Anyone else getting sick of the grossly inflammatory tones of all of Gary North's comments?

Talking about the airline industry today, he says that all airlines will not be able to fly because no insurance company will insure them therefore they will all go out of business etc.

What utter bullshit. Freedom of speech is extremely important, however it is still illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre unless there is one.

Now I'm not doubting for a moment the severity of the problem. I've been on the forefront in my community as far as raising awareness goes.

However, Gary is getting stupider by the day. First of all, when insurance companies face a higher risk, there first line of action is not to cancel all policies (they would go out of business fast if this were the case) but rather they increase the premiums accordingly. Secondly, if insurance companies rates were unreasonable, the industry would set up their own insurance arrangement. Many large companies currently insure themselves rather than pay high premiums. Thirdly, it is unreasonable to expect that the CEO's of these airlines will just raise up their hands and say "Oh well, I guess we're toast. Let's just sit here and accept it." Yes, it may take the government making some emergency provisions to relax the insurance rules for a while, but it will happen if necessary.

Then there is the article about a Dallas Sam's store being raided by the FBI to get the names of those that are "hoarding" food. Of course, to cover his ass he starts out by saying that he doubts if the story is true but suggests his readers may want to check it out anyway. Just another example of his hype and fear mongering.

Also, his advice to give up and buy a farm with natural gas and water wells etc. is completely unaffordable to 90% of all people. Quite frankly, I don't think he gives a fiddlers fart about that 90% of people. It is becoming clearer in my opinion that his religious agenda leads him to actually desire death and destruction for the masses so his little group and himself can set up Gods' kingdom on earth.

Granted he has helped to spread initial awareness of Y2K, but any good he has done is quickly being reversed by the "kook factor" that he now adds to Y2K. How many families will be destroyed and torn apart because some of the members decide to high-tail it to the hills while the others want to stay at home? We've all been horrified in the past by stories of people leaving their families to join cults like the one controlled by David Koresh in Waco and Jim Jones in Guyana, etc.

In my opinion, Gary needs to be a heck of a lot more factual and a lot less false logic, emotionally charged rhetoric driven fear mongerer. If not, he has the potential to make the damage done by the Koresh's and Jones' of this world look petty in comparison to the damage he will have caused to families.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), November 04, 1998

Answers

Look at it from Gary's perspective, eh? If he employed soft, pleasing language and a non-confrontational attitude - and no sensationalism - people would pay as much attention to him as De Jager. Or Koskinen.

He does advocate community preparedness, primarily via one's church. He knows the 90% who can't afford to split to the country probably are not in his web audience, anyway. I'm not sure if he intended for the whole world (people not having his preferred moral profile) to hang out at his site in the first place.

"In my opinion, Gary needs to be a heck of a lot more factual and a lot less false logic, emotionally charged rhetoric driven fear mongerer. If not, he has the potential to make the damage done by the Koresh's and Jones' of this world look petty in comparison to the damage he will have caused to families."

That's if he's wrong. If he's right, Y2K will make Koresh and Jones look petty.

Why do people revere Gary? Because he opened their eyes, and he has absolutely nothing to gain from it (unless they want to send 1.00). Hardly any of us have rushed out and got a Presbyterian Re- Constructionist blood transfusion so we'd be suitable for him.

Why do iconoclasts constantly try to smash him down? Because THEY can't extract his research and ignore his rhetoric. They almost act like they WANT to worship Dr. North, and they would if he'd just stop being so dang -- so dang anti-constitutional and arrogant.

Really, it's show business. What looks like grasping at straws is probably his desire to not let a day go by without getting a good stab in at this invisible monster, the Year 2000. It's become his life's work and biggest publication: of course he's not going to be completely objective. Why should he?

Re-direct your ire at Koskinen and his ilk. It's THEIR manipulation and slant that's gonna make Koresh look like an amateur.

Who's y'all's Canadian famous fearmongerer; I want to do some analysis on him/her.

Remove x in mail if you want to talk.

-- lisa j. bucher (lisab@shallcx.com), November 04, 1998.

Like most people with extreme views (and I have been aware of North since reading Howard Ruff in the late 70's) North is becoming more extreme and less tolerant of others as the years go by. Eventually he will either get his act together or he will self destruct, but extremists never seem to find a stable position. Ah well, time will tell, about Y2K, North and many other things.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), November 04, 1998.

Chill out Craig. I find Gary's scenario concerning airlines and insurance companies entirely plausable, considering the hundreds of millions in liability that can be incurred in the event of plane crashes. I can't imagine any insurance company continuing coverage in any situation where, for example, air traffic control was non- functioning. It all depends on how bad it's going to get, which no one knows for sure.

If things turn out bad once we cross over to New Year Evil, Gary North will surely be remembered by survivors as a great profit, who tragically was ignored by most, and smeared by many for being slightly more fanatical then them. The fact that 90 percent of the people perhaps 'can't afford' to move to the country has no bearing on the argument of whether or not it is the only way to save your life. What could you afford to do if your life depended on it?

-- Tom Knepper (thomas_knepper@intuit.com), November 04, 1998.

I find it morbidly fascinating that so many people are absolutely fixated on Gary North. At http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn.html you can even find a discussion forum DEVOTED to promoting/attacking anything and everything about North, like he is some kind of rock star. My take is that this is the standard "displacement of aggression" that a lot of people have: feeling helpless about what they know are going to be major Y2K problems, and not knowing what else to do, they personally attack North. What they don't realize is that the personal attacks only show that they have little in the way of refuting evidence for North's claims, which only serves to make those claims look even stronger than they would otherwise be!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), November 04, 1998.

Craig,

It's important for Gary North's readers to understand that he _wants_ a societal cataclysm, for theological reasons.

North's quite intelligent, not stupid. He believes that if there is a Y2K catastrophe, he and those who share his religious beliefs (Christian Reconstructionist) can rise up, take control, and institute a theocracy in which the only legitimate religion will be theirs. Of course, he isn't open about this on his Y2K site, but he's clearly published his views before.

See the "Is Gary North a manipulative liar or just careless?" topic posted earlier in this forum. I particularly recommend the response by Chris (catsy@pond.com) on October 29. Chris gave two informative links for background on Gary North:

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

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

For example, from www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/words.htm:

"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.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), November 04, 1998.

You, sir, are a braying ass.

Characterizing North as an "emotionally charged rhetoric driven fear monger," and then in the same sentence comparing him to David Koresh and Jim Jones for dramatic effect? That's just a tad bit hypocritical, Craig.

And again we hear the old standby smear, "families torn apart by Y2k fear-mongering," and again the comparison with a religious cult. You're not talking to children here. People preparing for Y2k are not all members of a cult. Gary North is not the leader of a cult. Gary North is exercising his right to free speech, and warning people to prepare, swiftly and diligently, for a disaster of epic proportions; he is not "causing damage to families," he is saving the lives of many, many families (mine included) and to suggest that he is a cult leader is insulting not only to North, but to the members of this forum.

I, too, find the question of airline insurance a valid topic for discussion, and am willing to entertain a broad spectrum of opinion on the matter. I am not willing to shout down any opinion, or call for an end to discussion of this or any other Y2k-related concern, as you are advocating. Why would you want to do that, Craig?

If there is a rumor about a raid by the FBI to obtain mailing lists, I want to hear about it, reported as rumor, which exactly what North has done. Certainly, the FBI has pressured owners of businesses for mailing lists before (the DEA has done this in my own town, with gardening supply people who were threatened into giving the names of people who had bought lights that could have been used to grow forbidden plants).

Can't afford a farm with a well, Craig? It's Gary North's fault!

You have your panties in a bunch, Craig. Well, I do too! Y2k is an utter disaster, it's going to add devastation of infrastructure to an already devastating global economic depression. There is a very real threat of losing power, telecommunications and transport to such a degree and for such a length of time that our democracy, if not civilization itself, will seriously endangered by it. The military is unprepared, and weakness and confusion, fueled by poverty -in other nations as well as ours - invites opportunism. North is about the only person I'm aware of who is willing to discuss, openly and directly, what is really at stake here. So quit blaming the messenger. Deal with your Y2k anxiety without lashing out. Join us as we all un-bunch our panties in as dignified a manner as possible, and get on with the business of living.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), November 04, 1998.

Craig,

My intention is that this post shall be a "Lessons Learned" post. Lessons learned by me. As the one who initiated the, "Is Gary North a manipulative liar or just careless?" thread, I believe that I have a few relevant comments.

First, as far as I can tell, it is the longest thread on this forum. That would seem to indicate that lots and lots of folks have a "Gary North Hot Button".

Second, despite the passage of five days and 79 posts, I doubt that anyone changed their opinion of Gary North. My own conclusion, as stated near the end of that ordeal was that, ". . .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." In short, everybody's got his number.

Third, the subject of Dr. North evoked an extremely wide range of responses which ranged from honest attempts to discuss the issues to inaccuracies, lies and even a "copycat" poster that I personally found quite distasteful.

Fourth, although the thread started in the spirit of, "Watch it! He's not just adding a spin anymore. This time he's putting up false info", it quickly degenerated into a very hot exchange that took on a life of its own. Fitingly, I think, it ended with a discussion of equipment and procedures for the collection and disposal of human waste.

Fifth, I have asked myself a number of times if I would start that thread again, if I knew what would happen, and knowing myself, I have reluctantly concluded that I would. It's just my nature, but it may not be yours. I don't know.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), November 04, 1998.

NoSpamPlease: yes, yes, yes. Of course this is what the fundamentalist christians want - theocracy. Some day soon, Jesus will come "with a sword" and all this selfish pride and pleasure-seeking will fade (when the smoke clears) like a bad dream, and the lion will lie down with the lamb. They have the right to believe this. I have the right to make fun of it (until they take away that right and decide to rip my nipples off with hot irons, break my legs in a vise and burn me at the stake for being a 'pagan' - again).

"Gary North _wants_ Y2k to happen" : Are you saying he's _making_ it happen via psychokinesis? Attack the man, attack christian fundamentalism as the enemy of The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which it most certainly is (if you doubt this, read your Bible). But WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH Y2k??? Alright, he has questionable motivations; he's on record as an extremist and an enemy of liberty. But all you can do is JUXTAPOSE this smear with his reportage and analysis of Y2k; it really has no rational bearing on the question of, say, the airline insurance question, or whether civilization itself will be in danger if the power goes out for more than 60 days. These are questions we should be thinking about. And until NBC/CBS/ABC/NPR stop cracking snide jokes about the Y2k "bump in the road," I'm going to continue to recommend that people give North's life-saving work the attention and respect it deserves.

If you don't like the fact that a religious nut is the only person doing this work, then start your own site, and do a better job of it.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), November 04, 1998.

E.

I feel better about myself today. I disagree with your post. The stars have once again alligned themselves -- I was getting worried because I agreed with you 2 times in a row. Craig only uses Koresh/Jones as a generallization of what others, who are unaware of what "y2k" even represents, perceive him to be outside of aware circles. You and I, and even Craig, don't put North into that category. But, my relatives and John Q. Public will place someone yelling at the top of their lungs and providing information like SOME of the information on his web site in similar categories as Branch Davidians and other separatists. Rational people like the family on Nightline were not perceived as rational to the "outside" world. So, how do you think North will be perceived, given his checkered apocolyptic past.

Craig is simply putting forth the opinion similar to my own: North has quality input and information. He diminishes the perceived quality of that information to the LISTENER by intermingling non-factual, dramatical schtick into his site. He does not change the volume of the song being played, only the clarity of the music. Maybe he would be better served to add another page for y2k urban legends and unsubstantiated rumors. I would surely pay a dollar to read that stuff for entertainment value.

Craig's opinion is just that, an opinion. His sharing of that opinion of a public figure makes him less of a baying ass than your "attack" of his opinion.

In summation, bite me and get us an update of the tri-lateral commission.

-- Slick (slick@hucheemama.com), November 04, 1998.

Clarification:

I disagreed with you post calling Craig a "baying ass". The stars are screwed up again because I somewhat concur with your most recent offering. You can still bite me over calling someone a baying ass for issuing opinions.

-- Slick (slick@hucheemama.com), November 04, 1998.

E brings up an interesting point (he always brings up interesting points!). Indeed, just WHAT KIND OF PERSON WOULD YOU EXPECT to be doing the work that North does? Maybe, in your mind, you would like to think that its someone just like you, mainstream, full-time job, etc., who -- somehow -- gets wind of the Y2K problem, then makes it his number 1 priority to Warn The World, purely out of his belief that it is The Right Thing To Do. (Maybe he even would look a little like Mel Gibson and drive a taxi cab, just like in "Conspiracy Theories"...). Get real! It takes someone like North, who apparently has lived his entire life making war with the fractional reserve banking system, repeatedly trying to convince people that it will collapse for one reason or another. (In 1984, he claimed it was computer viruses that would do it.) Problem is, with Y2K, I think that North has gotten "lucky", and that Y2K will indeed deliver that and a lot more. As I have said before, the evidence to refute the strong arguments that North makes just does not seem to be there....

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), November 04, 1998.

What Craig is referring to here seems to me to be caused by the way North presents his arguments. He writes with an air of authority using words and phrases that make it sound to the uninformed that he knows what will happen. It comes across as being pompous to me. A few more ifs and maybes might make him sound more believable.

What I find amazing is how he so easily discounts expert opinions such as the Gartner Group's most recent reports.

-- Buddy Y. (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), November 04, 1998.

E.,

Please calm down and reread my preceding post.

>"Gary North _wants_ Y2k to happen"

That's not a quote of what I wrote. Please be more careful. Others reading your posting may be misled to think that I wrote that sentence if they don't doublecheck my actual words.

>Are you saying he's _making_ it happen via psychokinesis?

No. I'm pointing out a factor in North's motivations.

And if you had quoted me correctly, it would be obvious to the reader of your posting that I was not saying that Gary North was making Y2K happen.

>yes, yes, yes. Of course this is what the fundamentalist christians want

You have a valid point.

>Attack the man,

I didn't! Unless one considers "he isn't open about this on his Y2K site" to be an attack.

>But WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH Y2k??? Alright, he has questionable motivations; he's on record as an extremist and an enemy of liberty.

There -- you've answered your own question. That was my purpose -- to remind folks to keep this in mind.

His motivations affect his selections of what he presents - he has some vested interest in playing up the negative and down the positive, Y2Kwise. This does not mean that what he does present is factually inaccurate; it means that the reader needs to know how North might be "spinning" his Y2K presentation.

And, yes, we all put "spin" on what we present. Because North's Y2K site is so important, it is especially important that readers know as much as possible about his "spin".

>But all you can do is JUXTAPOSE this smear with his reportage and analysis of Y2k;

Are you saying that _my_ reportage and analysis of Gary North constitutes a smear, E.? How so? What was incorrect? Where did I even comment on his Y2K reportage and analysis other than about his theological motivations which might affect them?

Methinks you were projecting others' (perhaps including your) ideas into what I wrote. Please don't do that, or at least don't let those projections leak into your responses.

> I'm going to continue to recommend that people give North's life-saving work the attention and respect it deserves.

Fine, E., but please improve the accuracy of your quotations and commentary about others' postings.

I'm going to continue to recommend that people who read North's Y2K stuff keep in mind his theological leanings so that they can better evaluate where his work stands in relation to the Y2K work of others who have more centrist motivations.

E., may I have your retraction and apology for suggesting that I posted a smear, and for your other errors about my posting?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), November 04, 1998.

Slick, anyone who can read Craig's post can see that he objects to BOTH A) North appearing like a dangerous nut, and B) North actually being a dangerous nut. In case they are as lazy and/or thick as you and can't read up the page by themselves, here are some quotes:

Craig Quote: >How many families will be destroyed and torn apart because some of the members decide to high-tail it to the hills while the others want to stay at home?<

Craig quote: >...he has the potential to make the damage done by the Koresh's and Jones' of this world look petty in comparison ot the damage he will have done to families.<

So clearly, Craig is both accusing North of BOTH looking dangerous AND actually BEING dangerous. Why you would go out on a limb to put a logically indefensable spin on his petulant mudslinging is beyond me. I say again, the man is an ass, and you have distinguished yourself as the ass-keeper who cleans up after him. Or tries to.

You've both implicitly condoned (in demonizing Koresh) the recension of the posse commitatus act, serving all warrants with a volley of sniper fire, and using CS gas on infants and children. Does that make you feel like part of something big? You are.

"Bite me?" What do you think, people? I'm thinking a precocious age 12.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), November 04, 1998.

I still check out North's site (I need a good augh once in awhile), but why not go to the unbiased link pages to get your news? My personal prefrence is http://www.y2knews.com Yes they are trying to sell a magazine, but their links, which that address takes you to directly, provides quality links to that days news on Y2K. The only qoutes on there come usually from the first line or so of the article they are linking to.

Or even go to DeJager's press clippings. Even if you don't like DeJager, his site provides a lengthy list of news links each day with 0 commentary. Just the publication and the name of the article. The only thing I get from North's site that I don't get elsewhere are his screwy opinions (I agree with you Buddy, his tone has alaways been that he KNOWS what is going to happen) and links to screwy rumors and the such. I much prefer the other two sources for links I mentioned.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 04, 1998.

Slick, here is your quote, verbatim:

>>It's important for Gary North's readers to understand that he _wants_ a societal cataclysm, for theological reasons.

Are you saying someone else posted this in your name?

I'm saying it's true, but it's not important. To try to give it some importance is an attack on his beliefs and his character. You say it influences him to report only the bad news? And you make this objection in the midst of a Y2k MEDIA BLACKOUT (in the U.S., anyway)? When the mainstream media starts reporting any real Y2k news - any news at all, and I don't mean sarcastic profiles of bible-thumping pastors with church basements full of flour and ammo - THEN I will accept your criticism, that Gary North isn't balanced in his reportage. Until that time, Gary North IS the balance.

And I called Craig a "bRaying ass," not a "baying ass." "Methinks" you owe me an apology for twisting my words so egregiously...

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), November 04, 1998.

E.,

CALM DOWN! Now you're mixing up my postings with those by Slick!

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), November 04, 1998.

E.,

>Slick, here is your quote, verbatim:

>>It's important for Gary North's readers to understand that he _wants_ a societal cataclysm, for theological reasons.

>Are you saying someone else posted this in your name?

E., _I_ posted that, in _my_ name! :-)

Get a grip on yourself!

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), November 04, 1998.

Hardliner, actually I think the longest thread on the forum is the "What About You- Revisited" thread that is down under the Misc. category. I believe it had 110 posts. (I printed it out awhile back.) Don't know how many postings were in the Jack Van Impe thread, maybe Craig does? It may have been longer. Anyway, the neat thing about it, there was no religious debate, and no one person was a central character for debate. (Those threads seem to get the most attention!) :-) If you came to the forum after it was finished, you might enjoy reading about some of the people here. It was an encouragement to me that most people here are not "crazy survivalists," they just want to protect their family and friends.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), November 04, 1998.

I have to laugh at the throwing of the cult word. Who gives a flying sh*t what those people believe? Not me.

But they are a cult, they are dangerous! They might kill themselves! Who cares what others do with themselves, as long as they do not hurt you or non consenting others. Let them drink Cool- Aid, I say.

They are a cult, you know, a group of people who leave their families and everyday lives to follow a charismatic leader, they shouldnt be allowed to do that. Oh, I see what you mean, like Jesus and the disciples?

BTW, he IS losing it with that Sams Club rumor nonsense, I suppose he is unable to check it out for himself? I have re-adjusted my opinion down a notch as a result.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), November 04, 1998.

Gayla, Do you ever do anything but correct people? I feel sorry for your family. It must be hell living with someone like you.

-- Believer (OYe@littlefaith.com), November 04, 1998.

Gayla,

I stand corrected, and happily so. I find it reassuring that human interaction is more popular, at least on this forum, than Gary North.

I regret not being thorough enough to check the archived threads before I posted.

I have no excuse.

The only thing I can be glad of, is that my error did not destroy my argument that lots of folks have a "Gray North Hot Button".

BTW, as I feel that I somewhat know you through your postings here, I have to say that if only half of the teachers I've encountered in my life had had their act together as you so obviously do, my educational experience would have been far more enjoyable.

Dont slak of on thu bad spelers!

Regards,

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), November 04, 1998.

NoSpamPlease: I didn't mix up your posts, I mistakenly posted Slick's name in response to you. My argument stands: you are all three: Craig, Slick and NoSpamPlease, cooperating with a corporate media blackout on Y2k, the principal propaganda weapon of which is the equation of Y2k "extremism" (i.e., storing food, moving out of doomed urban centers) with apocalyptic christianity which is, to borrow a term from Craig, "utter bullshit."

Y2k threatens incredible devestation, but vested interests want to avoid "panic," at the expense of ordinary people's preparedness. Fractional reserve banking *will* fall, not because North said so, but because it's inherently unstable. Y2k *will* cause widespread and prolonged damage to our infrastructure, as well as economic destruction easily exceeding that of the 1930s depression. This should be obvious to everyone who has read - on North's site first!- about the coverups and the stonewalling and the barefaced lies from the power company/telecom/military flaks. You won't hear this on the evening news. You will read it on Gary North's site. And all you can do is join in with the news cartel strategy of attacking his religious beliefs. Pathetic.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), November 04, 1998.

Unk:

The BATF gives a tanking sh*t what these people think. They're endlessly fascinated with them.

Somehow, I doubt they've mellowed out, especially what with OK City.

E. was right when she said rumors are totally welcome, since facts don't seem to be doing much to stir the sheep. If Gary was rumormongering, fine. Those who can tell it's bullshit aren't damaged, and maybe he saved 50 sheep with the rumor. Maybe those will save another 50. Isn't that what we want here?

-- lisa (nomail@work.com), November 04, 1998.

As long as our government persists in beseiging "cults," gassing their children and rolling over their bodies with tanks, I will take the "cult" labelling of any group very seriously indeed. As should anyone who cares about America's fate.

I remember, during Waco, how anyone who objected to the seige was shouted down with "The wackos in Waco? They're a cult!" Then, after the OK Bomb/Reichstag Fire, It went without question that those with fringe beliefs had no protection under the law. If you believed otherwise, you were probably a militia "sympathizer." This is "fear-mongering" defined, and you use Koresh to pick on Gary North?!

No, I take it all back. We burned him and his followers to death, so he must have deserved it. Now what else is on t.v....?

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), November 04, 1998.

Lisa,

Rumors are welcome, reported as rumor. Today's rumor is often tomorrow's fact. All news stories begin with either rumor or a press release. Often the rumor is the more factual.

I don't see how someone saying:"this is a rumor, you'll have to check it" can be objectionable. Unless the person objecting is trying to tar him as a "rumor-monger" for political reasons...

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), November 04, 1998.

Ha ha ha .......... nothing like stirring up a hornet's nest to keep a guy sane on a Wednesday afternoon..........

I'm up to my ears in .asp's and DSN's and Oracle drivers and blowing off a bit of steam about North broke up the monotony....

Let me clarify something please.......I am not opposed whatsoever to the bringing of Y2K into the limelight so people can adequately prepare. That is a noble cause. Certainly many politicians are guilty of trying to cover up the reality of the situation and/or make false statements that all is well. However, that does not make it any more right for North or anyone else to grossly exagerate the facts either.

As a matter of fact, one of the reasons that Y2K has no credibility with much of the public is because they are turned off by extreme hype and inflammatory statements.

Too much of Gary's writings are along the lines of........the gas supplies will be disrupted, therefore the buses won't run. This means that nobody will be able to get to work, resulting in every company in the world going out of business in five days. Within a week, looting and rioting will claim the lives of millions......... Slight use of hyperbole for effect but I think I've caught the style.

Here's something from an article on his site from yesterday...... /.. No large corporation has fixed its y2k problem. Neither has any government. That's because they can't fix it in the time remaining. They won't fix it. The system is going to shut down. ../

No mention of the things that corporations and governments have already fixed and will fix in the next 14 months.

Which brings me to the central point of my initial post..........there are many respected Y2K authorities that get the message across without creating paranoia.........Gary North just isn't one of them.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), November 04, 1998.

Craig, I could tell you were ranting-- I remember when you first came to this forum--- was it June? It was obvious you were really a nice guy.

We need to be sending Ed Y. a dollar every time we take up disk space and CPU on his server going psycho over Dr. North. You never see GN's people freaking out about Ed over on Gary's forums. In fact, people don't really even mention Gary on his own forums.

-- lisa (lisa@work.com), November 04, 1998.

E.,

>And I called Craig a "bRaying ass," not a "baying ass." "Methinks" you owe me an apology for twisting my words so egregiously...

>NoSpamPlease: I didn't mix up your posts, I mistakenly posted Slick's name in response to you.

One more time, E.: If you will please C A R E F U L L Y reread the preceding postings by Slick and myself, you will find that it was Slick, not I, who wrote the "baying ass" comment.

By quoting my "methinks" verb immediately after your "bRaying ass" retort, you have clearly shown everyone else reading this thread that _you did indeed mix up Slick's posting and mine_.

May I have your apologies for your errors in responses to my postings that I have cited?

And since I have not twisted your words, egregiously or otherwise, will you accompany your apologies with a withdrawal of your unfounded request for an apology from me?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), November 04, 1998.

Hardliner, thank-you for the kind words. The post, as opposed to being correction like my friend, Believer, thinks, was also in hopes of slowing the "volley" just a little. Sure was getting hot! :-)

E., "We burned him and his followers to death, so he must have deserved it." Interesting concept. Exactly what the Germans were brainwashed into believing about the Jews.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), November 04, 1998.

Craig, on Craig: >Ha ha ha .......... nothing like stirring up a hornet's nest to keep a guy sane on a Wednesday afternoon..........

Ass. Braying.

"Creating Paranoia" = telling the people in steerage that the ship is really going down, before 1st class finish their last hand of poker and fill the lifeboats.

So North is "turning people off" by telling the truth, projecting fearlessly from known facts. Unlike Dan Rather, or the rest of the billion-dollar-per-year corporate PR industry whose lies saturate the media, he isn't paid to "accentuate the positive." He's telling the truth, with conviction. You're whining (and braying), because it makes you afraid. Fear makes you lash out. You're working hard on this thing, and can't deal with the fact that it's too little, too late: you're part (albeit a tiny part) of the worst technological blunder in history. You have my sympathy.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to store some food so I don't starve to death when your planet-devouring corporate machine-idol comes crashing down around our ears.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), November 04, 1998.

>>E., "We burned him and his followers to death, so he must have deserved it." Interesting concept. Exactly what the Germans were brainwashed into believing about the Jews.

That was my point, Gayla. Right on the nose.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), November 04, 1998.

Another thread about Gary North. How exciting. True, his commentary could be a little more palatable, to the sensitive types, anyway. It doesn't really bother me, personally. I can usually smooth out the inflammations by READING the articles he links to...

For a good read, try "Nightfall" by Asimov and Silverberg.

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), November 04, 1998.

Anita! Deborah! Chris! R.D. (do doctors know how to, too?)

We need a Foley on this thread!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), November 04, 1998.

and Rome burned.....

-- CP (Spoonman@prodigy.net), November 04, 1998.

Why this fuss over GN talking about airlines and insurance? I just now hit www.coolpages.net/2000/ and read Andy Kyte, Gartner Group (supposedly the most informed consulting group in world to most governments, and the most quoted editorializing on insurance companies NOT insuring airlines on Jan. 1, 2000. If you need to critisize somebody pick on poor Andy, or is he not religious enough?

-- HAK (hakoelli@netdoor.com), November 04, 1998.

If you don't like North, don't go to his site. There is crap all over the Net. Look for the gems and follow the links. Mormons are nuts, too, but they have good info on food storage. Take what you need and leave the rest.

-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), November 04, 1998.

Fro Gary North's list of 29 reasons why people won't leave the cities

"27. My wife won't believe me. [Will she obey you?] "

gee...can't wait to show my Mother this one. She had "obey" removed from her wedding vows.

(really not commenting one way or the other...struck me as funny)

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 05, 1998.

E.,

SERENITY NOW!!!

-- Slick (slick@hucheemama.com), November 06, 1998.