Gary North has crossed the line.

He published a fictious account of "Hackers" causing the recent Auckland, N.Z. power failure and represented it as fact.

It may be that it was a careless mistake, yet that would make no difference to the people who might accept it at face value and make critically important decisions based, perhaps in part, on this information.

The point is, he published incorrect information that he should have known was false. I had no trouble ascertaining the facts, and I don't have anything like Dr. North's keen mind.

As the following information shows, it could have been (maybe) but it was not. Gary North said that it WAS. I'm afraid that he has lost credibility with me, and I'm not at all sure that he can regain it.

His posting (Hackers Took Down Auckland. . .) said, "The business district of Auckland, New Zealand's capital city, was the work of a group of hackers. The Australian Parliament regards this story as accurate. "

The link that he referenced, which you will note is an actual Australian Government Site, (Aussie Government Site) said, "The information age brings with it all manner of new and unanticipated challenges and opportunities. While the above story is fictitious, (italics & emphasis mine) the reality is that it is entirely possible and even plausible when one considers to what extent society, both here and abroad, depends on information systems. This paper will examine some of the challenges facing Australia that result from new applications of information technologies."

I had almost come to the point of complete trust of Dr. North as an admittedly biased yet accurate information source.

I am deeply disappointed.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 28, 1998

Answers

Add in his stuff on TWA 800 today and it was a red letter day for old Scary Gary

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 28, 1998.

I found this puzzling, also.

We seem poised here in the U.S. to blame Y2k on "cyberterrorism." Are the Aussies running this lie up the flagpole as a dry run for Y2k? If we all buy it now, they can tell us in January 2000: "this isn't really Y2k, it's 'hackers' taking advantage of Y2k." Massive blame-shift, justification for ham-handed "permanent emergency"...?

You would think G.N. would be looking for this sort of B.S....

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), October 28, 1998.

Gee- where were you when he was talking about lunchbox sized terrornukes made from "red mercury"?? Long exposure to someone's material is no reason to drop your info filtering mechanisms. Use what's worthwhile for what it's worth, discount the agenda driven fearmongering distortions, no matter what the source.

If you can't tell the difference, just ask me. If I can't tell the difference, I'll ask Uncle D. Neither one of _us_ has an agenda... .

nemo...

-- nemo (nemo@deepsix.com), October 28, 1998.

Gee, Nemo, can I come and kiss your ring?

Does it sound like anyone can't tell the difference?

If you have trouble distinguishing between "distortion" and inaccuracy, maybe you shouldn't advertise it. . .

-- Supplicant (inferior@downbelow.org), October 28, 1998.

We can all tell the difference; it's just that what qualifies as truth and what qualifies as BS (* see below) varies according to our views on the subject.

I appeal to the man who is my basic compass on Y2K, Senator Bob Bennett: "We have tried to be the Paul Revere. But I tell people we're not yet Chicken Little. The British are, indeed, coming. This is a serious problem, and one that cannot be minimized. But I'm not yet ready to say that the sky is falling, as some people do on the web sites. And so we've tried to strike the balance between Paul Revere and Chicken Little." (National Press Club speech, July 15, 1998)

It's not going to be No Big Deal. It's not going to be TEOTWAWKI, either. Somewhere in between, perhaps?

(*) our high school English teacher used to write, with his red pencil, "BS" in the margins when we got excessively verbose and meaningless in our essays...when we asked him the meaning of this notation, he replied, "Be Specific"

-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (pcdir@prodigy.net), October 29, 1998.

E. Coli:

I agree, it seems like roughly 6 months ago the gummint started pushing the possibility of Cyberterrorism and NBC attacks.. almost as if they'd received notice from the terrorists regarding targets and dates. And they keep referencing "domestic" terrorism. Austin is one of 10 cities to get an anti-terrorist "unit"... I'd post this scary article but you now have to pay for archives at our local paper.

Indeed, if TSreallyHTF, it will be primarily Americans terrorizing Americans, so I guess the intent is honest.

Think back, you may remember somebody posting that the govt. was planning to carve the nation into 10 big states, under FEMA, was it? These are those 10 states, I bet. Who else got a "unit" in their area? Let's start asking questions of the Commanders of these units, like: "Hey, it's great that we're going to be prepared for NBC; can we use this site and stuff to deal with Year2000 fallout, too? That would be WAY convenient" and see if their expressions change at all.

-- lisa (nomail@work.com), October 29, 1998.

Gary North has an agenda. He is a Christian Reconstructionist, ofcourse he hopes for and wants the worse possible outcome for Y2K, this would give the Reconstructionists a shot at taking over. So even though I read his site, it's to get to the raw material links he gives. I take all his comments with a grain of salt.

Links for background on Gary North:

http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/words.htm

http://www.barf.org/archive/gary_north.html

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), October 29, 1998.

I made a mistake, put it up for less than an hour, and pulled it. The fine print fooled me. I still find it hard to believe that an Austraian government Web site ran a story in huge print about another nation, and then repuduated it in the fine print. But the critics on this forum say I'm the bad guy for getying fooled, not the Australian government for having perpetrated a hoax.

I work 50 hours a week free of charge on my site, and I have put up 3,000 links on my Web site. Some of them may be wrong. I pull them when I find out that they are.

When one error creeps in, and some guy says that Gary North's credibitlity is now gone, that person is living in a fantasy world of Web forums rather than real-world production. I challenge all of my critics: quit sniping, and put up a better site of your own. Anyone can whine; it takes time and money to be productive.

Why would anyone spend time on this y2k forum, day after day, and on my site, day after day, checking up on me, and then dismiss close to 3,000 documents over a two-year period, based on a one-hour mistake? I suggest this: y2k denial. He doesn't think his life is on the line. He doesn't believe that he lives only because of the modern, computer-driven division of labor, which is at risk.

He can spend the next 14 months chattering on this forum. It will go down in 2000, along with everything else.

A person's concern over y2k is reflected in his checkbook, not the vehemence he shows on this forum. Rhetoric is cheap. Cheap rhetoric is cheaper. Your checkbook tells you what you really believe about y2k.

-- Gary North (gknorth@gte.net), October 29, 1998.

Dr. North,

Your credibility with me is now completely gone, removed by none other than yourself in a manner that could not have been undertaken by anyone else.

If you want to be a "beacon on a hill" you must adhere to a higher standard than an "ordinary mortal" and you have failed abysmally.

Competent journalists, when they make an error, do not whine about, "being fooled by the fine print", nor do they complain that, "an error crept in". (why should anyone trust the analysis of one so easily fooled? or one so careless?)

They print a retraction, usually to the effect that such and such a story was incorrect, the true facts are, that they regret the error, etc., etc., etc.

In other words, they, "stand up, 'fess up and pay up".

They seldom accuse a foreign government archive of, "running a story in HUGE print and then repudiating it in fine print".

Your reference was a research paper filed away in an archive, not a newspaper article in general circulation.

No one "perpetrated a hoax".

The format of that paper was the familiar one that we've all read many times to the effect that, "Airplanes will fall from the sky. . .etc.", which is then IMMEDIATELY dismissed by the writer.

One of your supposed "strong points" is your competent research. Is this an example?

The obvious facts are that you either didn't read far enough to ascertain the nature of your source or you did and ignored it.

No one questions the sources you link to, only your analysis of them. 3,000+ links doesn't make you any more or less astute than 300.

If you expect anyone to sympathize with someone who has a pile of gold the size of yours and a rural site with independent energy such as yours, over "50+ hours a week", it would seem that you're the one living in a fantasy world.

Your arguments are not only devious, they don't make sense. Someone who spends, "time on this y2k forum, day after day, and on my site, day after day", is far more likely to do so because he knows that his life is at stake, and not for petty purposes of, "checking up on me". You flatter yourself. I go to your cited sources to find out the slant of the originator so that I can compare it to your slant. Believe it or not, I sometimes agree with you, against the bias of the original author.

Your whiney post that attempts to blame a nonexistent malfactor of "perpetrating a hoax" and screams, "your fly is open" to the one who caught you out is unworthy of who I had thought you to be.

Maybe the Radon gas had an effect after all.

(BTW, I don't have a checkbook -- anymore. Checks won't even make good toilet paper.)

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 29, 1998.

Sometimes the nit-picking and judgementalism here is too irritating. Of course you have to take North with a grain of salt and come to your own conclusions-based in part on your own biases and research-but, don't you have to do that with anyone or anything you read? Does that make it any less credible? If you can't read something and make your own conclusions then you are no better off than the majority of the population-the sheeple who can't see or think beyond their daily lives and routines. But that doesn't mean that North doesn't have one of the most valuable internet y2k resources around. I for one-and i suspect that i'm not the only one by far- owe Gary some gratitude based only on the fact that by his efforts i became aware of the possibilities that this thing is likely to cause. Does that mean that i believe EVERYthing-no, but i make my own conclusions. It is scary for me to think of nobody like gary out there putting out the word, gathering resources, confronting, etc etc....

-- Damian Solorzano (oggy1@webtv.net), October 29, 1998.

Damian,

I suggest that you do some research on the estimable Dr. North.

Every byte of information and every word that he has written has been published with the intent of establishing a Theonomic State. His own words will tell you that if you're not a member of his church you can't vote.

Check it out. You won't believe it unless you do.

Gratitude goes to motive. You thank someone for trying to help.

North's links are valuable for certain. Just be careful not to soil your mind while you make use of them.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 29, 1998.

Damian, I agree with you that everyone should be able to decide for themselves what is true and not true, esp. since Gary separates his comments from the articles and gives to links to his information.

Plus we all have the ability to check it out on the internet and thru other sources. The ones complaining probably have as much or more of an agenda as Gary. I'm concerned about Y2K and have done much research and Gary gives out alot of factual information that has been very useful.

Thank you, Walter

PS. In Noah's day, there were probably people around making fun of him, too. About his agenda and that he lied about what God said to him, but it didn't change the ending: Noah prepared and the others suffered for their misdeeds and lack of preparation. Not saying Gary is hearing from God, but Y2K and the Flood have alot of similaries.

-- Walter Whitehurst (walter06@wwisp.com), October 29, 1998.

Hardliner,

Your take on Gary North is interesting. You really are a hardliner and, so is Mr. North. Can't we all just get along?

You can attack Mr. North based upon your belief in his motivations, but it's very difficult to attack the thousands of links to government sites, mainstream publications and more.

You don't have to read Mr. North's commentary to appreciate the valuable information he offers on his site. Would you attack Senator Bennett, Senator Nunn, Congressman Horn, Ed Yourdon, Ed Yardini, Rick Cowles, Cory Hamasaki, etc. because they also believe Y2k is real and may well leave our nation and the world in a dire situation?

Interesting that I clicked on the link you provided to GN's site and Mr. North has indeed pulled that article. So, what did you do? You attack him even more.

You attacked the messenger and not the message. Maybe you are in y2k denial. ------------------------------------------------------------

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 29, 1998.

Welcome to the sewar Dr. North. I enjoyed your cheap rhetoric. I have always said that the true test of a person's character is displayed under the harshest conditions. If you react this way to simple, correct criticism, I sure don't want to be sharing beans/rice/and a hopper with you on 1.1.00.

Since you appear to be a lurker such as I on this forum, I have one simple comment. You obviously have a great understanding of the y2k situation. You must not realize that reasonable, rational individuals such as I see your input as ridiculous and slanted. If you are a journalist you would not print the dramatic crap you post on your site (I only read one about when FEMA came to my door at 1:00a.m. on 1.1.00). There is enough factual information out there to scare the crap out of normal people without you throwing your hyperbole in there. You are doing a disservice to the others out there doing what they can. You are certainly not being "a beacon of intelligence awash in a sea of ingorance". (no clue as to where that came from)

Thanks for the opportunity to swim in the swamp with you.

-- Slick (slick@hucheemama.com), October 29, 1998.

Whoa, buddy- Hardliner: take it easy; don't fubar your Y2K karma anymore than you already have. You're gonna need a good helping of humility and understanding in your possession in about 14 months, and who better practice on than Dr. North himself? Could be he indirectly saved your life, and you don't even know it.

-- lisa (nomail@work.com), October 29, 1998.

Hardliner- I appreciate your answer. I also understand what you're trying to say, but minus the bias, it was what i was trying to say. Everything that everyone says (including you, and me) come from our own biases and experiences. Religious, anti religious, end of the world, or not, etc, etc... Of course, Gary has a strong religious bias. Does that flavor is commentaries? Of course! But, the point was that, as long as you have the ability to read, think, read some more, research other points of view and look for proof of them, and make a critical judgement then based on your own biases and experience where's the problem? I would never think of taking North (or you, or anyone else) at face value without first doing my own research. But, that still does not negate his website as an extremely valuable research tool. I spend several hours a day researching these things myself, and i still would not have the time to put together what Gary has. So, I can not avoid feeling respectful of what he's done, and grateful that he's doing it. If it weren't for people like him, i probably still would not be aware of the problems. (and from the posts, i suspect many here would not be either). I still make my own decisions regarding his posts, and do not always agree with his conclusions. But i always find some bit of information or factoid that is interesting and adds to my own knowledge. This allows me to make my own choices, as we all must at some point. If you don't like Gary, don't bother with him, but at least realize that many find him quite valuable.

-- Damian Solorzano (oggy1@webtv.net), October 29, 1998.

After reading all of the foregoing, I have concluded that, yes, Hardliner is manipulative, and careless,... and apparently mean-spirited. Did anybody else get the impression that this was a flea talking tough to an elephant?

-- Mark Meyers (mbmeyers@shellus.com), October 29, 1998.

Dear "Searcher" and assorted other North critics: Golly, I sure find it amazing that you have the willingness to nit pick another person's religious beliefs as grounds for dismissing their opinions.

By this criteria, I guess we can dismiss all those Baptists on the list who think liquor should be outlawed. And those Catholics (like myself) who believe the Pope has moral authority directly from God. And those crazy Jehovah's Witnesses who believe the End Is Nigh. And those weird Jews who think their religion gives them ownership rights over a piece of desert property. And those darned liberalized Anglicans who let women preach and gays marry, and those Evangelicals who think women shouldn't speak in churches and gays should be stoned to death, and those Native Americans who think smoking carcinogenic tobacco is a religious ritual. Or those liberal Methodists who can't seem to figure out if God should be addressed as "Father" or "Mother". And those disgusting New Agers, who think they can "feel" spirits and "channel" dead people. And especially those atheists, whose blindness to religious freedom leads them to fill the courts with specious arguments about Christmas decorations on county buildings... Name your religious choice, and I'll just bet we can find something weird or unpalatable in ANY of them.

Gee, "searcher" -- you who are unwilling to use your real name on this forum (unlike Gary North, who is an open book on his religious beliefs and identity) -- we really know nothing about you. We can't make judgemental opinions about "where you are coming from".

It's probably better that way. If we knew YOUR religious beliefs, if any, we'd be able to pick your reasoning, your arguments, and probably your moral character to bits based on that, too.

All I can say is: if you don't like the guy, stop reading his site. Better yet, make your own site. Then, prepare to duck. Greetings and Best Wishes To All Anita Evangelista PS: I've written books on food storage and preparedness -- but, all pre-y2k. I guess that makes me one of those who "profit by spreading doom and gloom". Maybe you'd better ignore anything I say, as well.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), October 29, 1998.

Gary North saved my life, (and by extension, those who depend on me) just as surely as if he had seen my house burning and awakened me by hammering on the door. I've seen his predictions coming true before my eyes. He's occaisionally made a mistake, but the impact of these is overwhelmed by his catching the mistakes, lies, and prevarication of the main players of the Y2k endgame.

A lot of the programmers who were, a few months ago, openly ridiculing anyone who thought Y2k was more than a bump in the road are now discussing whether to hold gold or cash. Gary North was there first. Now they ridicule him, saying the known facts are "bad enough", why "scare people" by projecting events to their logical conclusion on the basis of these facts. In other words, "your house is burning, but panicking is worse, and it's antisocial, likely to disturb others. Go back to sleep and wait for the firemen."

So Gary North saved my life. Does that mean I support his desire for a "theonomic state?" No, I would resist it, as it is patently unconstitutional and plays into internationalist hands by contributing to a balkanized, and therefore impotent (or at least damned distracted), Federal Republic. But I'm brushing up on my Leviticus just the same, because I know these people - there are a lot of them, and power will shift from urban liberal to rural conservatives, dramatically, after Y2k. But does this cast doubt on his "credibility?" Let me say it again: Gary North was there first. He saw the serious -factual, not ideological- problems with banking, food distribution and the rest of the economy and infrastructure, before he even knew about Y2k! If these very real problems -this corruption- didn't exist, Y2k's impact would be negligible; but as it is, we're going down for the count. Perhaps his political and religious beliefs predisposed him to see patterns of decay in the facade of technology, government and economy; if so, we are well-served by his "fanaticism" and ought to leave him alone. When you attack someone's journalism on the basis of their political or religious belief -that have nothing to do with the news item in question- the only credibility you cast doubt on is your own. You are afraid; perhaps you should be. Don't freak out publically in the face of someone who is giving his all to cut through the lies and warn people about the problem and it's likely consequences.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), October 29, 1998.

Michael Taylor,

I would refer you to my earlier post addressed to Damian regarding Dr. North's motives and agenda.

I attack Dr. North based on his own statement of his motivations, and nothing else. What I believe alters nothing.

I have taken as much care as I can to make clear that I do not have a problem with any of his links. I find them as valuable as anyone else does.

I would most certainly NOT attack any of the men you mentioned. None of them have stated their motivations to be the re-writing of the United States Constitution. North has.

"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel."

Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p.87.

"So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

Gary North, "The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right" in Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), p. 25.

I responded to North as I would to Hitler. Read some of North's writings before you decide to support him. Long ago I took a solemn oath before God to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I can not and will not "get along" with anyone who states his motivation as the destruction of that document.

I know that Dr. North removed the posting because he had no choice. He was wrong. I personally believe that if he had not been confronted he would have left the posting, but that is only my opinion. I could be wrong.

In the case of Gary North, the Message and the messenger are one and the same.

For the record, I believe that the much discussed "Infomagic" post is far closer to the reality we will all have to deal with than any other.

But, we'll all just have to wait and see, won't we?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 29, 1998.

Well said E. Ditto here.

-- Mark Meyers (mbmeyers@shellus.com), October 29, 1998.

The following is a mirror site of www.garynorth.com, and states: "Announcement: Gary North's free report, 'Surviving All 3 Stages of a Complete Flight to Cash", will be posted here as soon as it is released. URL: http://38.158.99.219/North/index.html

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), October 29, 1998.

Infomagic is actually G. Gordon Liddy.

Now what? Would another god be toppled for Hardliner?

-- lisa (nomail@work.com), October 29, 1998.

Lisa - FUBAR! I love it!! Haven't heard that one since Tango & Cash! Wouldn't be a party without Mr Potato Head!

For all you folks trashing Dr North - must be nice to NEVER make a mistake. Wish I was perfect too....... maybe one day when I grow up to be a big boy. Geez........how embarrassing......

-- deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), October 29, 1998.

Hardliner,

I understand your feelings regarding the personal issues relating to Dr. North. I actually respect your position and your right to write and convey that position. You should read E.'s post. It says everything I believe in a nutshell. I would also resist such a state and any rewriting of the constitution. However, the constitution is a living document that changes daily based upon it's interpretation by the Supreme Court and other judicial and legislative branches. It's constantly evolving and changing.

As for Dr. North, I personally think he uses his Phd in history to put y2k in perspective much more than he utilizes his theological beliefs. Looking at y2k through the eyes of past events is a very important view. It is, after all, the only view we have because NOTHING like y2k has ever happened before and the only frame of reference is the past.

I don't discount your beliefs or your ability to assert those beliefs and I wouldn't do so for Mr. North as well. That, in a nutshell, is exactly why I would fight and die for this country and the constitution. --------------------------------------------------------

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 29, 1998.

Once again, Searcher, you amaze me.

You can't tell the difference between Gary North and Hitler. This marks an astonishing lack of discernment on your part.

You're willing to "defend" the "document" of the Constitution -- a piece of paper -- but you refuse to allow someone to PRACTICE independent thought and you deride someone whose beliefs differ from your own.

Oooh, I get it now! You're actually afraid of North's IDEAS -- that a nation should be centered on God, should build its moral and political structures on religious lines and religious principles....and that is what "theonomy" means.

You prefer, instead, a nation based on a "document". Apparently, you have not studied your history enough to know the origins and principles behind that "document": the intense religious ferver that made 17th century urbanites leave their comfortable homes and settle a wilderness -- intent on creating a THEONOMY on this continent.

Searcher, you owe theonomists your freedom, your right to speak out, your right to your biases, your ability to spout anonymously on this or any other forum.

It's a shame that the best you can come up with only demonstrates your fear and ignorance, shrouded in a veil of bravado.

Respectfully,

Anita Evangelista

Who should be ignored because she "promotes doom and gloom".

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), October 29, 1998.

The first time I read North's site I found so many pieces of misinformation and hyperbole that I immediately didn't find him credible. It had nothing to do with his religious beliefs. I found out about those later.

I found it funny when Gary said in his post here "one little error crept in." There are thousands of errors in your commentary Mr. North.

-- Buddy Y. (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), October 29, 1998.

Mark Meyer,

Tell us more about your expertise with fleas and elephants in cyberspace.

Anita,

You're way, way off base.

Take the time to find out how North would deal with all of those you so carefully enumerated in your ill considered post. Read some of that "open book" and then come back here and say your piece.

I object to his intolerance, not his religion.

Anonymity is the insurance we all are offered that our words are judged on their merit and not on a possibly inaccurate perception of who the writer may be.

E. Coli,

Unless Gary North sought YOU out and warned you personally, he did not save your life. You saved your own life by being astute and aware enough to see the likely outcome of the problem.

Many who read North's postings blow them off. Did he save them too?

North posts his information for his own purposes. If you are able to find value in them (and I am one of those who have) so much the better. However, it is an invalid stretch of reason from there to making him out to be a hero. Hitler pulled Germany out of a depression. He is directly responsible for the Volkswagen and limited access highways. Millions made him a hero too--for a while.

You, of all the posters on this forum, should be best able to see the parallels between the two.

Many call Hitler a genius (me too, although one of the most evil ones in Man's history). I'll grant North status in the same way, although it is yet to be written if he will surpass his historical role models. (do you know what KIND of history North's degree is in?)

He sees the pattern alright. Be afraid of him. Be very afraid.

Lisa,

If the "G Man" were indeed the author of the subject posting it would only strengthen my leanings toward it.

To All of You Who Feel Gratitude to Dr. North,

I suggest that you give credit where credit is due. YOU EACH made a decision to accept or reject that information.

"Beetles" and freeways don't make Adolf a "good guy". . .

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 29, 1998.

Anita,

PLEASE, read some of Dr. North's writings before you get up on your hind legs and howl again. You're only making yourself look foolish by defending him with arguments that are directly opposed to his own writings.

As for those to whom I owe my freedom, I've endured genuine deadly combat with some of them, prayed and broken bread with some of them and wept over many of their graves. None of them believed that the Constitution was, "just a piece of paper" and none of them wanted to exclude all religions save their own.

Like I said, you're way, way off base.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 29, 1998.

I can see why G.N. gets you so upset Hardliner, and I don't blame you one bit. I would certainly react the same if not even more emotionaly had I been a veteran who fought for democracy and freedom of religion and thought.

But trust the people on this forum Hardliner. I haven't encountered anyone yet who's easily manipulated and gulible. I take advantage of G.N.'s site for the raw material sources he digs out. His is only one of dozens of bookmarked y2k sites I read. I owned a VW Beetle once and loved it, did that turn me into a Nazi?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), October 29, 1998.

Chris,

Thanks for "hearing" through all the noise.

I most assuredly trust the folks on this forum to "find their own way" and I value their words more than I'm sure they know (even those who disagree with me).

My personal experience and beliefs only serve to make me more sensitive to those such as North.

I found a post that was either a careless mistake or a deliberate falsehood. I gave him the benefit of the doubt as to which. I presented evidence which no one has disputed, including North himself.

North holds himself out to be an "Authority". As such, he must deliver 100%. If he makes a mistake, it is in his own best interest to, as I said, "Stand up, 'fess up and pay up".

His response to being discovered to be incorrect was an attempt to "spin" it off as a "hoax" (someone else's fault) and to say that, "an error crept in". There was no "hoax" and errors don't creep. People make them, in this case, North made the error.

I take his attempt to evade responsibility for his own mistake as evidence of his character and thus his credibility.

As I have repeatedly tried to communicate, none of that affects his posted links. He has no control over them, beyond which ones he posts on his website. I have repeatedly noted that I utilize North's site myself and have benefited from it.

None of that make his original statements accurate.

None of that makes an attempt to shift blame for an error, excusable in one who asks us all to trust him with our lives.

You have grasped the essentials of my arguments exactly. In precisely the same way that driving a VW does not make you a Nazi, the use of North's website does not make anyone a Christian Reconstructionist.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 29, 1998.

Searcher

It is you, who still hides in anonymity, who are suspect. You "object" to North's "intolerance" -- but he lets you freely read his material. It is YOU who are intolerant of his beliefs.

And, yes, FYI I HAVE read Dr. North's work. His analysis of economic theory is excellent (see THE PIRATE ECONOMY). That doesn't make him immune from error, or without character faults, just like any other human being.

As I said before, I am Catholic, not Calvinist (conservative) Presbyterian as Dr. North is -- I have fundamental religious differences with his beliefs. But that does not deter from my admiration for his reasoning, his scholarship, and his plain GUTS. Unlike yourself, he is not afraid to state his name, religion, education, and make mistakes in front of people. He does not cower in anonymity and throw stones at those who stand up for their beliefs. As far as I can tell, Gary North doesn't take drugs, cheat on his wife, sell state secrets to foreign governments, kick dogs, beat his kids, or fail to pay his taxes. He doesn't swear. He helps his neighbors. He's even helping you and everyone else who goes to his site, without demanding a thing in return. He is open and forthright about his beliefs and his convictions. He hurts no one. Those are generally considered the traits of "good guys".

I suggest, "searcher", that you just might be envious of Dr. North's authority -- and the only way you can assuage your inadequacies is by stomping on Dr. North's religion. Therefore, before anyone take you seriously, you should put your cards on the table, just as Dr. North has: Give out your name, religion, political affiliation, marital status, educational background, and list of publication credits. I'm especially interested in your publication credits -- I'll just bet I could find something you've written that makes you look looney, if taken out of context like North's material is.

FYI, my name: Anita Evangelista. Religion: Orthodox Roman Catholic. Politics: registered Democrat, vote Libertarian. Marital status: married, 23 years, same guy. Educational: currently seeking Masters of Science in nursing. Publications: 6 books (see Amazon.com), also hundreds of articles on small farm agriculture.

Well? Not hiding, Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), October 29, 1998.

Anita,

It doesn't make a Tinker's Damn who I am or what my qualifications are or are not. Gary North is the subject here.

If it is necessary to your emotional well being to picture me as cowering, go for it girl. Whatever it takes.

Gary North is indeed an economic adept. He understands economics and financial theory far better than either you or I.

The fact remains that despite the glowing testimonials you write on his behalf (without, btw, a shred of evidence), you are a professed Catholic and Gary North would deny you citizenship because of it.

Gary North's own words:

"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel."

Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p.87.

I'm the last person who would deny you the right to your opinions and beliefs, even about Gary North.

Once I've communicated to you the truth as best I know it, my responsibility to you is over. What you do with it after that is your affair. Go ahead. Go "Kiss his Ring" as someone said.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 29, 1998.

Aaaannnnddd THEYRE OFF! Driving out to that lead pulling away from the pack its Contention showing his stuff into the first turn. Flamer takes the lead, followed closely by Disbelief,  following right behind is Rebuttalthe other horses are bunched up closely with Sanity way behindinto the back stretchRebuttal is gainingOH MY, Look at Sanity pulling hard and gaining ground, that horse may stand a chance folks, but this race isnt over yet

I knew Gary North lurked here, and Ive seen a posting or two from here on his site. My $.02 worth: Give the guy his due. I do not agree with his religious philosophy, as E says it doesnt fit the Constitution, there is that pesky First Amendment to contend with. But it was a copy of his Remnant Review given to me third hand which opened my eyes, and I will always be grateful for that. Ed too, his book was the second source of evidence that I came across, and supported Gary Norths assertion (which came first, the chicken or the egg? beats me) that we were in real trouble. I owe them both a lot.

Is he perfect? Who the hell is? Not me.

Thats a big 10-4, good buddy

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 29, 1998.

Dang it, guess I missed out on his ark - I'm Catholic too. Can we build one of our own Miss E.?

Did anybody notice amidst all the above that we don't know what going to happen? Including the referenced North?

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 29, 1998.

Since when did Gary ever say he was "God"??? Only God is perfect.

-- deborah cunningham (dac@ccrtc.com), October 29, 1998.

"Searcher":

If it makes no difference what your background, religion and etc are, then why does it make a difference what North's is? Your religion and beliefs color your posts, too -- but you, once again, choose to cower in anonymity.

We can only conclude one of two things:

(1) Your beliefs are so weird that you realize posting your position would totally alienate whomever still follows your "reasoning"; or

(2) You're too chicken to put yourself on the line.

Pony up, Searcher. C'mon. We're all friends here. We won't make fun of you if you're a Wiccan. Or a Satanist. Or one of Madeline Murray O'Hair's followers. Or Amish. Or Ba'hai. Or Moslem. Or Muslim. Let's see what you're really made of....

Greetings to all horserace fans,

Anita Evangelista

(Who profits from fears of y2k, and should therefore be ignored.)

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), October 29, 1998.

E. said... >He saw the serious -factual, not ideological- problems with banking, food distribution and the rest of the economy and infrastructure, before he even knew about Y2k! If these very real problems -this corruption- didn't exist, Y2k's impact would be negligible; but as it is, we're going down for the count. Perhaps his political and religious beliefs predisposed him to see patterns of decay in the facade of technology, government and economy; if so, we are well-served by his "fanaticism" and ought to leave him alone. <

When I have heard people say that North was "there first" I thought they meant about Y2K. Which wasn't true. But now E. you are saying he saw a collapse coming before Y2K. Now I get it. That's even more debatable. That just makes Y2K North's latest excuse for pushing his agenda. That makes him even less credible.

This is politics, not economics.

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), October 29, 1998.

Anita Evangelista,

History is not my thing. But, I do know that the founders of this great country believed wholly in a separation of church and state. As I understand your definition of theonomy, there would be no separation of church and state. This country was not founded on that basis. The original settlers came to this land to escape religious persecution/state imposed religion. Obviously, there is an implied religious basis behind the country - "In God We Trust", and other religious foundations, but there is no required religious association for citizenship, which is what I understand North to believe in. If you disagree with this assessment of the founding of this country, then my history books have lied to me. I think the religious bowl of soup in this country is awsome.

A lot of posters on this thread are saying the same things. Gary North does a good service through his website. He also goes overboard on the melodramatic schtick, which, to me, diminishes his message. It it turns out that Mr. North does believe in a "state" religion, then we should be wary of his motivations, but not ignore his works.

People look at me funny when I say that Hitler was a great leader. He was extremely twisted and evil, but a great leader and motivator, nonetheless. I'm not a big VW fan, but I am a huge fan of the limited access highways.

By the way, I don't see how the quotations attributed to Mr. North are out of any type of context. They seem like a full thought to me. Congratulations on the Masters degree. I have a couple of them myself. But, since I never published any works, I obviously think that activity is for the birds and question the motivations of anyone who does publish (tongue planted softly in cheek). Keep the good, strong, opinionated posts coming. Topics such as this keep my brain stem hopping.

Along with many of the posters here, I post anonymously. I am married, 3 kids, conservative democrat - vote for the best candidate, Methodist, 2 masters degrees (both somewhat worthless) and one wife of 5 years. When I first came to this forum I posted my actual name and e-mail address. After posting a few inocuous thoughts, receiving a mild smattering of stupid e-mail and realizing that I may not want my real name and address out there I decided to come up with a call sign. Over and out. 10-4 good buddy, catch you on the rebound.

P.S. I would be so unsurprised if GG Liddy is Infomagic. That man is a lot of things, and highly intelligent and a great communicator are just two of them.

Hardliner: great line of thought.

E.: How did North save your life - in three paragraphs or less.

-- Slick (slick@hucheemama.com), October 29, 1998.

Dear Friend Slick:

Apparently your history books have lied with respect to the fallacious concept of "separation of Church and State". Please find that particular phrase ANYWHERE in the Constitution or Bill of Rights -- it simply isn't there. The only reference to is in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Note that it says, "establishment of religion" -- that is, giving the nation a state religion, including Christianity. Note also that Congress cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of any religion. EXERCISE -- that means "practice". This is why, as a follower of the Constitution, you are bound to allow Dr. North BOTH his "belief" and his "practice".

Personally, I am convinced that we are in a post-Christian era in this country, and that a theonomic state as Dr. North envisions it, is impossible. Even so, my own religion has limitations on the so-called "rights" of women (no female priests, no abortion, no extra- or pre- marital sex, headcovering advised in church, no preaching....etc etc), and I fully subscribe to them. This is my "belief" and my "practice".

Thank you for the honest disclosure of your background and position. I wish you had indicated your two Masters degrees -- it seems like many on this list have a strong educational background, whether they find it of value or not.

I won't hold it against you that you are a Methodist. Is your Church making any y2k preparations?

Anybody else brave enough to ante up?

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), October 29, 1998.

Hardliner,

It's your credibility that's sinking fast. I know North's agenda and can deal with it. But you are a complete unknown and seem to have an agenda too. You protest too much. As has been pointed out already, this isn't the first inaccuracy published on his site. What triggered the tirade?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), October 29, 1998.

Anita

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Hence the separation, if Congress can make no laws (something they have ignored, BTW) it is 'separate' from that which it cannot legislate.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 29, 1998.

Dearest Uncle:

Not to question your reasoning, here, but "make no law respecting...nor prohibiting free exercise" doesn't necessarily imply separation. That's why they have prayers, albeit nonsectarian, at the opening of Congress. The "establishment" referred to SPECIFIC religions, not religion in general.

This is the same legal hair-splitting that certain Mighty Leaders have made into such an art form. But, hey, it's another world on the Beltway.

Yours Truly,

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), October 29, 1998.

Anita,

MBA and MHA (I know, redundant)

I am still new at Internet research. I found a great separation of church and state web site from some Louisville students (I won't hold Howard Schnellenberger against them).

www.louisville.edu/~tnpete01/church/arg1.htm

Leo Pfeffer - Seperationist stated:

"(T)he phrase "Bill of Rights" has become a convenient term to designate the freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments; yet it would be the height of captiousness to argue that the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a fair trail is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles (pp. 118)."

To pass laws keeping the government from either aiding or interfering with the establishment of religion separates church and state. These were pretty non-religious views 225 years ago. This web site also highlights the major playes in the religious battle along with their religious affiliations. You are right -- "it depends on what is is"

Again, I am not making an effort to pass laws to muzzle Gary North. I simply think people like him should not be allowed to pass laws to promote their religion above any and all others. I agree, not much of a concern.

An aside, my wife grew up southern Baptist and rebelled against her mother by changing to Catholicism (you wild and crazy ones). She said it took awhile for her to be able to share a beer with her priest (a young, college-type congregation). She has settled in the middle at Methodist since we married and moved to an area devoid of much Catholicism. My church is doing nothing on y2k of which I am aware.

Ease up on Hardliner.

-- Slick (slick@hucheemama.com), October 29, 1998.

Hello, again, Slick:

Thank you for the legal opinion on the "separation" issue. I'm sure you know that there are opposing opinions also on the net -- and that if I were to trot them out, we'd be arguing "separation" until y2k shuts down our computers. Suffice it to say that we don't have a state-authorized religion.

Nevertheless, many cultures and civilizations (some quite advanced) have flourished under state-authorized religions, including the Maya, the Chinese (Confucianism and Buddhism at various times), the Japanese (Shinto, "emperor worship"), and even the Swedes (Lutheran). Having a state authorized religion isn't necessarily a bad thing. People can survive and thrive under all manner of circumstances -- even if North's theonomy were somehow to come into being, people have certainly had harder things to which they must adjust.....and y2k is probably going to be one of them.

As to Hardliner -- I'm still waiting for him to put his money where his mouth is....

Anita E.

PS: Are you the same Slick who wrote the earlier post and misspelled "sewer" as "sewar"? Your writing and reasoning style has changed rather dramatically from one post to the next.....

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), October 30, 1998.

Again, Anita, you are correct. Enough of that back and forth crap. Yes I am the same individual who tries to bring a cup full of humor southern charm to this forum. I have a continual inner battle between my educated mind and my trailor-park mind. I really have to fight off giving the proverbial finger, literally and figuritively, to people in all forums, this and in day to day life. I do misspell things ocaisionaly and my gramar gets really screwed up sometimes. I am used to having access to my spellchecker and my wife (english teacher). Also, again, good to see your posts and thoughts on this forum. We will meet again someday.

-- Slick (slick@hucheemama.com), October 30, 1998.

"Elbow",

As you have pointed out, I am a complete unknown. As such, I can have no credibility. I do not wish any. My words will just have to stand on their own and so will such evidence as I present.

As to "what triggered the tirade", it was North's post that published to the entire internet universe a bogus story and his statement that, "The Australian Parliament regards this story as accurate". I assure you, anyone who thinks that they can speak for the Australian Parliament has a severe disconnect with reality.

North's words, not mine. North's credibility, not mine. You judge.

"Slick",

Thank you for the support and reasoned responses. I need no assistance however, dealing with Ms. "6 books (see Amazon.com), also hundreds of articles on small farm agriculture"; I have been baited by far larger intellects than she.

As all can plainly see, each of her posts gets farther and farther from the issue (Gary North) and attempts to distract attention from the fact that she has yet to answer any of the salient points regarding Dr. North's stated views.

She seems to believe that "Practicing One's Religion" justifies taking away someone else's citizenship.

She speaks out for Native Americans yet defends the man who said in a piece titled, "Pitying the Almost Noble Savages":

"Furthermore, there is that other great, intolerable evil of the New England Puritans: the Puritans took land away from the "native Americans." You know, the Indians. (Liberals have adopted the phrase "native Americans" in recent years. They never, ever say "American natives," since this is only one step away from "American savages," which is precisely what most of those demon-worshipping, Negro slave-holding, frequently land-polluting people were.... This was one of the great sins in American life, they say: "the stealing of Indian lands".... That a million savages had a legitimate legal claim on the whole of North America north of Mexico is the unstated assumption of such critics. They never ask the question: From whom did the Indians of early colonial America get the land? They also never ask the even more pertinent question: Was the advent of the European in North America a righteous historical judgment of God against the Indians? On the contrary, our three authors [Noll, Hatch, Marsden] ridicule the Puritans for having suggested that the Indians were the moral and covenantal equivalent of the Canaanites (p. 33). In fact, if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution, the "native Americans" did."

Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), pp.257-258.

[If anyone is interested, my personal opinion is that when the White Man arrived in North America (South America too), he met indigenous peoples who were his ethical, moral and spiritual superiors. Unfortunately (for them), they were technologically inferior--they didn't have gunpowder--and so they lost. Haven't we done a simply wonderful job with what we took from them?]

She claims a knowledge of North's writings and rants on, ". . .the intense religious ferver that made 17th century urbanites leave their comfortable homes and settle a wilderness -- intent on creating a THEONOMY on this continent.

Searcher, you owe theonomists your freedom, your right to speak out, your right to your biases, your ability to spout anonymously on this or any other forum".

Yet the man she so passionately defends says otherwise.

"Political Polytheism's third section, on "Apostate Covenantalism", attacks the framers of the U.S. Constitution. According to North, fascination with Newtonian deism, natural law and Great Awakening enthusiasm seriously eroded America's covenantal foundation in the eighteenth century. Ultimately the revolutionary leaders, products of this decline, deliberately conspired to de-christianize America by creating a Constitution that was an "atheistic, humanistic covenant" (emphasis North's). They substituted a pluralistic, deistic, Masonic, and Unitarian religion for biblical Christianity. In the same way that Charles Beard offered a revolutionary interpretation of the Constitution, North breaks new ground with a radical, covenantal-based interpretation of the Constitution and its framers."

Godzilla Meets the Pluralists by Roger Schultz and T.E. Wilder Copyright 1991 Contra Mundum (a review of) Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism, by Gary North (Tyler Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) xxiv, 773 pages, index.

North is a man who would threaten his own children with death. He says, "The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. (italics and emphasis mine) Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16).

Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1986), pp. 59-60

Ms. "6 books" seems obsessed with the idea that who I am or what I think or feel has any bearing on the matter. It does not. Either North is who he says he is or he is not. All I have done is present him in his own words. She (or anyone else) may take it or leave it as they please.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 30, 1998.

whew... keep on going with this debate and you'll all just forget about preparing for... what was it again... oh, yeah... the little century date change thingy.

The constitution was written by men who were religious, lived with and committed sin, many owned slaves and some did worse than that. Yet, they were great thinkers who realized the fundamental freedoms that individuals inherently possess and guaranteed them with a written document. One of the principal freedoms was the ability to debate the document itself and even add amendments to further the protection of basic freedoms. It's a living document that can be interpreted from one day to the next based upon which political wind blows.

Once upon a time there were tribes on our continent that were misunderstood by our government and their politics. These tribes held their own beliefs, had their own traditions and lived their own way in their own nations. They shared a love for the land and a respect for all living creatures that they shared the land with. When the killed for food they sent the spirit of the dead animal away with a prayer. When they raised their food from Mother Earth they said a prayer for that too. Yet, Manifest Destiny was their doom and it was provided by their worst enemy, WE, the people.

Politics can change from one election to the next and shift views, ideology and interpretation of the constitution. History speaks volumes.

One of the scariest things I see here is the inability to allow a view counter to ones own opinion. (Hey, I'm no angel, I've done it myself with regard to y2k). But, that very ability is one of the basic freedoms we have in this country. Thank your God, my God and every other person's God, their belief or their right to believe in non of the above that this is true.

If you start dividing each other up into groups now, based upon religion, sexual preference, race, etc. then MY tolerance ends and I'm out of here faster than you can say civil war. There are other issues at hand that will cross religious and political ideology, social and economic status, race or ethnic background and even sexual preference. But, that's my opinion and I welcome your opposition. ------------------------------------------

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 30, 1998.

Might as well throw in my 2 pesetas' worth.

I like Gary North. Disagree with him like all get-out, but I like him. Why? Because he says what he thinks. Pulls no punches. Follows his original premise out to its original conclusion. Is supremely logical, given his premises. Puts up a primo source of Y2K information for free that we can all draw upon, every day. He is no hypocrite.

I disagree very much with his world view. But I am not afraid of his world view, because he displays it for all to see. It is those who have views they hide from the world we should be afraid of.

One bad thing about this Y2K debate is, that too many people have gotten to the point where they cannot separate a person's opinion from the person. I might think a person's opinion is contemptible; but that doesn't mean the person is contemptible. As in, when your significant other says something stupid; does that make them a stupid person??? Why do we hold people voicing divergent opinions re Y2K to a stricter (and, to me, more Nazist) standard?

Gary North might wish for changes in the laws; so do we all. Hardly anyone living does not wish for changes in some law or another. So what!?! Does the fact that I wish for a law that makes owners of Chevy Blazers exempt from income taxes for life really make that much of a difference? There's a thing called Congress that will negate any such silly desires on my part. As long as that glorious document called the Constitution rules the land, I ain't too very worried what ANYbody wants, as far as silly changes in the law. Court interpretations of the Constitution haven't always been perfect; but I'd still rather live here than in some place like North Korea.

Another thing I'm tired of here is the incredible proliferance of dime-store psychology. Someone posts a sentiment that is disagreed with by someone else; all of a sudden the poster is psychoanalyzed by those who disagree; motives are ascribed; idiosyncrasies are assigned; personalities are dissected; although those doing the so-called psychoanalysis have no more clue what they are talking about than a frog explaining rocket science.

I hope to see a little more common sense rule in the future.

-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (pcdir@prodigy.net), October 30, 1998.

Going off subject again, here is a priceless quote regarding the American Indians.

"I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves."

-John Wayne

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 30, 1998.

Searcher:

Thank you for posting some of Gary North's religious philosophy. I'm certain we now all agree that his conservative Presbyterianism differs from other religious perspectives.

He still has a fundamental right to his beliefs, and he has not tried to hide them, cover them up, or shield them from public scrutiny.

You, however, continue to snipe and peashoot from behind a veil of secrecy.

You have maintained that Dr. North's religious viewpoint colors his take on y2k sufficiently as to devalue his opinions about the objective computer code -- you wondered whether he was a "manipulative liar" or "just careless"....never allowing that he may simply have made an error.

I maintain that EVERYONE's religious/political/marital status/ etc/ colors his or her opinion....

...and called upon you to disclose yours, so that we may truly understand "where you are coming from".

I disclosed my beliefs. Now you know where I am coming from.

You have still refused to disclose yours, trying instead to hide in further North-bashing. Once again, we can only conclude one of two things:

(1) Your beliefs are so weird that you will lose credibility by stating them (plus, we'll know exactly why you have such a bee up your bonnet about North); or

(2) You're a loudmouth chicken, without the guts to "walk your talk".

C'mon Searcher. It's not so hard. I'm a middle-aged grey-haired lady. If I can do it, you can too.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), October 30, 1998.

As a relative newbie to this forum (I've posted a few minor things, and new to Y2K since June), I wonder somethimes if I am in a hornet's nest or or the greatest, most vibrant Y2K forum on the Internet. I love this forum, and I loathe it. I love the interchange, the information, the genuine help and concern. But I loathe what I personally see as digressions into confrontations. How like life!

Just a thought: Much of what is being posted here reminds me of what will take place post-Y2K. Pre-Y2K, where we are now, many opinions of Hardliner, Anita, etc. don't mean a thing to me. They are exercises in terms of post-Y2K scenes. There will be many jostlings for power and position, some positive, some negative, depending on one's own position. Post-Y2k, if/or when we get there will have much more confrontation than we see once in a while on this forum.

-- JoeB (jbabinsky@theriver.com), October 30, 1998.

Native American Update:

I don't see the relevance. I belong to and work for the 4th largest Indian Tribe in the country. I am 1/4 Indian and was basically raised white. My father sat on our Tribal Supreme Court until his death. North appears to be a racist. Big hairy deal. He is not the first, nor will he be the last. The indigenous population of North American is historically a spiritual one. The common higher power among most tribes is the Creator. Indians of today are also a spiritual and religious people.

Indians are no more prepared for y2k than anyone else. Worse yet, Indians work through the federal government for a lot of things. Indians don't like the term Native Americans. They like to be called Indians.

-- Slick (slick@hucheemama.com), October 30, 1998.

"Slick",

You're quite right--North's views on Indians, as I used them, are only relevant to "Ms. 6 books" ravings.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 30, 1998.

Ms. Evangelista,

I shall render you the courtesy of a reply, but this is my final reply to you. I will devote no more time and energy to your immature arguments and childish taunts.

Ordinarily I would go out of my way to be considerate of the feelings of a middle-aged grey-haired lady, but in your case there seems to be the heart of a tigress beating beneath that mild mannered exterior, so excuse me if I, "call a spade a spade".

You have yet to indicate that you have any understanding that Dr. North's words, that I have posted and referenced here, go far more toward the denial of others' rights and liberties than to religious philosophy. All readers of this thread, if not totally disinterested at this point, will draw their own conclusions. I have stated mine.

No one, least of all me, has suggested denying Dr. North the right to believe whatever he chooses to believe. The Declaration of Independence says that, ". . .all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . .". I would deny North only the ability and/or opportunity to take away any of those Rights.

No, Anita, Dr. North has not tried to hide his views. He blows his own horn quite well.

And, no, Anita, I have not revealed many details of my own life. Not many of them are in any way relevant to the discussion of Dr. North's views or motives. If you simply must find something about me to attack, rather than addressing the issues, imagine that I am a ___________ (substitute whatever your fertile imagination desires here).

Dr. North's opinion (as well as your own) have value regarding, "objective computer code", only in so far as he has specific knowledge of any. I suspect that neither of you knows a base register from an index register nor ADA from JOVIAL.

I did indeed wonder, "whether he was a "manipulative liar" or "just careless", but your inability or failure to equate my term of, "just careless", with yours of, ". . .may simply have made an error", indicates a cognitive problem far beyond my poor ability to diagnose or explain.

It may surprise you to know that I agree, without qualification, to your statement, "I maintain that EVERYONE's religious/political/marital status/ etc/ colors his or her opinion....". What you apparently have such a problem with is my refusal to allow you to color your evaluation of my postings with your bias regarding whatever my personal attributes might be. One more time, "Anonymity is the insurance we all are offered that our words are judged on their merit. . ." I am an unknown. As such, I can have no credibility. I do not wish any. My words will just have to stand on their own and so will such evidence as I present.

As for your disclosure of your identity and qualifications and, "where you are coming from", I couldn't care less. You are no more the subject here than I am. I evaluate your opinions and views in spite of your stated attributes, and not because of them.

Despite it all, you are just a disembodied voice in cyberspace, as are we all. You could be anyone, just as I could. The point is, in matters of opinion, it just doesn't matter who you are. In matters of verifiable fact, it not only doesn't matter, it is irrelevant.

In as much as you are only able to reach TWO conclusions regarding my position, out of the nearly infinite number of possibilities, I must again say that this is indicative of a cognitive problem.

That those two should both be extreme, childish and taunting speaks to your ability to engage in adult discourse.

I have little doubt that you will insist on having the last word, and I await it with some measure of anticipation (if you hear a clicking, chattering sound in the meantime, it is my figurative knees knocking in abject terror of your words as I cower in cyberspace).

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 30, 1998.

Searcher:

Thank you for giving me the "opportunity" for the last word. I didn't realize you were in charge of this forum. I only hope you will abide by your own words that "this is (your) final reply to me".

Thank you, also, for the insults regarding my "cognitive problem", "childish taunts", "my bias", "inability or failure", and "immature arguments". There is nothing like an ad hominem attack to show the quality of the debater.

You state, "You have yet to indicate that you have any understanding that Dr. North's words...go far more toward the denial of other's rights and liberties than to religious philosophy." In fact, I did indicate that I understood Dr. North's words; I named a book of his that I have read; it is not the only one. In truth, what you expect is for me to be UPSET at Dr. North's point of view -- in the same way that you are. Sorry, but, his opinion doesn't upset me. A man's opinion is a man's opinion. It is not criminal or illegal or immoral to hold an opinion, even if they are not my opinions. Even if those opinions conflict with modern ideas of liberty and equality. Dr. North is not building an army to coerce me or you into abiding by his opinions or his religious doctrine. His ideas are only ideas.

You choose to avoid revealing your personal beliefs and biases, as North has freely done -- as "my refusal to allow you to color your evaluation of my postings with your bias regarding whatever my personal attributes might be." Fair enough.

Yet you have not held yourself to the same standard with Dr. North, and "not color(ed) your evaluation of his postings with your bias regarding whatever his personal attributes might be."

In the same vein, you state "In matters of opinion, it just doesn't matter who you are..." If so, then why does it matter so much to you who Dr. North is?

You state that you are "an unknown" and see your "anonymity" as "insurance that your words are judged on their own merit" -- yet, in the same paragraph you agree "without qualification" that a man is more than his words...that his opinion is colored by his beliefs. Dr. North's beliefs color his words, but you hide your beliefs in a veil of secrecy. Yet, these hidden beliefs still color your words.

Once again, you demonstrate that you wish to judge others by a different standard than the one to which you hold yourself.

It is reasonable to use the same standards on others that one uses upon oneself. If you refuse to disclose your beliefs, which is fine, then by that standard you should not use another's beliefs against him.

Gary North does not discuss his religious books on his y2k site. He discusses y2k. His comments are clearly marked as "comments". As a common courtesy, in fairness, and in a spirit of extending your personal standards to others, don't you think you should stop discussing Dr. North's personal beliefs and stick with y2k, too?

Anita Evangelista

Reminder: An honest man abides by his words. You said, "This is my final reply to you." I'm certain everyone on this thread hopes we can count on your honesty in this matter.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), October 30, 1998.

Searcher, You a hacker,or with dept of defence, or airforce????

#1 CII Honeywell/79 Pascal decended language--embedded applications #2 version of IAL/59 ---real time

Your turn...Why would one want to use a B8ZS system over an ESF system????? ??? am I allowed to post on this forum now???? :P Does this mean I can participate in the forum now?????

-- deborah cunningham (dac@ccrtc.com), October 30, 1998.

This endless banter is non-productive in regards to Y2K.

Just so everyone knows, I have seen Hardliner's posts on other message boards regarding Dr. North's personal beliefs. He/she has taken it upon theirself to discredit Dr. North on the internet.

Why someone would take the time, to expend such energy, makes them suspect in my mind when they could expend it in a much more productive manner. Their are still a whole lot of people out there who need to be made aware so that they can prepare.

Hardliner needs to help with the cause instead of lowering us into a political debate. There are many other places to discuss politics. This subject is off topic.

If you refuse to be dragged into the topic it will eventually die off.

P.S. Uncle Deedah, I loved your analogy of the race tracks! It was a bright spot on this thread.

LOL

Anna

-- Anna McKay Ginn (annaginn@aol.com), October 31, 1998.

Put up or shut up, Anna!

Hardliner has not posted regarding Dr. North anywhere except this forum.

Show us all where, Anna!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 31, 1998.

Ms. Evangelista: Contrary to what the activists here would think, the quality and background of the messenger and his "escorts" becomes somewhat of interest if the message is rather self serving. What most of the defenders of North's so-called facts (actually selected data) neglect to mention is that his 3,000 links more or less center around those particular areas of greatest interest to him. I.e. the super structure of our Society. After so much practice over the years he knows what has the greatest appeal for those who just love "Gary's Tales of Scary Stuff" and one wonders why he hasn't sued Garfield'creator.

I found your self description of one of your books simply elegant as I'm sure others here might. I'm sure you won't mind if I share it?? (I would suggest though that "Hardliner" is not fresh game for you to dress.) ...................................................... The author, ale@townsqr.com , February 12, 1998 The Best Meat You've Ever Eaten Tired of wondering where your meat came from, how it was handled, or what's living on it? It's surprizingly easy to grow your own protein - - and even a teeny urban balcony can produce the best tasting, most fresh, most nutritious meats you can imagine. (That urban balcony could house a trio of quiet, clean, "pet" rabbits -- who could provide two dinners per week for years to come! And cheaper than you can buy chicken!) Just imagine what you could do with a REAL yard -- bacon and sausage coming along nicely over there; scrambled eggs and fried chicken growing on the other side; a handful of roasted quail bouncing around; some milk and cream -- and baked goat -- near the gate... ................................

Ms. Evangelista, Perhaps you might like to clarify your own status here as a "Orthodox Roman Catholic". Is that part of the Greek Orthodox Rite or is it part of the rather "conservative" Church that is a part of North and Rushdoony's world of C.Recons ?? SO, WHY NOT LAY ALL YOUR CARDS ON THE TABLE?? Aside from peddlng your books isn't it in YOUR BEST INTEREST to see that they fear level re: Y2k continues to rise?? That wouldn't hurt sales any would it?? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, And just exactly what kind of "Nursing Degree" do you have??

About the Author ANITA EVANGELISTA first became interested in hypnotism in high school.

You might also like to clarify why your "six less one" books are so popular in the Survivalist, Militia and Y2k Run for the Hills set?? Amzaon notes only that one of your "Six" seems to be out of print. It adds though: After years of applied research, she joined the California Professional Hypnotist Association, eventually serving as its President. ........................ Hypnosis : A Journey into the Mind by A. Anderson-Evangelista Availability: This title is out of print. Although it is no longer available from the publisher, we'll query our network of used bookstores for you and send an update within one to two weeks. ASIN: 0668051345 ‰

-- Hardballer (finder@internet.com), November 01, 1998.

The Roman Catholic Church is pretty orthodox, and remarkably stodgy in its views; would that all of us never failed, erred, or sinned, but that's why He instituted Confession may moons ago. There is no credible "splits" or divisions in the Church - everybody has the same Gospel, Epistles, and Old Testment readings world-wide each Sunday, and the Mass itself is standardized - I would not recommend either "hardballer" or "hardliner" waste further breathe analyzing her particular beliefs.

It won't yield more knowledge.

Now, whether being a president of any particular society is imporetant or not, that's up to the reader. Me? I'm impressed by anybody with the nerve and energy to put oneself up as a leader. Of anything. Now, that assumption of leadership also calls for responsibility. So if the society was run correctly, honestly, and if the society did what its members needed during her reign - h**l, congratulate her on it.

Don't condem her. Ask questions appropriate to the circumstances....

Now about those rabbits on the back porch....did she address how to dispose of the droppings? Does cooking a rabbit require more than 3 ingredients? Is one of those ingredients the rabbit? What is the rabbit's opinion in all this? How does turn a rabbit into a meal?

If these, or other questions, were not addressed suitably in the reference, then you would have suitable reason to complain, and I would expect the marketplace to determine whether the book should remain in print. But I'm impressed she's determined enough to get printed.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 01, 1998.

Dear Anonymous Sir or Madam:

Oh, my goodness, bless you for the finest free advertising I have ever received! Thanks to your kind heart, more people will read about my material than would ever have found it otherwise. Please note that I have not advertized myself on this forum (outside of that one reference to amazon.com, which was a method of allowing interested readers to verify that I was, in fact, an author as I claimed).

Gosh, I guess I'm going to have to come clean.

Sure enough, I'm interested in hypnotism. Sure enough, I've used it in a clinical (i.e. professional psychological) setting. I used a little hypnosis last night, as a matter of fact, when I was "talking down" a violent patient in a psych ward, who was threatening to pound his head through a window. As a nurse (read that as "Registered Nurse", as in "the person who takes care of you when you are in the hospital having your appendix removed"), I frequently serve where my talents and abilities take me. I also enjoy working in the emergency room, patching up motor vehicle accident patients -- and using my skills in hypnosis to help the victims deal with the pain and fear while the docs are trying to figure out how to position them for x-rays.

Golly! That sure does make me suspect!!!

And, yes, you HAVE caught me. I did, in fact, write a book on how to raise your own meat at home!!! Just like many people who prefer wholesome foods, myself and family have raised our own meats for almost 20 years. Goats, sheep, cattle, rabbits, chickens, quail, geese, ducks....man, I almost can't recall all the types of livestock we've raised. I guess me, AND ALL THE OTHER SMALL FARMER OPERATORS in the U.S. are probably survivalist wackos -- just out to make a buck on raising meat!!!

Oh, by the say, don't forget to mention that I wrote "hundreds of articles for small-scale agriculture" publications, too -- all those articles for SHEEP, DAIRY GOAT JOURNAL, ORGANIC GARDENING, MAINE ORGANIC FARMER AND GARDENER, SMALL FARMER'S JOURNAL, IOWA PRACTICAL FARMER, etc., those might also be pretty subversive materials. Check out the article on "How to deworm your sheep" in a back issue of THE SHEPHERD....I think that's one of my best subversive pieces. Or you might consider "Natural Selection and the Needle", another wacky one on how the excess use of antibiotics in animal husbandry has created generations of livestock that cannot survive without antibiotics....that one's more of a "think" piece than a "how-to", which probably makes it especially nutty.

Apparently, you missed the "authors note" preceding my other book, the one on food storage. Notice that I wrote that following a severe winter storm -- and the book itself was written as the result of our own bad experience one winter being frozen into our home for over 30 days. Had it not been for the simple, common sense measure of storing our own food at home -- LIKE MOST COUNTRY PEOPLE STILL DO -- we would have had some dire problems. As it was, with a small supply of stored food, we were able to weather the situation with ease.

As a rural citizen, living over 16 miles from the nearest town, I advocate food storage. I advocated food storage BEFORE y2k (note the publication date of that book), and I'll advocate food storage after y2k, if anybody needs reminding.

I "discovered" y2k on March 18, 1998, at about 10:31 in the morning. The moment of realization is burned into my memory -- and I haven't written more that a couple book reviews (on unrelated topics) for publication since then. Y2k is NOTHING like a month-long ice storm....THAT I can prepare for, THAT I am familiar with, THAT is just a cold spell.

My total royalties on ALL my "self-sufficiency" books, published by a small alternative press (big publishers don't waste their time on books that don't sell well) has totaled LESS that two weeks of my pay as a nurse. If I'm making a profit on "doom and gloom mongering", I have yet to see it. By the way, as a rural nurse, I'm making less per hour than a mailman, and I STILL have to buy my own health insurance!

And, last but not least, please feel free to consult your nearest Catholic Church for a description of Catholicism. Or, you could read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if you preferred. Orthodox Roman Catholic, in a nutshell, means that I am obedient to the Pope -- you know, that sweet old guy at the Vatican? He's got some pretty radical thoughts, that Pope -- stuff like, babies shouldn't be aborted, husbands and wives should remain married for their lifetimes, people should be kind and generous to the poor....you know, those kinds of radical ideas. I'm pretty sure that Gary North, as a Presbyterian (you've heard of them? Protestants? Protesters against the Papacy?) would find any kind of obedience to the Pope pretty repulsive.

Ain't it just amazing how people as dissimilar as Gary North and myself can come to agreement on a single idea -- that the need to prepare for y2k is urgent?

Ain't it grand that someone like myself, who has practical hands-on experience in preparedness, can provide low-cost advice to people all over the world, whom I've never met, via my books and other publications?

Ain't it a shame that the next royalty check I'll receive on my books is set to arrive in Spring, 2000? Greetings, Anita Evangelista P.S. Feel free to advertise my other writings in greater detail. Maybe a few more people will take heart and REALLY start to prepare for y2k.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com,), November 01, 1998.

Dear Anonymous Sir or Madam:

Oh, my goodness, bless you for the finest free advertising I have ever received! Thanks to your kind heart, more people will read about my material than would ever have found it otherwise. Please note that I have not advertized myself on this forum (outside of that one reference to amazon.com, which was a method of allowing interested readers to verify that I was, in fact, an author as I claimed).

Gosh, I guess I'm going to have to come clean.

Sure enough, I'm interested in hypnotism. Sure enough, I've used it in a clinical (i.e. professional psychological) setting. I used a little hypnosis last night, as a matter of fact, when I was "talking down" a violent patient in a psych ward, who was threatening to pound his head through a window. As a nurse (read that as "Registered Nurse", as in "the person who takes care of you when you are in the hospital having your appendix removed"), I frequently serve where my talents and abilities take me. I also enjoy working in the emergency room, patching up motor vehicle accident patients -- and using my skills in hypnosis to help the victims deal with the pain and fear while the docs are trying to figure out how to position them for x-rays.

Golly! That sure does make me suspect!!!

And, yes, you HAVE caught me. I did, in fact, write a book on how to raise your own meat at home!!! Just like many people who prefer wholesome foods, myself and family have raised our own meats for almost 20 years. Goats, sheep, cattle, rabbits, chickens, quail, geese, ducks....man, I almost can't recall all the types of livestock we've raised. I guess me, AND ALL THE OTHER SMALL FARMER OPERATORS in the U.S. are probably survivalist wackos -- just out to make a buck on raising meat!!!

Oh, by the say, don't forget to mention that I wrote "hundreds of articles for small-scale agriculture" publications, too -- all those articles for SHEEP, DAIRY GOAT JOURNAL, ORGANIC GARDENING, MAINE ORGANIC FARMER AND GARDENER, SMALL FARMER'S JOURNAL, IOWA PRACTICAL FARMER, etc., those might also be pretty subversive materials. Check out the article on "How to deworm your sheep" in a back issue of THE SHEPHERD....I think that's one of my best subversive pieces. Or you might consider "Natural Selection and the Needle", another wacky one on how the excess use of antibiotics in animal husbandry has created generations of livestock that cannot survive without antibiotics....that one's more of a "think" piece than a "how-to", which probably makes it especially nutty.

Apparently, you missed the "authors note" preceding my other book, the one on food storage. Notice that I wrote that following a severe winter storm -- and the book itself was written as the result of our own bad experience one winter being frozen into our home for over 30 days. Had it not been for the simple, common sense measure of storing our own food at home -- LIKE MOST COUNTRY PEOPLE STILL DO -- we would have had some dire problems. As it was, with a small supply of stored food, we were able to weather the situation with ease.

As a rural citizen, living over 16 miles from the nearest town, I advocate food storage. I advocated food storage BEFORE y2k (note the publication date of that book), and I'll advocate food storage after y2k, if anybody needs reminding.

I "discovered" y2k on March 18, 1998, at about 10:31 in the morning. The moment of realization is burned into my memory -- and I haven't written more that a couple book reviews (on unrelated topics) for publication since then. Y2k is NOTHING like a month-long ice storm....THAT I can prepare for, THAT I am familiar with, THAT is just a cold spell.

My total royalties on ALL my "self-sufficiency" books, published by a small alternative press (big publishers don't waste their time on books that don't sell well) has totaled LESS that two weeks of my pay as a nurse. If I'm making a profit on "doom and gloom mongering", I have yet to see it. By the way, as a rural nurse, I'm making less per hour than a mailman, and I STILL have to buy my own health insurance!

And, last but not least, please feel free to consult your nearest Catholic Church for a description of Catholicism. Or, you could read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if you preferred. Orthodox Roman Catholic, in a nutshell, means that I am obedient to the Pope -- you know, that sweet old guy at the Vatican? He's got some pretty radical thoughts, that Pope -- stuff like, babies shouldn't be aborted, husbands and wives should remain married for their lifetimes, people should be kind and generous to the poor....you know, those kinds of radical ideas. I'm pretty sure that Gary North, as a Presbyterian (you've heard of them? Protestants? Protesters against the Papacy?) would find any kind of obedience to the Pope pretty repulsive.

Ain't it just amazing how people as dissimilar as Gary North and myself can come to agreement on a single idea -- that the need to prepare for y2k is urgent?

Ain't it grand that someone like myself, who has practical hands-on experience in preparedness, can provide low-cost advice to people all over the world, whom I've never met, via my books and other publications?

Ain't it a shame that the next royalty check I'll receive on my books is set to arrive in Spring, 2000? Greetings, Anita Evangelista P.S. Feel free to advertise my other writings in greater detail. Maybe a few more people will take heart and REALLY start to prepare for y2k.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com,), November 01, 1998.

"Hardballer"???,

I suggest that you have failed to understand the clear majority of opinion in this thread, namely that Gary North's opinions are constantly subject to scrutiny and that in spite of that and in spite of a knowledge of his agenda, his links are still one of the most valuable information resources on the 'net. (BTW, "superstructure" is one word)

Your crudely constructed and ill considered attack on Ms. Evangelista is not only in poor taste, it puts me in the annoying position of having to argue on behalf of my erstwhile opponent. All I know to do is laugh at myself and the position I find myself in and reply as follows:

If every single word you have written about her is true and if every single question you have asked of her were to be answered in the light most negative to her, it would not affect in the slightest her right to voice her opinions here nor would her religious status, whatever it may be, have anything to do with the point here (although far from the original point of the thread): Her beliefs, North's beliefs, WHATEVER THEY MIGHT BE, are sacrosanct in our society. They are unqualifiedly entitled to hold them. What neither they nor anyone else is entitled to is the rights of others.

As to the description of her book on meat, let me suggest that you read Sinclair's, The Mucker before you take her to task. I find it quite ironic that that description sounds quite accurate and appealing to me (although, Anita, you should have said, "freshest", instead of, "most fresh").

She is entitled to benefit from her work, Y2K or not, period.

And finally, your attempt to discredit her based on thinly veiled sneering at hypnotism not only belies any knowledge on your part of the life and times of Anton Mesmer, it suggests, to me at least, a closed mind.

I further suspect that the "Hardball" part of your body is indeed in stasis and has ears.

To the other readers of this thread,

I sincerely apologize to you if you feel that I have wasted bandwidth on this thread, but I could not let this post stand anymore than I could let North's original post stand.

It is just who and what I am.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), November 01, 1998.

Ooops. Sorry to all about the double post.

Anita E.

P.S. Rabbit poop is the finest non-burning high-nitrogen fertilizer there is. It can be used directly from the source, side-dressing vegetables and fast-growing crops that need lots of nitrogen (such as corn, tobacco, or cotton). It is better not used on root crops such as potatos and turnips, since it tends to produce lots of greens and little roots (nitrogen spurs the top growth).

A typical adult rabbit and cage of six bunnies will give about four pounds of manure in a month -- more or less, depending.

Butchering rabbits is pretty simple. After stunning the animal (a sharp whack on the head with an ax-handle will do it), you simply remove the head with a sharp knife. Hang the carcass by the rear legs, cut the skin down the midline and up the rear legs, and peel the skin off -- rather like pulling off a glove. A young healthy bunny (say, less than 4 months old) will "peel" easily. After that, just cut up the midline and pull out the guts. Rinse, cool, and refrigerate or prepare for the table.

Cook like chicken when rabbits are young -- more like "stewers" when over six months old. Rabbit meat is high protein and very low fat. In a survival situation, you would want to add fat when cooking (how about a few strips of bacon, yum, yum), to prevent "rabbit starvation". That's a condition said to have been common when people depended on wild game rabbit -- and the absense of sufficient fat caused them to be unable to fully utilize the meat.

Hey, fat ain't all bad!

A.E.

-- Anita E. (ale@townsqr.com), November 01, 1998.

Anita, I am a RN also but I have never heard of RN's using "hypnosis" especially in ER. Don't you have to have the Pt's permission?? I would think that would be grounds for a lawsuit.

DAC

-- deborah cunningham (dac@ccrtc.com), November 01, 1998.

Dear Searcher:

Thank you for your courteous and gentlemanly reply to "Hardballer" on my behalf.

Our shared concerns about the importance and urgency of the y2k situation can be used as a stepping stone to carry us all beyond the personal details that color each writer's (and reader's) life. It is fruitless to argue Gary North's, or my, beliefs -- when time is so short and there is so much to be done.

I have confidence that readers of y2k forums have the sense and discernment to weigh a writer's opinions against the reader's own experience -- and to make a judgement "yea" or "nay" based on their own needs and desires.

At this point, we have -- perhaps -- 14 months of preparation and warning to share with our loved ones. We waste valuable time and effort in arguing the merits or demerits of North (or anyone else).

Fourteen months is a very short while. If y2k is a bump or a nothing or even a minor situation, we will have the rest of our lengthy, comfortable, computer-controlled lives to berate North's failed assertions. If y2k is a mess, we will (perhaps grudgingly) be thanking God that we were able to "hear" his message.

In the general spirit of urgency, charity, and gentlemanly good manners, can we put a moratorium on North-bashing for a mere 14 months?

Thank you for your consideration of this option. And, once again, my thanks for your reply to Hardballer.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), November 01, 1998.

To Deb Cunningham, RN:

Surely, as a nurse, you know that "effects of suggestion" (that is, hypnosis) occur constantly in medicine. I tell my patient, in a voice full of assurance and confidence, "I'm going to insert this Foley. You'll feel it move inside you and it will feel strange. But for right now, you don't have to let it bother you. Now, take a deep breath...." The medical setting, the patient's desperate need to block the otherwise painful sensations, the entire humiliation of the procedure, readily precipitates a hypnotic state -- which leads to pain reduction, compliance, and improved outcomes.

An accomplished hypnotist never has to resort to "stare at this swinging watch" nonsense. Hypnotism occurs constantly in the medical setting -- so often that sometimes we even miss how much we, as nurses, perform it.

I refer you and all other interested parties to HYPNOSIS AND SUGGESTION IN THE TREATMENT OF PAIN: A CLINICAL GUIDE, edited by Joseph Barper (Norton & Co, 1996) for details and theory on how and why this works. BTW, I made no contributions to this particular work, and do not know the authors.

BUT THIS IS PATHETICALLY OFF THE POINT OF Y2K!!! Anyone who wishes to discuss hypnotism, please email me privately!

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), November 01, 1998.

Not to make a long thread longer, but "what's a Foley?"

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 01, 1998.

Okay, fellow sufferers, here it is:

A Foley is a device used to drain a patient's bladder. It consists of a soft latex tube, which is passed up the exteral urethral opening (i.e., "pee hole") directly into the bladder. There, the Foley's tip is inflated into a grape-sized bubble, which secures the device from slipping out of position. Meanwhile, the rubber tubing, which has a small opening near the bubble, drains out urine into an attached liter-sized plastic bag. The bag has a hook arrangement, which lets us hang it from the side of the patient's bed.

Foleys are used when patients have surgeries or conditions that limit their ability to get up to use toilet facilities.

As you can imagine, it's pretty uncomfortable to have a Foley inserted -- even though copious amounts of k-y-jelly lubricants are used. It's also pretty embarrassing to have a near-total stranger messing around with oneself in that way.

In consequence, a little careful "suggestion" can make the whole process a lot less painful and humiliating. Humor is also a big help at a time like that.

AND, in the film industry, a Foley is the guy who mixes sound effects with visual effects in the editing room -- a whole different kind of thing than the medical Foley.

Now, can we talk about y2k?

Greetings and good health to all,

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), November 01, 1998.

Robert

I have been the subject of a Foley more than once, let me tell you this, there are more painful things in the world, and there are also things that are a lot more fun. Not on my top ten list of ways to spend a Sunday afternoon.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), November 01, 1998.

I thought that was called a catheter, or is that just the tube part?

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), November 01, 1998.

Had a bicycle accident the day before Jean was born, was unconscious for a week, then laid out flat for another week - didn't like the d**m thing either, but I sure nuff never called it a "Foley." Other things perhaps, but never a "Foley."

Memo for the record - should bikes be required again - and they and a bike trailer were our "second" car (my primary mover) for 12 years - if the bike helment gets stolen, walk (or drive) to the bike store to get replacement. Even a half mile trip in residential neighborhoods is enough to put one out of one's misery. Permanent like.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 01, 1998.

Robert, you were unconscious when Jean was born? Poor child, she will be scarred for life. And your poor wife! Giving birth and not knowing if you were ever going to wake up? (Hey, Jean- I think you should play this one up for all it's worth!) :-)

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), November 02, 1998.

Forgive me please, but I must expose yet another facet of my twisted mind and tell you how very humorous I find it that this thread, which began as a questioning of Gary North's behavior has evolved without conscious guidance and wound down and trailed off to a discussion and explanation of what a "Foley" is for.

I wonder if these threads work sort of like a Ouija board. . .

I'll shut up about him now (I think you've all got his number anyway).

BTW, Robert, would you please revisit the "Creature" thread and tell us whether or not you'll entertain the bees?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), November 02, 1998.

Hardliner - see thread "CIA recruiting" to see who's really controlling things. And it isn't the Canadianese, either. Nor the Canadian geese, their real weapons of mass destruction.

Hardliner - part 2 - you forgot the safety msg about bicycles if transportation is lost during the troubles.

Hardliner - part 3 - I've not figured out the bees yet - it's a challenge there to be accurate, respectful, and to the point. I may need to get another 5-6 cups of coffee to get that one right.

Gayla - she has, she has....I've got lots to thank the church congregation out in Mare Island for their help....but i don't think they actually told Veronica how serious things were until she was checked out from the other hospital too - blood pressure crisis, infection etc. Jean was in the best shape of all of us. And the boys were too young to notice, except that they suddenly got to sleep over at lots of different houses all in a sudden.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 02, 1998.

Robert,

Did you see a light in the distance and "walk" toward it?

This thread has become an exhibit of the human condition.

-- Slick (slick@hucheemama.com), November 02, 1998.

For more on North's recent antics, read this:

http://www.zdnet.com/zdy2k/1998/10/5042.html

-- Buddy Y. (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), November 02, 1998.

Anita How to deworm sheep!?! Oh I dunno, just use a crab fork like I did for the cat I suppose. No, sheep are bigger - use a barbeque fork.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), November 02, 1998.