What happened to Gary North?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

He has not posted anything new in a few days. Is he gone out of town or something?

-- Gary (gnb@co.clark.nv.us), January 07, 1999


Gone South!

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 07, 1999.

Very funny, Leska!

Gary South

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 07, 1999.

Well, he does go through short stretches wherein he doesn't post -- but a lot of the N. Ark, So. Missouri area is still under an ice blanket (we lost power for 5 days). Maybe?

Anita E.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), January 07, 1999.

Wondering the same thing myself. A lot of people make fun of North or think he is an extremeist (I am one of those). The man puts a lot of affort and time into his site and I visit it daily. I rely heavily on his research and links to keep up to date on what is happening. I hope he has not quit or become disgusted with all the negativity.

-- Linda A. (adahi@muhlon.com), January 07, 1999.

He is so dedicated I am sure there is a good reason for his silence. Good health and cheer to you Gary. Loyal supporter.

-- maggie (maggiem@nehp.com), January 07, 1999.

Gary hasn't quit!!

He's either out buying more solar panels or else ordering razor wire for his re-education compound where misfits who don't subscribe to his Neo-Deuteronomic value system will be impounded by the RPF (Religious Police Force). No need to worry really...........unless you partake in unseemly passtimes such as drinking, smoking, watching movies, dance, have sex, play sports, eat anything other than red spring wheat etc.

BTW, don't expect that they will be as soft as the Talibanians.......

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), January 07, 1999.

I just got a 404, not able to find site on that path. ???

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), January 07, 1999.

The link below will find you news articles on Y2K 24/7:

http://search.excite.com/search.gw?collection=timely&lk=excite&search= y2k+bug*+glitch*+computer*

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 07, 1999.

Here's an article from Wired News about Gary. Naturally, they put him in his worst light. (Not TOO hard to do...)


-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 07, 1999.

pshannon, that is an excellent article! The only surprise in it was that they did not mention that, circa 1984, North claimed that the banking system would fail due to computer viruses. And I think the article is on-target: with or without Y2K, North will always be claiming that the banking system is doomed, and that you should cash out.

Only thing is, I think that North has gotten "lucky" with Y2K....

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 07, 1999.

Hey, what's the worry? His last updates were on the 5th. He has gone several days without posting before. No big deal. I think that he stated on his last Art Bell interview that he would be slowing down in '99.

-- Joe O (jowczar@comp.uark.edu), January 07, 1999.

Some of you may find some surprises in North's published writings. Selected quotations from North and others in the Christian Reconstruction movement, with specific attributions and citations, are available on this page.

The thibodep/cr/ website is owned by one Paul Thibodeau. He opposes not only Gary North's Christian Reconstruction views, but also the notion that Y2K is likely to present any serious problems.

Guess it takes all kinds.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 07, 1999.

I just read the article "There's Something About Gary" from the above thread. Whether the author is right or worng concenring Gary does not matter to me. My question is, if these guys are going to write about something why do they not write about the Red Cross Y2k Alert, the Massive Military Mobilization, FEMA, the Janet Abrams video or the many government documents pertaining to Y2k. Why do they use the space to ridicule one individual for his way of thinking. There must be some merit to Gary otherwise he would be ignored.

-- Linda A. (adahi@muhlon.com), January 07, 1999.

If you were building a boat in the middle of the farm and telling everyone that it was gonna rain for a long time and everyone who didn't get in the boat was gonna drown and no one had ever heard of rain before and said your crazy because we don't know what rain is and your crazy because you're building a boat and putting a bunch of stinky animals in it and it has never rained and no one has ever built a boat in the middle of no where before and we think you should go see a doctor or a cult kinda guy who can difib your brain and tell you it isn't going to rain cause we never seen it rain and your crazy and besides that if it rains then we'll just go buy a boat so shut up and leave us alone because we're making lotsa money now and the government has said that they'll take care of us if we don't got some money and everything is ok...ok

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), January 07, 1999.

Actually, Tom, most would probably find:

Gary North & Y2K

to be a lot more interesting. I got there by going to the home page from the link that you supplied.

Pretty wild stuff, but also useful (e.g., North's views on firearms). Thanks!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 07, 1999.

He's baaaaack...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 07, 1999.

Who's back?

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), January 07, 1999.

This is the link to GN's site (RECENT ANSWERS) that I use.


It shows that he only took one day off (the 6th).

But - He's BACK!!!!!


-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 07, 1999.

Jack, interesting link you gave. Reading Dick Mills' statement on that site, hit me as one example of a y2k extremist (North) and one happy-go-lucky Polyanna, (Dick Mills.)

Dick Mills' take about alarmists is a piece in itself. To him, "alarmists" are irresponsible. I agree that causing unnecessary panic is irresponsible, but the example Dick Mills gives and compares with Y2K, to me, is irresponsible itself. In attempting to give a middle ground between North's extremist ways, and the do-nothing ways, he ends up being irresponsible about healthy worrying and concerns.

My comments in brackets.

"When we're about to board an airplane, we use the operational standard. Sure the wings could fall off, there could be a bomb on board, the pilots might be drunk, but the proper standard to apply is to ignore all these possibilities and be optimistic. Think about it; no sane person should board any airplane ever if he does not expect the outcome to be favorable. For that matter, the person would not dare use any other transportation or dare to stay on the ground. Panophobia is the word for that; fear of everything.

[When I board a plane, I know that the odds are that I'm safer on a plane than if I was driving. All the same, I have insurance covering, in case I die, to leave behind to my family. I also have baggage insurance in case I lose them. I also say hello to the Captain who greets us boarding the plane. If he smelled alcohol or appeared drunk, I would turn around and report him right away. And I don't travel on cheap airlines or go to risky countries. Those are my contingency plans when I travel on a plane. I don't consider this being extreme, only sensible.)

In other words, planning and design should be based on worst case possible outcomes, but daily operations should be based on expected real life outcomes.

[Exactly. But the way you went about explaining it gave me the impression you go through life with your eyes closed , just crossing your fingers that everything's gonna be alright.)

What would be irresponsible? Well, to go to the airport ticket office and loudly discuss the wing falling off, bombs on board, drunken pilots, then to jump to describing the broken body parts and anguished relatives that might be the consequence would be irresponsible. The psychological trick being played is to jump directly from a discussion of what can happen, directly to the fearfully graphics views of the consequences. It is a trick because the planning standard is misapplied to the operational context. Indeed, in airports this kind of talk is actually criminal. It is so bad that it is one of the very few legal exceptions to freedom of speech.

[I agree. So you went from one extreme to the other. But we're talking Y2K here. Talking about the possible consequences of one plane falling off the sky, with all its gruesome details, in an airport, does not compare with talking about the possible consequences of a known flaw in computer systems and embedded chips that support an entire way of life for an entire country or the globe, over the internet, the media and books, for the large part discussed logically by experts and people in the field. Your example is an everyday event (boarding planes with small percentage chance of accidents), affecting a tiny portion of the population. Y2K is a one time event, affecting everyone on the planet, with consequences in magnitude billion times more disrupting and damaging to civilization than your example. A lot more worry is warranted in the case of Y2K than is needed when boarding a plane. Even if the percent chance of dying in both cases were the same, the consequences of Y2K affects the future of one's family and kids, not just one's life. And if one cares about the whole human race on top of that, one worries more than about just one's life. All I can say isorange and apples.]

Now, lets translate this back to the Y2K context. Many articles, public statements, books, and web sites discussing the Y2K problem commit exactly this sin. They first make the point that Y2K vulnerability is ubiquitous. Nearly everything and anything can fail because of Y2K. They then jump directly to point out how awful the consequences could be if all these critical things did fail. To the uninitiated, the message is that what can fail will fail; the wrong expectation.

[This statement is so off the wall I don't know where to begin. He simply dismisses everyone with healthy worries as not having brains to discuss the logics of the problem. And the logic of Murphy is being twisted. "What can fail will fail" means just that. If it CAN fail, it's because it's faulty. If it doesn't fail, it wasn't faulty. Perhaps by "uninitiated" he means the people with half a brain? Those don't discuss y2k at all.]

The sin may not even be deliberate. We software practitioners are busy avoiding and rectifying the problem. We are immersed in the planning standard all day every work day. It is understandable that we may forget to use a different standard when making public statements. Understandable at least, until you read this post and have been informed.

[This statement baffles me. Is he saying that the masses at large, the non "software practitioners" should not worry about any "planning", or discussing what could go wrong as diligently, and leave their lives in the hands of "software practitioners"? Isn't that what the masses have been doing for the past 40 years? So the "practitioners" caused Y2K, but the masses will be fine in the end because the "practitioners" are fixing it now?"]

So what's so bad about this? We loose credibility and risk being ignored because we use alarmist tactics. If we really believe that the public awareness and action is critical to achieve, then we must protect our credibility."

[I'm more worried now, after reading his "practitioner's" public statement.]

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 07, 1999.

For what its worth, Chris, as dismayed as I sometimes am with Dick Mills' seemingly unfounded optimism, I have gotten the impression that he is totally honest in every thing that he says. I've also noted a general swaying towards a more pessimistic view of Y2K over the last couple of months. He definitely makes a good "Y2K barometer" to watch...

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 07, 1999.

How timely! Gary North presents a fascinating "interview" of himself, explaining how he got into the Y2K Warning biz.

North "Interview"

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 07, 1999.

I wonder what Rick Tunsen has to say about this pre-fab interview? Would his editor print it? ;-)

North is funny and has style for sure ;-) He's a man who stands by his convictions and has the ability to express them too. Nothing wrong with that. The fact that he's an extremist in his religious views doesn't negate the facts he knows about y2K. I happen to agree with much of his Y2K views from my own research, and have absolutely nothing else in common with him.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 07, 1999.

Let's not just pick on Gary North for predicting that the banking system will take a dive. How about Dr. Ravi Batra, Howard Ruff, and a myriad of other doom and gloomers. They sold millions of books and we bought them up, followed their advice, and here we are today. Another impending crises, everyone is selling a book or something because of Y2k. We really are a cult, because we readily buy into it. I think we are all in for a big let down.

-- duped (duped@net.com), January 07, 1999.

hey duped, I see you're using the royal "we"....straight from some cointelpro manual perhaps?

-- humptydumpty (oh fuckit-"they"know,asifit'sgonnamatter@lovetruthfaithhope.com), January 08, 1999.

I half suspect that the reason that North presented a "canned" interview, rather than a live one, is to keep reporters from bringing up his "other" beliefs. But thats OK, personally I could not care less, and it will be interesting to see if the media does anything with the canned one.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 08, 1999.


>>We really are a cult, because we readily buy into it. I think we are all in for a big let down.<<

I sure hope that you are right. Nothing would please me more than to be wrong on this one.

My only cost would then be that my food bill would be $2.00 per year for two years.

Please let me be wrong on this one.


-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 08, 1999.

I know what you mean S.O.B.

We are at a point in our lives that we like. Middle age. Kids grown and healthy. Financially secure. I would really hate to see that end.

North is back, by the way. He has some new posts today.

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), January 08, 1999.


>The fact that he's an extremist in his religious views doesn't negate the facts he knows about y2K.

But North's religious views do affect which Y2k facts he perceives, which Y2k facts he chooses to present, and what he chooses to comment about them!

Look at Gary's own words near the end of his self-interview:

"I don't think anyone can be neutral. A person may be uninterested in something, but he can't be neutral about it. He makes assumptions about God, man, law, cause and effect, and the future. These assumptions will affect his interpretation of the facts."

This is precisely why I am concerned about Gary North's religious beliefs and the effect they have on his interpretation of the Y2k facts. He has a bias toward presenting negative stuff and ignoring positive stuff, because he would welcome a societal upheaval so grand as to allow him and other Christian Reconstructionists to take charge and rebuild a religiously-run society.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 08, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ