day of the year? No wonder we are in the economic crisis we are in! (and this is said tongue-in-cheek - see, David, I'm pointing it out clearly, so people see it)

And now, I mean it: FINI. Dinner time and then onwards to other things. See you in six months or whenever Mr. Chronodrome decides to launch false allegations once again.

Au revoir...

False. I never mentioned your name in connection to the Castillon diary. Ms. Bennett's continued penchant for dropping the initials "F.C." into her posts after exposing the hoax, coupled with your histrionic outburst, is sufficient cause for eyebrows to be raised, in my opinion; but I have not expressed an opinion on your involvement on this forum. Kindly do not put words in my mouth, Filip.



Perhaps the "infantile" state of current RLC research has less to do with the agenda of those skeptics who don't take "evidence" at face value solely on someone's say-so, but on the ambiguous nature of this "new evidence" and its entire dependence on interpretations by alternative authors whose livelihoods depend on publishing.



"Spurious" is in the eye of the beholder, Filip.



Methinks thou doth protest too much, Filip. You'll wait in vain for an apology from me.



Are you claiming diplomatic immunity here? It goes with the territory, Filip - you publish, therefore you subject yourself to scrutiny. Surely the forum moderator understands that much.

TCP

Btw, Filip, in case you think I have it in for you, this is not so. In fact, a week or so ago I emailed Andy about next week's Moot With No Name and suggested he mention it here, for any forum members in or near London who might be interested.

Atlantis Bookshop have just put the details on their website, so here they are. (And of course I'll be there -- I was the organiser of the MWNN for nearly five years!)



The Moot is held upstairs in the pub. A few forum members have been in the past, and am sure will agree that it's a highly convivial and non-antagonistic meeting. Hope to see a few of you there. (PM me if you need further details.)

Correct.

Nope.

When I was running the Moot I didn't always agree with the speakers I booked -- hardly surprising with a fortnightly meeting over nearly five years. It's an intelligent and well-read audience; the Q&A sessions are often more interesting than the talks!

Fillip,

I do sincerely believe the only people who deserve an apology from all of the Rennes Researchers, who have been 'disgusiting' towards that team ... are the Hammott Team.

I'm sorry, but all of you who are complaining about your bad treatment blah blah blah - did ALOT worse to us, especially Ben, and said things that should NEVER have been said.

And not one of you ever PUBLICLY apologised to Ben. As far as i am concerned, you all still owe him one.

However, i do not hold it against any of you. It is the nature of the beast, and we learnt the hard way. But the people carping on now ..... about accusations levelled at them : )

So dont expect any sympathy from me about your predicament now.
I have no ill will to anyone here ..... but just had to say my piece.

But ... is Ben on the forum? Where is he?

Guys, we should not be too ‘big’ to apologize for stuff…

I have apologized to Ben privately – verbally and in writing, for my ‘approach’ and ‘treatment’ of his work.

And to that end, let me extend that to you Sandy – and you Bill. It’s not to say that I am comfortable with every detail of the discoveries, but there are ways discussing and conveying opinions, and then there is just rudeness…which I was guilty of.

Andrew

I publicly expressed my apologies for the fierceness of the debate to Ben on this forum on 12th February in the 17 questions thread. For me that also implies Sandy and Bill. If that wasn't clear. Bill, Sandy, my apologies for being an asshole sometimes.

It concerned the tone of voice I used that wasn't appropriate. My opinion hasn't changed but I'll try to discuss calmly and fact-based. I am very interested to see what the future brings.

As for Philip, even though we sometimes disagree, in the time that we have been co-operating on Rennessence, I have really enjoyed his humor and fabulous factual knowledge of everything Rennes-le-Château. He's always been true to his word to me personally. Rennessence will hopefully be there for a long time to come.

Cj

Roger / Raven - thanks guys! Mighty cool of you.

This whole thing would be so much better - and successful - if we friends more of the time.

Ok, I'll stop before you start puking.

Cheers,

Andrew

Thank you Andy, Raven etc .... ok, water under the bridge ....

And Roger has kind of apologised in his own way i think ; )

Please, there really is a tomb, its not fake ... and i cant wait for it to be excavated .... i want to see you all happy and looking at the artifacts ; )

It will be great, however it turns out : )

PS And i apologise too, if i was ever rude to any of you.

Ok - thanks Sandy. Sorry about this guys, but a group hug is in order....

Hug away...



VAM

How cute! It's made me feel all warm inside.

Rhea

Hi Fillip,

I had to check in my dictionnary the word "spurious" (don't laugh, please, but i learn a lot with you, guys).

So i try to find where and when i've charged you "spuriously" in the Courtade case. Still waiting for the "second" example.

Do you remember when you came to tell us that we were ignoring the 1624 ? Do you remember that i tried to explain the reasons of this lack of knowledge because 1624 was rarely mentionned in your publications ? How severe you were ? I didn't charge you at all. You came with the "pathetic defense" in first words of your second post. Read again your posts, please.

I don't have to apologise. You should to me.
I say all of that very nicely (my english doesn't help to show my mood).

pascal

I have a new mission for you, Pascal. Using the footage from Bloodline of Ben entering the cave (which I will e-mail to you if you don't have the movie), locate that cave and see if there's really a tomb in it. It should be somewhere South of Rennes-les-Bains. I know you can do this, if anyone can. You'll find some helpful clues here http://www.ophicus.co.uk/article1.html Glycon has the tomb location wrong though. Judging from the RLB map parchment on the site, it's closer to the pointy part of the road marked in red.

Just following on from JB's post about Glycon I thought Id re-check out his site http://www.ophicus.co.uk/article1.html , to my surprise I noticed all the Crista "thingies" decorating the page. If my memory serves me right Glycon left the forum before the Crista was discussed on the Pax/Chi/Rho thread, does he know something interesting ?
Im aware Im off-topic but its not worth a new topic for one post.

Regards
Nic

Actually, I doubt if Ben would have walked very far, so the cave is probably very close to his parking spot. No way he was going to walk all the way down to where Glycon said the tomb was, especially in the dark.

Or perhaps Glykon is "gone, but not forgotten"...? Still lurking, perhaps?

TCP

Or boring some poor sod senseless...zzzzzzz

And what about the spooky wife who put the wind up both Ben and Bruce with her (in English) "Who Arrre youuuu ?"
God almighty, I wouldn't dare go near the place after that.

Hi JB1717,

Today was a day off in france, so i did a quick visit to RLB.
I have parked my old car at the same place than Ben's Van that you have indicated to me. It is a very nice place. I think it desserves to spend more time there.




Than you again.
Pascal