Could someone please summarize Gary North?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
I have read multiple references in this forum of Gary North's previous experience as a Chicken Little, of sorts. Can someone save me the time of performing detailed research and provide a brief background of Mr. North and his history of seeing the sky fall. I went to his website once and I didn't enjoy the trip enough to want to dig too hard. However, Mr. North seems to have figured out how to stir up the proverbial turds on this forum - it took me way too long to read through that last thread (very thought proviking material). Any basic background would be appreciated.
-- stpaul (email@example.com), August 17, 1998
The defining fact about Gary North is his belief system, which is termed "Christian Reconstructionist". Below is an explanation--Its most common form, Theonomic Reconstructionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought. It originated in the United States from the Reformed or Calvinistic tradition. Its goal is the peaceful conversion of the United States government to a theocracy, which is based on the Mosaic Law of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which the entire world is converted to Christianity. They feel that the power of God's word will bring about this conversion. No armed force or insurrection will be needed; in fact, they believe that there will be little opposition to their plan. People will willingly accept it if it is properly presented to them.Here is a quote from Scary Gary himself:
All religions other than Christianity would be suppressed. Nonconforming Evangelical, main line and liberal Christian institutions would no longer be allowed to function. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs would be tried for idolatry and exterminated. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would be executed. To our knowledge, this is the only religious movement in North America in which many of its members advocate genocide for followers of minority religions. Ralph Reed, the executive director of the conservative public policy group the Christian Coalition has criticized Reconstructionism as "an authoritarian ideology that threatens the most basic civil liberties of a free and democratic society.""So, of course I want to see y2k bring down the system, all over the world. I have hoped for this all of my adult life." -- Gary NorthSo, it appears that the prime motivation for his doomsaying is to create as much dread of Y2K as possible now, so that it will lead to mass panic and chaos later and create an opportunity for a "christian" takeover of the United States.
so...wanna get stoned?
-- J. Q. Idolator (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 17, 1998.
Thanks, J.Q. for your post....I too investigate the theonomists. While I have appreciated the efforts of Gary North in collecting news items on Y2K, the not very hidden agenda raises the hackles on the back of my neck, bigtime. When I read any of it I travel easily to the land of science fiction tales of totalitarian theocratic states...like Heinlein's "If This Goes On"...Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale".
Very spooky people. Totalitarianism by any other name would smell as foul.
-- Donna Barthuley (email@example.com), August 17, 1998.
Adding to the previous reply, this may shed some light on the 'Christian' viewpoint(s)that see Biblical significance in the Y2K problem. Gary North's theology is summed up quite well in the previous post. Basically a belief in the eventual Christianization of the whole world resulting in an Old Testament kind of theocracy. I believe Gary relishes the idea of the collapse of society in order to forward the goals of his religious ideology. Another stream of thought that has many followers is the belief that we are in the 'end times'. This teaches that we about to enter a final seven year period called the Tribulation culminating in Armageddon (a bit simplistic but I don't want to write an essay here!). Y2K is seen in these circles as a catalyst that will cause the collapse of society, resulting in the coming to power of the Antichrist, a political superstar that arises in Europe and eventually declares himself to be God. Within a few years, the real Christ returns and destroys the Antichrist and his followers and we enter a period of peace that lasts for 1000 years (called the Millennium).
Although I used to subscribe to this latter theory, many years of study have taught me the fallacies and faulty logic used to come up with these scenarios. Both of these schools of 'Christian' thought can be extremely dangerous and tend to create unstable, paranoid people.
Gary has done incredible research on Y2K and I both respect him and admire him on this front. On the religious front, I have sympathy for him because it is a heavy burden to carry believing that God is hell-bent on destroying most of mankind. He quotes Deuteronomy quite frequently to 'prove' that God is going to get us. However, it is on a pick and choose basis. I'm wondering if he believes the parts that command us to KILL our children if they are rebellious. I hope not, for that would make him a dangerous man indeed.
-- Craig (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 18, 1998.
My understanding is that North is a christian and a libertarian conservative. If he does hold some secret genocidal belief-system, that's too bad. Lot's of christians, most I'd wager, and not just the abovementioned sects, believe in a real, political, Kingdom of God. Read revelations. The good and bad humans will be separated and the bad thrown on the fire. A real fire, and God will be here in person to light it. I've heard this horror story from baptists, AOG, JW's, and scores of non-denominational christians, all my life. But what does this have to do with the information and comment he provides on his website? I don't care if he's a Nazi for Jesus - or an acolyte of Kali (no offense meant to followers of J.C., the Mother, or the Sun God with the funny little moustache). North is providing news and cogent commentary that is conspicuously lacking in the mainstream. The facts are in, and Y2k is going to hammer us. Maybe North thinks it's the hammer of God, maybe he even wants it to happen, but I don't care - that doesn't change the evidence he's presenting.
Frankly, I'm more concerned with the globalization of capital as a threat to freedom; that's what will be pulling the Emergency Power strings come 1/1/00. Apocalyptic christians, distasteful and threatening as they are, are more likely to be the convenient local "enemy within," an excuse to prolong a state of emergency (which will allow for the achievement of certain foreign policy goals without domestic resistance, among other projects) and continue the expansion of our global police state. Expect christian militias and apocalyptic sects to continue to be infiltrated with agents provocateurs who will promote violence - just as happened to the BlackPanthers, Weathermen EarthFirst and Jonestown. Or christism could be used as an ideological mask for domestic oppression, if it somehow gains the upper hand. The real power is financial, and it's core never changes. It's methods are proven and polished. We're being balkanized, because our nationalism is a threat to globalist objectives. Nationalism has to be degenerated into an ugly form of "extremism" in the public eye, so we can all be herded into a globalist NWO. We've been doing this around the world, "destabilizing" other nations for decades, now the other shoe is coming home to roost. Shoe, boot - whatever.
-- E. Coli (email@example.com), August 18, 1998.
Stop criticizing Gary North. He provides thousands of Y2K articles on his website available to us for free. For that you should thank him. Read the articles. Ignore the Gary North summaries if you prefer. It's always better to read an original article than someone's summary of it. I agree North's religious beliefs are strange. But then I don't believe there is a God, so most people would consider me strange too! I guess now you can discount everything I've said because my 'religion' differs from yours.
-- Richard Greene (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 18, 1998.
<< I'm wondering if he believes the parts that command us to KILL our children if they are rebellious. I hope not, for that would make him a dangerous man indeed. >>
He has stated in his writings (available at www.freebooks.com) that he does in fact believe in this practice. In fact, in the passage I read he states this as an "obvious" state of affairs in his theocracy.
Back to the original post and the first follow-up. The question as I see it is this: Can North's information be trusted? I can no longer trust anything he presents without a lot of independent verification. Sad, really, considering the volume of good and valauble information he has accumulated and presented to date.
-- Paul Neuhardt (email@example.com), August 18, 1998.
Nothing like cries of "babykiller!" to discredit your foe. Why are you guys so down on G.N.? What could be your interest in horrifying us all with images of christian infanticide? Is this your fulltime job or are you moonlighting? It sure has distracted us all from what he's actually saying, and the source articles he's trying to draw our attention to.
G.N. gathers and publishes news that NBC (AKA General Electric) et al won't touch. Statements from the US Congresses' General Accounting Office. Stories from hometown newspapers big and small, with information about real, live Y2k remediation efforts. Not the snide, sarcastic smear articles like the NYT's, which (coincidentally, I'm sure), use the same tactic you are using: associating those preparing for Y2k with millenial ("baby-killing! baby-killing!") cultists. Most of the Y2k doomers I know are programmers. I work with some of them. They have no interest in christianity (though they may be closet baby-killers TOO, who knows?).
These (all non-compliant) fortune 1000 companies are paying billions for remediation. Do you think they aren't paying millions on "spin" (that's "lying" for you old folks who may be out of touch with the times). If you aren't already on their payroll, you should be. You'd get along fine.
-- E. Coli (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 18, 1998.
Actually, I DO appreciate the effort GN has made in collecting articles and providing the link references...I do also understand the power of editorial comment, which he applies liberally....
Since when is criticism verboten? If a self-proclaimed expert cannot stand up under the light of critical examination I question the expertise.
I also think that the messenger as well as the message is subject to criticism. I don't think Gary North needs defenders. He is doing just fine on his own, and can in an eye blink label someone in denial,...as easily, I might add, as we all can.
Relax. I have no effigy ready for burning. Can the Gary North defenders say the same?
-- Donna Barthuley (email@example.com), August 18, 1998.
Come on, you guys. Why try to make Gary so complicated. He's a guy we all need; to dig out the information we yearn for. Get off of this garbage.
-- hull stetson (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 18, 1998.
Hull, I agree. These philosophers really get annoying at times. I could say the same thing about some of the posts on this site. Some of the crap that is spewn here is worse than anything North ever posted. You amateur psycholgists need to focus on what's wrong in your own lives, not North's. He has provided a great service to us. Don't read his comments if you don't like them, or stay away from his website altogether.
-- Eddy (email@example.com), August 18, 1998.
<< Why are you guys so down on G.N.? >>
Simple. They guy is presenting as fact that which he has no proof of but only yearns for. That makes him unreliable unless he has verification from other sources.
-- Paul Neuhardt (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 18, 1998.
Hull & Eddy, you are 'on the money'in your suggestions that we take with gratitude the information Gary North provides for free, and use it in the spirit it was offered. No one, so far as I have seen in the 14 months since my own Y2K 'awakening', has provided so much invaluable info and resources as he. As for those who can't resist cheap shots, just try to ignore them as best you can.(I had to chuckle when I read the sanctimonious Mr. Neuhardt suggest that Gary North needs to provide 'proof' of his premises re: Y2K, in light of the fact that GN provides nearly 2,000 links free for the clicking!!)
We're all in this together, and I, for one, appreciate the sincere questions and concerns often expressed on this thread. Many (myself included) are scared to death of the frightening prospects we all face in the few months ahead. I am grateful for men like Ed Yourdon and Gary North for providing life-saving information. Let's save the 'religion' stuff for another day.
-- Giles Kavanagh (email@example.com), August 19, 1998.
Gary North is the first person to call attention and sound the alarm about Y2K. He put his website up and started editorializing years ahead of the mainstream press. Seems like he has long range radar, and I enjoy his humor. But he's human, and most likely WRONG about some things. He believes that those who hop on the wagon first get to call the tune, so his bandwagon (web site) IS about shaping people's attitudes as well as offering information. Free Speech at work. If you don't like the station, tune the channel. There are many great y2k info sources http://www.year2000.com and I heard about a y2knews site coming online to compete with GN. Gary North is not really known at ALL outside the Y2k-heads and Christian Reconstructionists movement, therefore not a threat to the American way of life. He is planning mostly to hunker down and provide leadership in his small community. As for his views, I'm more scared by the views of those in Congress and the Executive and judicial branches than GN. Only because I can ignore GN and he won't send the tax collectors to get their grubby little hands on my money or legislate me to death.
-- Kay P. (Y2Kay@usa.net), August 19, 1998.
Neuhardt, you are really pathetic. North has no proof???? Why don't you start reading some of the links he so generously posts. How about Australia's airline problem for starters. It's all over the news today. I'll bet you will be the first in line when the banks runs start. You psychoanalysts need to get a life! Come back to earth.
-- Eddy (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 19, 1998.
<< (I had to chuckle when I read the sanctimonious Mr. Neuhardt suggest that Gary North needs to provide 'proof' of his premises re: Y2K, in light of the fact that GN provides nearly 2,000 links free for the clicking!!) >>
2,000 links means nothing if they are 2,000 links to other opinions.
When he provides supporting evidence, fine. I have said here repeatedly that North has provided one of the largest collections of factual information regarding Y2K anywhere on the web. That doesn't mean his opinions and prophecies are any more accurate or realistic becasue of it. In fact, many of his predictions directly contradict information presented on his site.
However, what North is dong with increasing frequency is inserting his own message of chaos, despair and the end of modern society into Y2K discussions, and the fact that he has a web site containing a lot of real information means nothing when discussing that.
-- Paul Neuhardt (email@example.com), August 19, 1998.
Gary North was not the first to put up a Y2K web-site, only the first to put one up with the premise that chaos is a foregone conclusion. His web-site does not provide links to SOLUTIONS, but only to things he thinks support the premise that there is nothing we can do to stop the Y2K problem from leading to the end of life as we know it.
There are hundreds of Y2K sites out there. Do your own research.
-- Buddy (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 19, 1998.
The SOLUTION to the Titanic was to scrounge up something that floats, and jump overboard. When over 50% of the Fortune 1000 companies have remediated and tested and sent their Y2k consultants and Y2k programmers home, I will start to take your challenge of Norths "Very High Disaster Potential" rating of Y2k seriously. But these huge corporate and governmental systems, on which our infrastructure depends, have not been fixed yet - NOT ONE OF THEM. Many of them have stated that they have NO INTENTION OF TESTING AT ALL. And when these Corporate pirates tell us they will be fully operational come 1/1/00, they are LYING TO US ABOUT IT, just like the FAA did until they were caught by the GAO and the DOT. Unfortunately, corporate America doesn't have to worry about that kind of oversight. The problem can't be fixed in the 500 days remaining; the real effort is being put into the contingency planning, which is not for our prying little eyes to see.
It's not so hard to understand: for the last few decades we've been playing with a completely new technology. We loved it so much we decided to hook it up to everything in sight: our food supply, our power system, our communications system, our weaponry... I won't say it has a design flaw, because it wasn't really designed, but was patched together, driven by all the sparkling intelligence and foresight of unrestrained market forces. It made a handful of people billions, and thrust millions into the unemployment lines, or into insecure minimum wage slavery. As this thing comes crashing down, I have no responsiblity whatever to find a "solution" for the people who sold their souls for it; they and their cybernetic control circuit are beyond redemption. I do have a responsibility to save myself, and, if I can, the other VICTIMS of this monumental example of hubris, greed and deception.
Gary North does indeed have a section on solutions. he calls it "NO SILVER BULLET." He also does an admirable job (considering the truly global scale of the problem) of explaining exactly WHY, and in each case cited, practically all these efforts are too little, too late. A child could understand the depth of the trouble we're in - it's only our childish, tragically misplaced trust that prevents us from facing up to it.
-- E. Coli (email@example.com), August 19, 1998.
I would like Mr. Neuhardt(or anyone else) to post a letter from his bank which states that he will have no Y2K related problems and that his(her) money is safe. I 'd even be happy to hear the name of a compliant company other than a mom and pop operation in Podunkville that will have no effect on the supply chaing. Why don't we all start posting the names of companies as we hear them. Let's see....ahhh...mmmm...!
-- Dave (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 19, 1998.
Finally caught a glimpse of the man on the news. My first impression of Gary North? He reminded me of an apocalyptic Orville Redenbacher!
-- Connie L. (Cofkee@aol.com), August 20, 1998.
"an apocalyptic Orville Redenbacher"...
Now THAT'S scary...
My .02 worth. Consider the message AND the messenger. I don't believe they can be completely separated. Gary North has done some excellent work on collecting and analyzing the impact of Y2K. But he is also filtering it through his own lens and vision - we all do it - it's a human trait. Because of Y2K's uncertain outcomes (we can certainly suspect what's going to happen...but there are no guarantees coming from any quarter) - because of those uncertain outcomes, Y2K lends itself to being "shaped" to fit the world view that a person carries every day. It would just seem wise to me to ensure that whatever you read about Y2K - that you read it carefully, critically and very deliberately. We're beginning to be inundated with information as awareness increases --- and the need to filter appropriately is going to become more and more important.
-- Chana Campos (email@example.com), August 20, 1998.
Connie, what's it like to be so perfect? Why don't you enlighten us all? Maybe we need to be more trusting of the beautiful people...like Clinton.
-- Dave (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 20, 1998.
<< I would like Mr. Neuhardt(or anyone else) to post a letter from his bank which states that he will have no Y2K related problems and that his(her) money is safe. I 'd even be happy to hear the name of a compliant company other than a mom and pop operation in Podunkville that will have no effect on the supply chaing. Why don't we all start posting the names of companies as we hear them. Let's see....ahhh...mmmm...! >>
The Information Technology Association of America (see their site at www.itaa.org, or follow the link from Ed's "Y2K links and resources page) conducts a Y2K certification process. Certainly, the process is not perfect and does not guarantee no Y2K problems. (Name any human endeavor that can be absolutely guranteed not to fail.) However, it does involve an exhaustive survey that makes any organization filling it out to think long and hard about Y2K issues. Companies meeting certain standards are issues an ITAA Y2K certification. This is the only significant complience verification process that I have heard of by a non-profit organization. My bank, BankBoston, is the only bank on their list of certified companies.
I heard from Peter DeJager on CSPAN (and have since verified from people I know in IT at BankBoston) that the process of filling out the survey alone took three months and was, for them, the most useful part of the entire process. The survey presented them with a host of issues and ideas that they had not considered before. As I mentioned, the certification processs is not perfect and could use stronger follow-up auditing, but it does give some indication that the companies on the list have made serious advances towards being ready for D-Day.
When I started posting here on this board I mentioned that sources insode BankBoston had told me they expected to be ready for Y2K in the vast majority of their operations. I was pretty soundly hooted down for daring to make that statement. Even Ed got in a couple of zings. However, I believe my faith has at least been partially vindicated by the publicly demonstrable results they have achieved. (Go ahead folks, pooh-pooh it. I don't really care.) Sure, they are probably going to have problems. They have huge international operations in Europe, Asia and South America and will no doubt feel the effects of problems there. Still, I'm leaving my money there. It beats the hell out most any other place for it.
-- Paul Neuhardt (email@example.com), August 20, 1998.
Paul, when I opened my bank accounts I was given a written guarantee that the FDIC would cover any losses by the bank up $100,000. I can't get that same guarantee from a Y2K related problem. Good luck to you. I heard this morning on TV that the Federal Reserve is stockpiling money for anticipated Y2K bank runs. Hope you are first in line! I wish I had as much faith in the system as you do.
-- Dave (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 20, 1998.
Since I won't be standing in line during any bank runs that might occur, I don't have to worry about being there first. For starters, only the first few in line at any real run get anything anyway, and since I'm not going to spend my time camping out at my local brach's door wating to see how many people show up, I probably won't be one of those few.
Also, BankBoston is one of the larger banks around and as such is generally considered to be less likely to experience complete failure due to a run. Besides, if a run occurs and the bank becomes insolvent, the FDIC will cover that.
-- Paul Neuhardt (email@example.com), August 20, 1998.
>>"BankBoston is one of the larger banks around and as such is generally considered to be less likely to experience complete failure due to a run."
I'll pass on the fact that the qualifications in that statement that weaken it, and proceed to the problem with your basic reasoning, which is that the bigger the bank, the better off we are. Bank mergers have created banks that are now "too big to fail." This was one of Project Censored's top ten under-reported stories of 1996. Here's a quote:
"The trend toward bigger banks is creating a system whereby giant banking institutions are taking on 'too big to fail' status. Indeed, a failure of any one of these new giants would have a devastating effect on the nation's financial health. And with the Federal Reserve capping the amount that financial institutions have to pay into the governments' bank insurance fund at $25 billion, just 1.25 percent of deposits are now insured. Consequently, any bailout of one of these new megabanks would come directly from the pockets of taxpayers.
None of these large banks are compliant, or likely to ever be. Will we even get our 1.25 pennies on our dollar? Banking has been deregulated, almost as much as S&Ls right before George Bush Jr. and friends had their field day, and we bailed them all out with nary a slap on the wrist. Feed a dog once and he'll be back. Here's PC's website; it's story #6: http://www.sonoma.edu/projectcensored/Stories1996.html
Rise n' shine, wee sheeple.
-- E. Coli (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 20, 1998.
I have never believed in the concept of a bank being "too big to fail." Bansk are just businesses, and any business can fail. However, size does make it *harder* to drive a bank into failure.
-- Paul Neuhardt (email@example.com), August 20, 1998.
That is true, but if a REALLY BIG ONE goes, watch out. Noway nohow can we cover all the losses if the giants fall.
-- Uncle Deedah (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 20, 1998.
So your bank just so happens to make it. SO WHAT. Does the Bank of Boston loan any $$$ to buisness? Will they all make it or will they default on their loans? Will the Bank of Boston be able to handle that? Will the phone company's make it? Banks trade trillions of $$$ every night while we sleep. Will the banks of the world make it? What's more important in Europe, y2k or the conversion to the Euro? blahblahblah...
-- blahblahblah (email@example.com), August 21, 1998.
I get a kick out of how Paul holds BankBoston on a pedestal. Don't you know that "the bigger they are, the harder they fall?" Also, Peter deJager said, "BankBoston MIGHT make it." It will never survive the bank runs of next year. There is too much being printed now about the Federal Reserve and it's cash stash for this problem. It's all over the place now. Cover your asses folks, the storm is intensifying.
-- Dave (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 21, 1998.
For clarity: about the story on bank mergers creating banks that are "too big to fail": it means "too big to fail WITHOUT CAUSING THE ECONOMY TO COLLAPSE". It doesn't mean "too big to fail, period" (like, say, the Titanic).
-- E. Coli (email@example.com), August 21, 1998.
Banks are gonna fail if the ratio between the paranoid and the sane shifts to the point of no return. and currently I don't think it is at that critical point yet. I was a broadcasting major and can tell you just how manipulative the media is, especially television, newspaper less so, but still any news that sells are usually the bad news. Just remember believe half of what you read, and none of what you hear.
As for Gary North, I feel he has as much right to voice anything as he wishes, he's just a historian, ya know, never claim to be a prophet(smart move since he'll have to behead himself if these Y2K is all hype)But be wary of his real intentions, say subscribing to his newsletter, and how much will you trust a guy who wish Y2K to be a disaster? I'm not saying Y2K will not be a big problem, hack I'm just quite scared myself after reading all these newstories that sell papers. But like I said, never believe everything you read or heard. Then make preparation based on how safe you want to feel. Go head, flee to the mountains, only Americans can really have the luxury to buy acres of land with so littl
-- kris fischer (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 21, 1998.
If most people truly realized that the fractional reserve banking system is so vulnerable that it could be toppled by an ugly rumor, they would have taken their money out long ago. One person's paranoia is another's common sense.
I'm afraid there'll be a lot more blaming of the victims before this is over...
-- E. Coli (email@example.com), August 21, 1998.
=== If most people truly realized that the fractional reserve
=== banking system is so vulnerable that it could be toppled by
=== an ugly rumor, they would have taken their money out long ago. Does anyone remember the Bloom County strip where Oliver hacked into the NYSE & put something up on the ticker like "Avast, ye scurvy dogs! Bank of America is about to go BELLY UP!" His father says, "... tonight, Rome, London, and New York are burning. Son, you've destroyed Western civilization" and spanks him. At this point, Oliver thinks, "Well, I guess I shouldn't have expected the 'that's OK I did the same thing when I was a boy' speech."
-- Larry Kollar (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 21, 1998.
#1. I wish that those of us who "get it" could refrain from arguing. There isn't time for that. We need to spend our time and energy getting the word out to those who don't have a clue. And getting ready ourselves. And writing to the media and to the "powers that be". Arguing accomplishes none of that.
#2. If Gary North hopes Y2K will bring the system crashing down, so what? I hope the system gets changed in radical ways -- as if it doesn't need that? G. North presents pertinent info for free, and for that I thank him. I spend a lot of time researching Y2K info on the web, and he saves me time by bringing hot items all into one easily accessible place. Saves all of you people time too, if you take advantage of his site.
#3. We all have opinions. The fellow who really turned me on to the urgency of all this is preparing for 6 months of no food, no electricity, etc. At present I'm preparing for 1 month (based on what I think I see now -- stay tuned, that could change!) Let thy brother/sister prepare his/her own house as he/she sees fit.
#4. However, I think we have a better chance of communicating this threat to the public in general (indeed, to our own friends and family) if we don't sound quite so alarmist. I've gone into chat rooms and talked about the most mild aspects of Y2K, only to be branded an extremist, an obsessionist, "full of it", etc. If we give meat to babes who can only handle milk, what good is that? Get 'em to take the milk, then step it up to the meat.
-- John howard (email@example.com), August 23, 1998.
Mr. North, while sounding like an alarmist, is correct. From personal experience, as a computer consultant, most of the fortune 3000 will not be ready for Jan 1, 2000. The Systems deemed most important by Corporate Execs are Accounts Receivables, Then General Ledger, Then Taxes, Then Payroll, Then Accounts Payable, lastly the other systems not of a financial nature like How much money do you have in your account, What should we make next, and what should we buy.
the Reality is that financial systems will take precedence over everything else. (Business is run by bean counters not engineers).
-- Les Benn (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 23, 1998.