BSPA Times

Posted on 25 June 2010 by scanjack

“We’re going to have to evacuate the gulf states,” said Matt Simmons, founder of Simmons and Co., an oil investment firm and, since the April 20 blowout, the unflagging source of end-of-the-world predictions. “Can you imagine evacuating 20 million people? . . . This story is 80 times worse than I thought.” (Washington Post)

There is no end of the dooms day scenarios being put out daily it seems, with the ongoing oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, as we move into the tropical storm season it’s possible some fears may be more credible than anyone thought. Stranger than fiction?

In positive news today, at least Iran woke up and realized sending an aid ship into Gaza was a really bad idea.

45 Comments For This Post

  1. Thraxxus Says:

    That would be the equivalent to 1/4th the population of the United States. I wonder if that number includes the islands.

  2. scanjack Says:

    Imagine, if you will, a concert in Tampa, FL (saw Metallica and others there actually). The lights dim in the auditorium. Everyone raises and flicks there lighters ….. BooM?

    Probably not, but someone mentioned that an extinction level event on this planet had been attributed to a massive Methane release from the ocean. Hmm, death by Shart – oil, methane goodness ๐Ÿ™‚

  3. Thraxxus Says:

    Karzack mentioned that we could see something like that on the 4th of July.

  4. Caravaggio Says:

    Quick note: Simmons has positioned his firm with one of the largest short positions on BP possible. He is leveraged to the hilt and will make a fortune if BP hits zero.

    In summation, Matt Simmons is an asshole. A shit-stirrer. A “sky is falling because it makes me rich” type of douche bag.

  5. BayAreaDM Says:

    Oh damn Car – don’t hold back. Tell it like it is.

  6. Caravaggio Says:

    Ha! Aside from my pseudo-Tourette syndrome-like parlance, I get rather heated when I see equity traders take advantage of the already skittish. It is to the trader’s advantage to drum-up paranoia. Believe me, if they were long BP, they’d be taking the exact opposite stance regardless of the facts. Truth is what they make it, folks.

    Why someone would even consider a quote from someone else who blantantly identifies himself as an investment banker as an unbiased source is beyond me. The Washington Post is being less-than-professional here (shock) by leaving the qualification of their sources up to the reader – a readership that most likely is not versed in the equity market/mindshare game played by Wall Street.

    Signed, Caravaggio the Antagonistic, Socially-inept Prick ๐Ÿ˜‰

  7. Thraxxus Says:

    I find it amusing that more and more I encounter people who say “Show me a valid new source – like something major, say an MSM!” So then somebody gives them one – “Well that isn’t a REAL news source – oh sure they have won tons of awards for journalism – but that one guy you picked – well he is just crazy.”

    I would like to see people offer up a list of the credible – the few that still exist – and then maybe those who picked up the first gauntlet cast may better tailor their response to suit your own beliefs better. Until that happens I plan to ignore most of what people say on here comment wise regards sources but because frankly it seems that sources are only credible to people when they follow their own belief systems. How so sadly human.

  8. BayAreaDM Says:

    Car merely said you shouldn’t trust people to cast judgment on a situation when they are actively betting on a particular outcome. If you want to ignore peoples’ comments just because they question the source of a primary quote well….that makes no sense, especially since you are the editor and should be evaluating such aspects. If it is too much to ask for a source that has no real monetary gain in the scenario, or to have that hedging mentioned somewhere in the article, well I weep for the future of journalism and blogging.

  9. Thraxxus Says:

    My statement was not directed at his comment, but rather the nature of the comment I see in a broad scope – not just on this site. Many times I encounter this same style of dismissal be that online or in personal conversation.

    “Show me one person on CNN who believes that!”
    “Bob Johnson (fictional) said it the other day in his article x!”
    “Ok somebody other than him!”
    “You said ANYONE on CNN.”

    And what makes you think I am the editor on Blinkinblogs?

  10. Thraxxus Says:

    More people with outlandish claims.

    I am curious where the science side of this is. Is it possible or is it, as Caravaggio states, some form of doomsday speak meant to trump up business?

    I do not doubt at all the Caravaggio theory given how reporting is done these days – after all, reporting is a business now not the news.

  11. Caravaggio Says:

    outlandish indeed. this source,, can be squarely categorized as apocalyptic dribble. the reader commentary below the story is priceless.

    i’ve read numerous versions of this hurricane scenario just over the last two weeks alone… each is without even the remotest degree of fundamental knowledge within physics pertaining to fluid dynamics. from gigantic, non-diluting clouds of poisonous gas to storm-surges making the entire gulf uninhabitable for centuries, this is great entertainment.

    i have an impulse to blame hollywood for this crap. i want to kick spielberg’s ass.

    identifying a credible source for this topic: The Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (AOML) is one of the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) Facilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    will the effects of the oil contamination be worse from a hurricane? yes, potentially much worse. will a redneck sitting in his trailer in panama city beach lighting a hit from his water bong cause the sky to catch on fire globally? ummm…. yes, potentially (insert: snide inflection when reading this).

    and for clarity… i didn’t debate the validity of the news source (washington post). i negated, laughed at, and pissed on the validity of the quoted interviewee by exposing him as being an unethical douche bag equity trader.

    i, hereby, cast my vote for thraxxus as “editor”. hip hip hurray! ๐Ÿ˜‰

  12. BayAreaDM Says:

    Oh crap – Car just listed a credible news source for this topic. Don’t you know that’s blogger suicide?

    There is nothing wrong with not trusting a news source. No, really – there is nothing wrong with it.

  13. scanjack Says:

    Curious that no credit was given here for that fact that the article itself cast a shadow of doubt as to the credibility of the source Pimp Daddy Derivatives, Simmons: “said Matt Simmons, founder of Simmons and Co., an oil investment firm and, since the April 20 blowout, the unflagging source of end-of-the-world predictions.”

    WHO needs an editor anyway ๐Ÿ˜‰

  14. Thraxxus Says:

    I don’t think you get my point – at no time have I said people should believe everything that they read. What I am saying is I keep encountering people who say “oh yeah show me where X says that!” then you do and they say “Well a different X!”

    This conversation has run its course.

  15. Caravaggio Says:

    E-mail Joel L. Achenbach of the Washington Post
    Use this form to send an e-mail to Joel L. Achenbach. Thanks in advance for taking the time to send us feedback.

    See also: Recent articles by Joel L. Achenbach.

    Your name: Epictetus Romanus

    Your e-mail address:

    The subject of your message (optional): Oil Spill Worst Case Scenarios Article

    Mr. Achenbach –
    Allow me to point out that quoting Mr. Simmons, of Simmons Investments, was done so without regard to SEC Discloser Regulations. In another blog over a month ago, Mr. Simmons discusses shorting BP stock relative to his firm’s planned strategic positions. It would seem then that touting worst case scenarios to provoke a magnified negative perception would benefit Mr. Simmons monetarily at the expense of the thousands of small business owners on the Gulf Coast.

    As a responsible Staff Writer, this should have been identified in your article – and should be with anyone self-identifying as being within the financial services industry.

    Thank you,
    Epictetus Romanus

  16. Caravaggio Says:

    @thrax – did i do the old switcher-roo?

    โ€œoh yeah show me where X says that!โ€ then you do and they say โ€œWell a different X!”

    not sure… i re-read the thread and couldn’t find it.

  17. Thraxxus Says:

    No, and I also did not say YOU. I merely made an observation as your comment reminded me of such.

    You have many times said certain off path “sources” are crap – then if someone shows a MSM source you trash that as well. It would appear that in your universe only scientists are to be quoted and not media of any kind. Frankly, I can’t really slight you for that as I have also indicated that I don’t believe in MSM for crap. It does make me wonder though if you were presented with a scientist who stated something contrary to your belief what you would say. Of course you did that once – “They are not qualified in this area.”

    That said when someone quotes anyone to you I believe that they should also include the entire career path and qualifications of said scientist to you for review so that you may deem whether or not they are a credible source as you are clearly the one in the know – or they could just not bother whatsoever – a path I plan to take.

  18. Thraxxus Says:

    BTW – loved your letter – I do hope you sent that as well as share any response that is sent back, if any.

  19. Caravaggio Says:

    well… education counts for something (indicative of credible sources being inclusive of “scientists”). and the consistent elements of context and credibility should be a focal point of any article leveraging a quoted source. for example, i’d bash an oil-industry employed geologist (ph.d.) who wanted to debate global warming. he has a horse in that race and should not be seen as unbiased.

    this also reminds me of my wife. she is a very smart, driven lady. however, i find it remarkable that she doesn’t have an innate capacity to distinguish B-movies from top-flight releases. she truly cannot differentiate while browsing movie selections what is true crap from just popular crap;. a blind squirrel can luck up upon an acorn, she, too, sometimes finds golden nuggets within the crap pile of b-movies.

    just like b-movies, “off path” sources by-and-large are crap. however, every once and awhile a solid turd floats to the surface and redeems the whole category, like (just kidding).

    back to the main premise… i never have illuminated a need for identifying career paths and qualifications not relevant to the story. if the guy is an equity trader, had made prior comments about taking gigantic short positions against bp, and then offers up end-of-the-world scenarios that enrich his position… then i say “bullshit” – and i shall continue trashing MSM or off path crap like this. i employ an equal opportunity bullshit detector.

    sidenote: i hope that douche bag writes back to defend his article. i’ll share it along with my (planned) response.

  20. Thraxxus Says:

    Your wife story was great.
    I understand your point, I just try to veer away from dissing an entire story based on one thing unless of course the entire story is based on that one fallible thing.

    And I truly believe that you would love to have someone’s creds thrown at your feet whenever they are quoted – I believe that gets your goat.

  21. Caravaggio Says:

    my goat has done been gotten?!?! give it back!

    yeah… a little birdie once told me that the world is predominately made up of the ignorant, the superstitious, and the superstitiously-ignorant.

    regardless, credibility has to be a primary factor in today’s information overflow. give me a over-pontificating talking-head in the media speaking to things outside of his specialty and i’ll eat him for lunch.

    where’d that damn goat go?

  22. Thraxxus Says:

    SEE!!!!! Gosh, I love me.

  23. Caravaggio Says:

    but how, my i ask, do you place a value upon differentiating between conspiracies you believe to have a high probability of being true versus those you believe are hubristic and/or nonsensical?

    if one were to believe that all information is considered on equal footing, then this issue just took upon what psychology calls “logosphobia”.

    there must be a construct from which valuation is conducted. society offers an acceptable construct in the form of scientific theory.

    and related to this, there is a current misnomer used in the conveyance of “open-mindedness” that is now engrained as a cultural norm. the problem is that “open-mindedness” is thought of as a synonym to “anything goes”.


  24. Thraxxus Says:

    Sigh. My point has once again been talked into something else.


  25. Caravaggio Says:

    i must not be attuned to the thraxxus sytactic architecture. my lack of sensitivity here, in accordance with stylistic interpretation of digital linguistics, is a cause of great confusion for caravaggio. any data you can provide to alleviate this chaos is greatly appreciated.

    if the premise wasn’t about lil ol’ me then the commentary response offering a theory surmising my goat-getting was attributed to something else? please note that i’ve been told on numerous occasions that i don’t actually converse in english, so any assistance is valued.

  26. BayAreaDM Says:

    I thought this conversation had run its course – I had tuned out. Maybe you (Thraxxus) should do a definitive blog entry on this deep-seeded issue you have with people not taking your sources of controversial information seriously. With all your scenarios and observations, that is basically the gist of what you are saying. I don’t believe Car or I want a “career path” – if I understand right, all we want is some kind of revelation of ulterior motives (if any). Is that so bad? What am I missing here?

  27. Thraxxus Says:

    “deep-seeded issue you have with people not taking your sources of controversial information seriously” – absolutely not what I said.

    Both of you should scroll up and actually read what was written instead of constantly twisting things into some sort of argument. I said the same thing several times and each time both of you took it like “Gosh Thrax why jump on car!!?!?! BIG JERK!” and “Geesh just because we don’t believe your source!” (wasn’t my source to begin with.) and “SORRRRY if we want someone credible!!” again I didn’t say anything about this source be credible or not or that I have an issue with credible sources.

    1) I have issue with someone saying source X is credible, someone posts something that source X said, and then it is dismissed because it goes against the beliefs of the original person. That is just convenience.
    2) My statement on credentials was sarcasm. Although for both of you I think it might help the situation as both of you get very excited about arguing semantics while ignoring what was actually said.
    3) If you believe certain people, list them. If they piped in on the topic – great – we can add in their commentary.
    4) I plan to not defend a word I say in the future.

  28. Caravaggio Says:

    hey… i’d like to invoke the spirit of the great bird who flies high above us and keeps a vigilant eye upon the blogosphere. let us not enrage him. let us embrace in digital warmth and sing the song of brotherhood… or some shit close to that.

    re-reading the GIGANTIC thread. a single sentence may have caused this 50 car pile-up.

    @thrax… you said my comments “reminded” you of your #1 above. you didn’t say it was literally the outlined #1 above – even though in your latest comment you left out the word “reminded” — you made it declarative.

    this was the source of the confusion (and still is) for a couple of reasons.

    for the life of me, i am having a hard time making the connection between my comments and your “source X = dismissed = convenience” premise. even if it was meant as it was initially stated… “it reminded me…” there is still a direct path/accusational link between my comment and your premise. at this point this is not about semantics, this is about sytactic structure. now the real confusion exists because you re-stated your premise but sans the “it reminded me” which really makes this a “finger-pointed towards caravaggio”. and if this is the case, then i’m truly confused (as i believe BayAreaDM is as well) because i don’t see how my comment relates to your premise around my comment.

    this all goes back to the original marathon thread we had arguing the philosophical nature of the scientific method. without a verifiable construct for valuation of ideologies, articles, stories, hearsay, etc… one is beyond the intended definition of “open-minded” as one is actually suffering from logosphobia.

    and all information is not created equal just as one uttering this statement is not biased in his declaration that all information is not created equal.

    caravaggio doesn’t use the “whatever source reinforces my position is the one that i’ll go with – at the expense of the full story” and this, from what i gather, is the premise of your position on this thread. however you did make it more ambiguous through the utility of “someone” and not “caravaggio” – so it isn’t really an accusation.

    clarity. that is thy goal. clarity. and to live in fear of the big bird who watches over the blogosphere. fear. clarity. freedom. brotherhood. happy wednesday.

  29. BayAreaDM Says:

    Rant and rave and get over-defensive all you want. I’m not really sure why you are taking this so personally, but that’s not really my concern. All Car said was “that guy has ulterior motives” and you went into a left-field rant about something barely applicable. “For the life of me, i am having a hard time making the connection between my comments and your โ€œsource X = dismissed = convenience” pretty much sums up my feelings, too. Furthermore, you indeed said “reminded”, so I am just as confused as Car. The fact that we both misconstrued your comments might tell you something.

  30. Thraxxus Says:

    I take nothing either of you say personally ever – stop blowing your horn as if you are important enough to have that sort of effect. I keep addressing Caravaggio.

    Pardon my obvious inability to clarify repeatedly the same sentence/thought construct until someone actually reads my initial one correctly. Reminded yes, only. Keep that word in mind. Lots of things that are potentially directly non related remind people of many different things -thoughts, smells, tastes, words etc.

    Your statement merely reminded me of that – which again is all I said.

    Perhaps it is not me being defensive but rather your collective needs to be antagonistic. At the least Caravaggio has admitted to loving that.

  31. Caravaggio Says:

    All your base are belong to us

    I Can Has Cheezburger?

  32. Thraxxus Says:


  33. BayAreaDM Says:

    This is absolutely ridiculous. If someone says to you or me “you remind me of a pig”, it would offend us. It isn’t “semantics”, it is what those words imply to anyone in any situation. I am not being antagonistic, and you are treating my comments (and all my comments lately) like there is something happening offline. If you don’t want me to comment here anymore, please just say so.

    “I plan to not defend a word I say in the future.” You keep saying that – sarcastically? Either way, stop with the idle threats. They make you seem like a toothless hypocrite.

  34. Caravaggio Says:

    similarly… maybe it would be helpful to outline the parameters involved in bb debates. if we could agree of a construct to follow, then miscommunication and ancillary noise would not intrude upon true emphasis.

    admittedly, i lost traction on the premise of the counter position involved in this thread and have been unsuccessful in finding it. we need debate or why the hell are we posting stories and comments? i relish understanding another viewpoint,.. if everyone here agreed with everyone else, i’d go back to reading mommyblogs. however, i’ve got to understand the structure from which the premise is constructed with any counter point. and defining parameters of debate would be helpful in this vein.

    rodney king-like carravaggio

  35. Thraxxus Says:

    Nobody called me a pig. Offline? Man no idea what you are talking about.
    This is a website. People comment. The web is filled with that. To me they are comments that are purely for discussion based purposes and I don’t really see the point in getting upset about them.Heck you could call my mother a whore who screwed Hitler because he tasted good and I wouldn’t really care – in fact she would have merely laughed that off. People love to troll forums to upset others, that has just never really bothered me.

    My statement about defending how I choose to word things is related to the point that I just don’t see the point. If someone wishes to tear apart anything I said – I say more power to them. Enjoy. That doesn’t mean that I need to discuss their points in detail. If what I say is interpreted in a different way than what was intended then – oh well that happens. It is a very common issue when humans ever communicate as there is this little phenomena known as perspective.

    As for you making comments on BB – please continue! I think your additions are a nice relief to the many stagnant and less desirable content that we frequently post on here. Always nice to have additions to any website from the community.

    Toothless Hypocrite out.

  36. Thraxxus Says:

    Car – nice point. For that I apologize to you as well as Bay for even making the comment I did as obviously it had nothing to do with this article and was taken totally out of context. I will refrain in the future from doing so.

  37. ZAMan Says:

    I hate a lot of blatant antagonism, which is why I show so much restraint considering that most of this is retarded positions written by retards whose parents were first cousins. Who were also retarded.

  38. Thraxxus Says:

    Who you calling a retard… retard!!

    Damn. If I wasn’t so retarded I might have been able to defend myself with some idle threats.

  39. Caravaggio Says:

    Holy shit… ZAMan comes out of nowhere with two consecutive zingers. Where has this guy been? He is setting the bar higher by flinging antagonistic barbs against the retarded antagonists whose parents were evidently also retarded, regardless of them being anatagonists or not.

    Two retards enter, One retard leaves… It’s ON, Mad Max!

  40. BayAreaDM Says:

    The pig was a hypothetical – and you know that.

    OK so we are talking perspective – let’s take another perspective. Let’s say the average Joe Online comes across BlinkinBlogs for the first time this week. What do you think they would surmise from the recent posts and, especially, comments? He or she would think: “These are some of the angriest, most bitter gawddamn people I have ever seen on a blog ever. The way they react to their commenters, you know their customers, is aggressive, defensive, and generally nasty. Who has been pissing in their Wheaties?” and then Joe Online would be GONE FOREVER. So you can be a snide, sarcasm-piling, symantic-warping blog thug to your friends who visit here, but think about how it looks to the visitors who come here for the first or second time. If you aren’t interested in them, then I keep it up.

  41. Thraxxus Says:

    Thanks for the advice.

  42. Caravaggio Says:

    @BayAreaDM – “snide, sarcasm-piling, symantic-warping blog thug”


    This deserves its own T-shirt. You must copy-write this immediately.

    The other “rock-on” comment I overheard from the peanut gallery prior to a presentation I gave today: “Dick is a douche bag”. That, too, should be put on a T-shirt immediately.

  43. BayAreaDM Says:

    Thanks – “blog thug” could be as close to genius as I will ever get.

  44. ZAMan Says:

    I wonder if “irony poisoning” is a real thing, because if so, I think we need House.

  45. Thraxxus Says:

    Revisiting old posts and I saw this one – it still cracks me up.

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here
Advertise Here