Wired Magazine on Gary Northgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
The following article at Wired contains some interesting background information on Gary North and what makes him tick:
For the record, this is not offered to discredit the work Gary has done in collecting Y2K news links which I believe has been invaluable but rather to give insight into his commentary.
As a regular user of his links library, I feel is vitally important that you distinguish between the library and the librarian. For those who are new to this issue, you need to clear distinguish between the information provided (the links) and Gary's commentary/analysis.
For my own part, I frequently skip the commentary and just go right to the link, read it and decide for myself the significance and/or insignificance of the link. Gary's site ( http://www.garynorth.com ) is a valuable resource but it should not be the only library you visit.
-- Arnie Rimmer (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 08, 1999
Ooops, sorry. That link actually goes to the last page of the article. Here's a link to the front page:
-- Arnie Rimmer (email@example.com), January 08, 1999.
I'm sure most of you've read Gary's "Interview" posting, but if not:
He really is a funny guy.
-- Lisa (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 08, 1999.
Paul Thibodeau, of Calgary, Alberta, discusses Gary North's political view and aspirations on this web page: http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/y2k.htm
Thibodeau provides an extensive set of quotations taken from the writings of North and others in the Christian Reconstruction movement. I found some surprises there. See Quotations.
But Thibodeau is not an impartial observer. He is primarily interested in differentiating the "back-to-basics" Christianity he favors from the extreme rigor of the Christian Reconstruction movement advocated by North, and in refuting its principles. Incidentally, elsewhere on his website he makes it clear that he considers Y2K to be a non-event.
-- Tom Carey (email@example.com), January 08, 1999.
Character assasination time from declan.......
Declan has surpassed himself in character assasination
I agree that this article is rank character assassination. What's more, Mr. McCullagh's editors at Wired are every bit as unprofessional. A half-competent Journalism 101 instructor would not have allowed him to submit the thing until he found and quoted *somebody* with a good opinion of North.
Several of your Y2k pieces have been quite good, Mr. McCullagh. Not this time. What you've written serves no journalistic purpose, and your writing polish doesn't obscure your desire to make North appear a religious nut case. Congratulations on doing what you set out to do.
Robert Folsom . . . . Declan has surpassed himself in character assasination and sheer levels of fallacy in this one.
The truth of the matter is that I do not share Gary's particular theological bent. It is a fact that it is irrelevant. Only an ignoramus like Declan would assert that Gary North's Theological position forced him to conclude that Y2K would be serious.
Declan has shown his monumental ignorance once again and he gets worse with every article
If a man had predicted, for various reasons, the end of the earth a hundred times and was DEAD WRONG each time, that would be meaningless.
It would certainly give you reason to examine what he says without taking it for granted, but ALWAYS one should examine ONLY the evidence and not try to work in the 'guessed at' motives of the other person.
Decaln is a childish little boy. He thinks that disagreeing with North's Theology is in some way related to disparaging his conclusions on the evidence of Y2K. They have nothing to do with one another.
Has Gary North said that The consequences of Y2K will be CAUSED directly by his theological reasons? No. ALL of the evidence that he has rendered is entirely self sufficient on it's own with no theological buttress at all.
Suppose that a man who has commited assualt and battery ten times is on trial for it again. Certainly we would have cause to believe that he is more than capable of it. But, what has that to do with the FACTS AND EVIDENCE in THIS particular case. NOTHING AT ALL.
In trying to disparage North'd conclusions about Y2k Decaln has brought up that North may find that capital punishment is appropriate in certain case of adultery. Does that have anything to do with Y2K? No. Nice smokescreen though. What if North believed that when you die your soul goes to a tuna fish can in a bus station in Totonto. What does that have to do with Y2K? Nothing.
Let's go so far as to say that even IF he was trying to spread fear for no more than malicious purposes, what has that to do with the FACTS?
The FACTS alone dictate that his conclusions about the severity of the consequences are very close to being accurate.
This article exposes Declan as the juevenile delinquent that he is. As a matter of fact it actually exposes the fact that Declan's motives are far more pernicious than North's could ever be. If his motive's were not malicious then he would have adressed the ISSUES alone and not what North thinks about adultery.
Any gradeschool child who has been trained to think competently realizes that it does not matter what North's ambitions are in the wake of a catastrophe. He could want to be King of Slobovia if he wanted. What does that have to do with the facts? Nothing.
Decaln does not reach the level of gradeschool reasoning, or any reasoning for that matter.
I am not in the leat trying to defend North. I am saying that this attack by Declan is wholly unfounded on any logical or factual basis.
Has he even tried to refute ONE fact or piece of evidence that North has rendered up for public consumption? NOT ONE. All he does is unleash a diatribe against North becuase of his theological beliefs, who his father in law is and how he makes his money; all of which are entirely unrelated to the consequences of Y2K.
This is everything that the founding of our country was opposed to. North is free to believe whatever he wants about God. It is NONE of Declan's business and it has nothing whatsoever to do with North's conclusions concerning the evidence about the consequences of Y2K, WHETHER NORTH WANTS IT TO HAPPEN OR NOT.
The consequences will or will not occur utterly independently of North's desires one way or the other.
Socrates is laughing hysterically at the juvenile hystrionics and monumentally fallacious claptrap of little Declan.
Next time you want to write about 'motives' little one, start with your own after you remove the 'speck' from your own eye. LOL LOL LOL
-- Paul Milne If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast. . . . . Having read Declan's article, I fail to see how killing the messenger achieves any purpose. Do I care about Mr. North's religious views? No. I frequent his site, amongst others to try and get a clear view of what is happening in the world of y2k.
Mr. North's commentary is what it is--he makes no bones about the fact that on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the worse--that he is a ten---he does not hide the articles he quotes and comments from. One can easily read the original and should.
As Declan's article is not news but commentary, what is the purpose? What is the agenda? I truly wish Declan would address this issue. Is it that Mr. North has for years been looking at trends and figured out that war with the Soviet Union at some point is possible and because it didn't happen, Mr. North should be vilified? The United States Government for the past forty years has operated on the assumption that there would be nuclear war with the Soviets and planned accordingly. Is the government to be vilified for being so shortsighted to make such buffonish policy?
Is it that Mr. North's religious views do not follow the current PC atmosphere is what is upsetting?
Are the articles that Mr. North posts wrong? Is that it? Is y2k not to believed because Mr. North wants a thousand year reign of the righteous? Is that it?
Or is the hit piece just desserts to a man who refused to give an interview? Is that it?
In another life I was a reporter and a journalist--I have to say that I never, never stooped to such a low practice as to attack a man's religious views--but then I was a reporter, not a commentator. You declan are fallinf prey to the cardinal sin of journalism, which is to become part of the story--
What did we learn? we learned that Mr. North holds religious views-- we learned he makes money. We learned that Mr. North has in the past looked at trends and made pronouncements that did not come to pass. We learned that Mr. North is making pronouncements on y2k--We learned that therefore, y2k is not to be taken seriously because one messenger does not fit into a presubscribed box.
Thank-you Declan , to redeem yourself, go do some serious journalism, cover some city hall meetings and write about topics that have some meaning to folks, like sewer assessments.
Jeffrey Reid . . . .
Don't shoot the messenger - read the links yourself.
"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world will be brought about." Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan, 1922 (Sufi Prophet)
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.
I reiterate: Evaluate the message; don't kill the messenger.
I'm a born-again atheist (we were all born atheists; then most of us were indoctrinated into one religion or another -- the smart ones of us manage to free ourselves of that indoctrination).
However, I have followed North's stuff for at least 20, possibly up to 30 years (since somewhere in the 1970s). While his more apocalyptic visions have not come true, he has been right on re his predictions of increasing government control leading to societal decay.
Economic and monetary problems, civil liberty problems, etc.
This time he could be right. Other factors have been building for decades; and Y2K could be the "straw that breaks the camel's back".
Just because "Chicken Little" ("the sky is falling") and "The Boy who Cried Wolf" were wrong many times, doesn't mean they were wrong the last time.
-- Dog (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 08, 1999.