gary north posts an inderect reply to Kenny Decker's "y2k doomer as religion"meme : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

(snip)Gary North's Y2K Links and Forums

Summary and Comments (feel free to mail this page)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Category: Introduction Date: 1999-07-17 08:38:35 Subject: Author Blames Religion for Acceptance of Y2K Fears Link: Comment: There is a basic mind-set of deeply religious secularists: religion is irrational. Rational people are not religious.

Next step: end of the world scenarios are held by religious fanatics. Thus, whenever anything is said to be threatening the present order of things, it is religious fanaticism that is behind this.

Of course, this analysis does not apply to global freezing (1970's), global warming (1980's and 1990's), the population bomb (1970's), and nuclear holocaust (1945-1991). These are all rational concerns about problems that that require government controls, higher taxes, and sacrifices on the part of a deeply consumerist society, especially controls on tobacco.

The Year 2000 is said to be a recapitulation of the fanatic, end-of-the world apocalypticism of 999, which was promoted by Michelet in the 19th century. Anything having to do with millennial apocalypticism has to come from religious fanatics. This is an axiom, like parallel lines that do not intersect.

So, along came y2k. Along came Peter de Jager. What was going on here? This is a technical issue. These early prophets were programmers. This cannot be. This must be re-interpreted.

So, the quest for a safe, sane solution to the y2k problem -- the "religious nuts as 2000 apocalyptics" problem -- began. It is still going on.

The following analysis is posted on the on-line journalism site of the University of Southern California, once a Methodist college. It is a special y2k page. It is co-sponsored by Richard Landes' Center for Millennial Studies. (Landes is running a lonely one-man crusade to get his theory on y1k apocalypticism accepted.) We read:

This involves an increasingly plausible belief system which represents utopian and dystopian technology scenarios within the framework of an ancient apocalyptic story of mortal hubris and divine judgment.

Aren't you glad you don't have to read stuff like this for a living? Aren't you glad you don't have to write stuff like this for a living?

There is one teensy-weensy problem: there is almost no widespread concern over y2k. The churches are mainly silent. The pastors are silent. There are tens of millions of fundamentalists who hold a dispensational eschatology that teaches that Jesus might come back at any time to set up His earthly kingdom. They bought Edgar Whisenant's two paperback tracks by the millions in 1987, on why Jesus would surely come back in 1988. Then it was Saddam Hussein as the AntiChrist in 1991. They are burned out.

In any case, Jesus is expected to come after they have all been pulled into heaven, without dying, in the Rapture. Y2K is no threat to them if it's really going to be bad, because Jesus will bail them out before y2k hits. That's the quid pro quo for most dispensationalists: the pre-tribulation escape from really hard times.

So, the very form of y2k apocalypticism among fundamentalists -- guaranteed breakdown in 2000 -- militates against widespread preparation for the event. Wherever you see y2k preparations, you are in the presence of a person who does not expect the end of the world, the "Rapture," or any of the rest of it, as an immediate factor in y2k. That's why he is preparing. But the "eschatologically challenged" commentators who write this stuff can't understand anything more theologically subtle than a re-run of C.B. DeMille's Ten Commandments.

Each group can frame the y2k story in terms of its main concerns. Each group does. A whole lot of groups will, retroactively, when it's safer to make predictions. I see y2k from the point of view of biblical sanctions -- as I see the Clinton Administration in general and Janet Reno in particular -- but the background of my y2k interpretation is shaped by P. A. Sorokin, the founder of Harvard's sociology department. In short: "Eschatology, maybe; Sorokin, surely." The Crisis of Our Age impresses me; Rev. Van Impe's theories on y2k don't. (I mention this because the author tosses me into his apocalyptics stew.)

Look at whose books on y2k are selling in the mainstream bookstores. Except for Dave Hunt, they are not dispensationalists or apocalyptics, and Hunt's book debunks y2k. (Yes, Hal Lindsey got into the act -- late -- and wrote a novel on y2k, but his books haven't sold well for 15 years.)

I have monitored y2k reporting more closely than anyone on earth. This site is the clearing house on reporters' handling of y2k. Yes, they went for sensational stories. They wanted human interest stories. They wanted bunkers and food and guns. If religion was part of the package, fine, but it was not religion that grabbed them. It was this: "Candice Turner bought a farm." (She also coined a great phase: "They will not prepare, but they will remember.")

Here is the fact above all facts about reporters: they are college graduates without sayisfying alternative employment opportunities who are living soft lives, and they don't want to work too hard. Y2K sensationalism is ideal, especially after you have mentioned that "planes won't fall from the sky" and "a 72-hour winter storm."

The problem is not nut-case apocalyptics. The problem is shoddy reporting. For an example of truly third-rate reporting that contrasts religion with the status quo, click here. The author begins with an astrologer who sees dark things coming. Then he goes to a PR flak at a local hospital -- the industry universally regarded as the farthest behind, all over the world -- to get a quote on how things are jes' fine, no problem.

The following essay appeared on July 16. The next day, the New York Times ran a piece debunking Landes' theory -- poor timing for the author of this article.

To the author and to any reporters who might read this, let me give you some help on interptreting y2k:

1. The code is broken.

2. The broken code is systemic.

3. The division of labor is threatened.

4. If y2k isn't fixed, all over the world, the economy will collapse, unless y2k is trivial.

5. Your pension is at risk.

6. You will probably have to seek new employment early next year. Me, too.

* * * * * * * * * *

This column and the next will continue our exploration of the social issues raised by the media's coverage of Y2K, with particular attention to the disjunction between the mainstream media and the alternative media sources that now provide information to millions of people. In particular, I want to focus on the religious dimensions of Y2K, and to contrast the coverage of the impending crisis in religious and secular media.

It's my belief that Y2K warnings failed to impact the public so long as they were framed in the technical discourse of computer professionals. They succeeded in penetrating public consciousness only when they were linked to a religious discourse in which technological collapse appears as a prominent feature of a prophetic-apocalyptic narrative.

A notable feature of the Y2K stories that began to appear in mainstream secular media in late 1998 was that they were often linked to religion. Reporters noted that evangelists such as Jerry Falwell, Jack Van Impe and Chuck Missler were actively spreading an alarmist and occasionally paranoid view of the crisis, and that a network of Y2K preparedness committees was springing up in church congregations around the United States.

Though some of this coverage was sneeringly dismissive, many reporters took the religious dimension seriously as a significant focal point for grass-roots activism. TV news mostly maintained a distinctly sensationalist tone, which was perhaps to be expected of a visual news medium less able to handle complex technical stories; the visceral excitement of video footage of survivalists preparing their bunkers tended to overwhelm the reassuring statements delivered by pasty-faced bureaucrats. Print journalism fared somewhat better. Religion reporters at newspapers around the country wrote about the impact of Y2K on local churches and national ministries, and both the technical fears and the religious beliefs of those involved in the Y2K preparedness movement were treated with a respect that brought the issues to the center of public consciousness.

The framing and presentation of Y2K narratives in religious and secular media have converged into what I call a techno-eschatology. This involves an increasingly plausible belief system which represents utopian and dystopian technology scenarios within the framework of an ancient apocalyptic story of mortal hubris and divine judgment. The reframing of Y2K as a technical problem into a religious vocabulary of apocalypse and millennialism is an effective symbolic strategy for resolving technological anxiety and coming to grips with the "ultimate concern" created by technology's reshaping of human destiny.

Media technology in general, and computers in particular, transmit and embody an ancient apocalyptic myth in both its positive and negative aspects.

The remainder of this column will develop this idea of techno-eschatology, and the psychology of millennialism and apocalyptic belief, as a background for current Y2K events. In the next column, which will be posted next week, I'll discuss the impact that these religious ideas are having on the ways that Y2K is perceived by the media and the public. . . .

Link: (end snip) Regards...

-- mister zoobie (, July 17, 1999


Zoobie, Zoobie, please boil this down. My tiny 640k of memory can't separate the chickens from the eggs here.


-- Mike (, July 17, 1999.

So I see then Gary believes that if you do not accept his one belief, then you are a athiest. Of course Gary doesn't accept that anyone can think for themselves. That someone may not have the same beliefs as him.

Of course Gary also has said that the end is near before. And I remember last year Pat Robertson during a 700 Club special on Y2K referred to Gary North as "This guy Gary North." I highly doubt Robertson would not have heard of brother Gary as Robertson at one point even published a book that begins in the next 3 to 4 months. And that he no longer supports the book in any way.

But Gary realizes that he needs enemies(real or not) to help sell subscriptions to his newsletter. For the fact if everything is fine then there is no reason to advocate the establish of his utopian society.

-- MrWayCool (, July 17, 1999.

In no way is Decker associating any formal religious beliefs with y2k doomers. The religious association addresses instead the means with which doomerism is presented and defended. It is held forth more as an article of faith than the result of any real analysis. Unbelievers are shouted down or preached to rather than subjected to logical explanations. Material contrary to the belief system (remember Norm?) does nothing to mitigate or modify these beliefs in any way -- instead, such material is rejected on any and every grounds (however invalid), and those who present it (like Norm) are attacked and driven off. Those who strive for perspective and consider the material on its own merits are accused of being on the payroll of Evil Forces, as though they were agents of Satan.

True doomerism is Received Truth. It is not subject to analysis, it cannot be changed as circumstances change. It does not admit of differences of degree -- you either Believe, or you are "Against Preparation." It permits of no middle ground. All of these are characteristics of religious tenets.

There is even a catechism involved. "The problem is systemic. The code is broken. We started too late. Y2K cannot be fixed."

For some people, then, y2k has brought forth the worst features of religious intolerance.

-- Flint (, July 17, 1999.

Don't feed the Flint.

-- number six (, July 17, 1999.

Well, Flint, I'm a very devout agnostic. I know of companies that have done very comprehensive Y2K remediation projects, and that are finished. I know of companies that are flopping like fish out of water. These are either reports to me from MIS directors, CIO's, etc., or to family members.

I accept the good news. I have reported it and named names. What profoundly disturbs me is how scattered the verifiable good news is. Not the press releases. Not government self reports status. Not my daughter's reported progress on her 3 week report. Not until I can check it.

-- Jon Williamson (, July 17, 1999.

It is getting late but I would like to give this a shot.

The mystery. What is our meaning and where are we going.

"Y2K" is just a potential information disruption. In no way a mystery nor and answer. It is a construct of man to do more things quicker within the social structure of civilization as we know it.

Just like politics "Y2K" shouldn't be within the domain of churches. In no way are the beliefs of the church understood in the code that drives the computing structures.

It is ignorance that we must fear, in both understanding the problem we face and the ultimate desiny of our species. "Y2K" has shown though the lack of a capability to order complex process over time. This is a "vision" problem.

And here lies the problem. a first knee jerk reaction is to start looking for excuses such as the "return of Christ". Any mention of this and identification of a point in time is ludicrist. Even the Bible says that the time is unknown.

Now we are at the period of understanding the universal structure that indicates we are dust from the stars with 4 billion years of evolutionary (earthly) developement in our genes. The insights of quantum physics, cosmology, chaos therory show us a internal "intelligence" that indicates underlying order in the seemingly random natural order.

And it tells us that we can't measure it. This is a conflict in the scientific community that they must come to terms with it. Rational thought has no place in the great mystery. It is life itself. The fears that y2k bring are that there is a possibility society is not as strong as first thought. Do we know what is going to happen? No, no one does.

What society does is insulate us from the chaotic structure that is our birthright. We have grown up thinking that we must fear nature and "hide" behind the makeshift social constructs that we have designed. It is this that people fear, a lack of understanding, an ignorance to even beleive that we are flesh and blood, we grow old and die. So belief systems have been created to give folks the "BELIEF" that they will be swooped up by the host of God and stand forth before Jesus or what ever method of the culture.

But the cold reality that we are just an entity that must survive is considered "distasteful". So the doom folk and the polly folk point barbs at each other never considering that the natural law of entropy continues to break down the structures that we construct. There is no political, religous, or business "REASONING" behind it. Nature is not a "reasonable" construct it is relentless in its effects. It reaches in to the thoughts of all entities and to the movements of the galaxies.

There is nothing that will change this. Face up to the fact that we will build and it will break down for what ever reason. Y2K is just another point in time.

The natural directive is the breakdown of all things. Entropy assures us of this.

Where the true mystery is, is in looking for the conditions of creation. It is there that you will find the mind of "God". Just as Entropy plays the 'devil' evolution from the photon of light to the marvel of live on earth it is truly and awe inspiring "irrational" concept.

Y2K is just our lack of two digits, it is not just the problem itself that we have to deal with but the total lack of comprehension that led us to this dismal state of affairs. It is now a race to shore up our belief systems when really they are artificial.

It is not that the code is broken, more that the code will break. It is natural. And you don't have a choice so get over it. What will happen will happen. Naturally.

-- Brian (, July 18, 1999.

An interesting quote from the Washington Post article about "who is to be blamed for this mess?" Everyone should read this article. THE MILLENNIUMBUG 037r-071899-idx.html

"No one wanted the Millennium Bug. No one hatched it. But no one bottled it up when they had the chance, and here it is.

It's the same way with warfare: No one wants it. Everyone tries to avoid it. And here it is.

The Y2K problem is not a computer problem, after all. It was not hard-wired into the mechanical brains themselves, as some have contended. It was hard-wired into the human brain. We want to be enlightened. But our wisdom falls victim to greed and hostility and covetousness and expedience. It's human nature."

HHHMMMM Human entropy.

-- Brian (, July 18, 1999.

Spot on, Brian,

You damn near nailed it. I sensed your struggle, but your philosophy seems sound and your perspective percipient.

I'm glad I don't do HTML or I'd be tempted to put this up in three-inch high, flashing letters.


Are there a dozen TB2K participants who understand Y2K as merely a symptom? Of course it is the symptom that disables or kills. But it is VISION (outlook, attitude, perspective, worldview), an appropriate one of which can prevent or ameliorate our spiritual disease.

Now, none of this is worth beans....or rice or water. But it sure helps me sleep nights.

Thanks again, Brian.


"Every person takes the limits of their own field of vision for the limits of the world." --- Schopenhauer

-- (, July 18, 1999.

Response to gary north posts an inderect reply to Kenny Decker's "y2k doomer as religion"meme

Why quote Schopenhauer, a nihilist, who is remembered for having said "sleep is good, death is better, but best of all to have never existed?"

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), July 18, 1999.


You make a good point I don't seem able to address very well. The truth is that we really can't check any of these reports. Perhaps I should have mentioned that those on the debunker forum don't make any better attempt to integrate the material. There are equally good reasons why any news, however positive or negative, may be unreliable. Underlying this lack of reliability is an intractable ambiguity. We simply can't know the future, we can't know how many bugs we haven't found, we can't predict impacts of those bugs.

In a year or so, we'll have hindsight. If very little went wrong, we'll have a good explanation (and we'll be able to use the information available *today* to show why problems were minor). If a whole lot goes wrong, we'll have an equally good explanation, and that *same material* will show that it was inevitable.

So, given that extremely different outcomes can *both* be predicted today, or explained later, based on what we already have, what is it that leads some people to pick one extreme or the other and defend it as we see it being defended -- with outright, vitriolic rejection of any different interpretation and attacks against the interpreter? This response is what I have termed 'religious' -- a need for rock- solid certainty when faced with overwhelming ambiguity.

And just because I can recognize this powerful urge doesn't mean I am not also subject to it. I've also taken a position and I've been trying to defend it. My position is that we have insufficient data, and what little we have is insufficiently reliable, to draw any conclusion with any degree of confidence. Some days I can't imagine any disaster coming, and other days I can't see how it can be avoided. But I can *never* see how any fixed prediction of the future y2k impacts can be logically supported.

-- Flint (, July 18, 1999.


Thanks, the problem is to convey the message in a space that is less than encyclopiedic.


Talking about Y2K in a "religious" context is just adding gas to a fire. Retoric on top of retoric. You may be safe talking about software but the dogma of church and y2k has to many parallels but no simularities in meaning.

What people feel is fear. Y2K is this great mystery and there is a total lack of confirmed (independently) information on the status of many sturctures in society. This creates doubt which contributes to fear.

If you wish to think of Y2K as a "spiritual concern" then consider the ability of mankind to evolve the information structures so they are flexible, standard, and with deep roots. This is what is wrong, and if we can't understand this then we do not have the responsibility to continue on with this course. Its back to farming and fishing.

When I found out about the scope of the Y2K problem it seems so bloody STUPID!!!! How could it have continued for so long! Nature ditches the weak and the fragile. SIMPLE. Society doesn't value vision, this is the ERROR. (Big differance between meek and weak folks)

Society is now in a total disconnect with the universal structure as (of all people) scientists know it. We have designed society like a pool game when we should look at it like a moving stream.

IMHO we have designed IT structures faster than the intellectual capasity of the designers could picture it. So when casting stones watch for the glass houses you built EH?

-- Brian (, July 18, 1999.

Wow... that missed the point. Flint understands what my original post said. One of the definitions of a religion is, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Y2K as "calamity" is an article for faith for some posters on this forum (and for the moderators.) No amount of new data, no matter the source, will change their minds. For them, it is a matter of faith.

In the case of Gary North, Y2K is just the latest means to an end... the end being Christian Reconstructionism. There is ample resource on Mr. North's agenda and his theology... and his 20 years of failed predictions of the "end of the world." North's crusade is to remake the world according to his personal interpretation of the Old Testament.

In fact, the longer I have bumped around the Y2K issue, the more exogenous motives I have discovered. Oh, there are the obvious motives of profit for the Y2K suppliers. Y2K has also become a banner where disaffected persons of every philosophy have found a common ground. For these folks, they came to Y2K with a "religion" and have simply found an outlet.


-- Mr. Decker (, July 19, 1999.

Mr Decker,

Thank you. You finally said it (seems like months since the y2k as a religion post).

>>"is an article for faith for some posters on this forum"

Key words being "some posters".

-- R. Wright (, July 19, 1999.

Thanks for the psychobabbler's point of view. Myopic managers wringing their hands over unremediated, untested code everywhere will be greatly relieved to learn it's all in our heads.

-- Nathan (, July 19, 1999.

Dear Mr./Ms. Wright,

From my post, Y2K as Religion:

"Y2K has become a religion. For SOME (my emphasis added), the collapse of modern society is no longer a matter for debate it is precisely a specific 'system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.'"

Please feel free to check the link and read my original post.

I know there are thoughtful, objective folks trying to find the facts on Y2K. In fact, I wish they were the ones moderating this forum. (chuckle)


-- Mr. Decker (, July 19, 1999.

Mister Decker

You know I admire your simplicity of life and words that you have shared on that topic.


Y2K has also become a banner where disaffected persons of every philosophy have found a common ground. For these folks, they came to Y2K with a "religion" and have simply found an outlet.


Of course this would not apply to you? Has what you have "seen" been discribed by your own words? It is no differant than many of the forum that you have eloquently dismissed.

But you fail on many points. If I was to ask of your faith you may say that it is personal and that is fair. Much like when asked about family. Don't others demand the same respect? Having the lack of awareness mentioning that Y2K is the same as my "religious" beliefs shows a total lack of respect for me and the rest of the forum that you "judge".

In the big picture Y2K is a blip, it is a human problem. Religion is much differant.

This is not to say there isn't obsessed folk like Mr. North but if you have a issue with him write a letter you are more than able.

But to lable much of the forum in the same lump as Mr. North is crazy. If you need credible information on Y2K problems you will get them. It doesn't mean that the each of the forum member is looking to start a cult and worship a grain mill or something (laughter!!)

Most want to ensure their security, this is perfectly natural and would be a crime to deny that which they feel.

There are those that are obsessed but it is not a "religious" "meme". A better analogy would be a architypical(sp?) focus which is more like a mental energy that can engulf a persons life and lead it. While often this could be confused with religion it is not the same. God in what ever form he takes in folks minds is the ultimate priciple and to those of that belief, the name in their prayers.

Now of course being a reasonable person you should understand what I am pointing out here in a MOST polite way.

Of course one could bring in egos, ignorance and generalizations but it would mess things up a bit and be kind of OT.

So it would be kind as you have stated your piece and let the matter drop till next year and we all can find the suprize and mystery in the passage of time. Naturally.

Or you could continue for my entertainment but that would be selfish.

-- Brian (, July 19, 1999.

One of the definitions of religion: a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Believing Y2K will only be a bump in the road has become a religion. For some, the continuation of modern society has never been a matter for debate it is precisely a specific system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

This is not a new phenomenon and often occurs in anachronisms. The Flat Earth Society serves as a useful example. Extremists in the Flat Earth Society have become more invested in a belief system than in rational inquiry. This has resulted in bitter debates and the rejection of some legitimate scientific research.

What we know about Y2K is that there will be some indeterminate number of computer hardware and software problems due to the rollover from 1999 to 2000. The rest is a muddle of speculation, opinion and theory. An optimistic interpretation of this muddle has calcified into a belief system

The true nay-sayers of Y2K see every event within the context of their faith. Any lack of information in the private and public sectors is fully understandable. Positive news is swallowed whole. Good news is the gospel whatever the source.

The true nay-sayers are trying to save you. The saved won't cause bank runs. If you convert, you don't get it ergo the DGI label. As a DGI you are expected to perform the rituals of the faith the most predominant of which is Saving Those Who Prepare. The amount of posting appears a litmus test of BITR faith.

To digress a bit, a BITR version of Pascals Wager is used to convert the Newbie/GI (Those who either have prepared or are thinking about it). Pascals Wager is a pragmatic approach to whether one ought to believe in God. In simple terms, the argument contends a belief in the Almighty has nothing but upside. If God exists, you win. If God does not exist, you are no worse off than before. One can easily see this same argument in reverse is applied over and over in BITR lack of preparation.

[It is important to note that there are criticisms of Pascals Wager that apply equally to BITR perception. http:// entries/pascal-wager/]

The faith of BITR has little mercy for those who do not convert, and none for those who leave the church. The label Doomer can easily be converted to "scaremonger" or heretic. (A dissenter from established church dogma.)

The acrimony between believers and heretics is inevitable. Much of the Y2K debate has moved well beyond rational discussion and into attacks/defenses of the faith. How different is this from scientists who believe in evolution arguing with conservative Christians who believe in a literal creation? The creation science advocates have access to the same data. They reach a different conclusion. Of course, it is difficult to deny their interpretation of the data is not influenced somewhat by their belief system. I suggest the same is true for BITR.

Religion is about Truth. Science is about fact. Religion is conservative, even reactionary. It resists change. Science changes at the drop of a fact. For Christianity, the Bible has been the Truth for over two millennia. Science, on the other hand, is progressive. Very little is left of the science man developed two thousand years ago, while Truth has remained constant. Science hypothesizes and proves (and sometimes those proofs are proved mistaken). Religion simply enlightens......(some more than others).

Stripped down to the barest of facts, Y2K is an indeterminate number of computer hardware and software problems due to the rollover from 1999 to 2000. The BITR belief an emerging New Age faith invoking unicorns and crystals. America is the rising Rome (but without all that bad part about falling and stuff).

BITR appears to have some sincere, good-hearted believers. It also attracts the inevitable hucksters and charlatans who use the faith for more worldly reasons. It has saints (Poole, Decker and Y2KPro) and sinners (Gary North) I am sure the astute reader can find more similarities.

What are the implications of BITR as a religious faith? I am not completely sure. One point seems obvious. Conflicts between the heretics and the faithful will continue for not much longer.

I do hope at least one true believer of BITR acknowledges that no information provided by the government, industry or media will change their mind about Y2K. If so, BITR is a matter of reason, not faith.. at least for one.


(my apologies to Mr. Decker.......for the ALMOST complete steal ;)

{Mr. Decker's original version}: and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000sT2

-- andrea (, July 19, 1999.


Succinct and to the point. Those who are trying to dissuade me from my carefully considered views about Y2K (or any other possible disaster) are no more than missionaries for another Y2K philosophy--or perhaps victims of a messiah complex.

-- Old Git (, July 19, 1999.

Brian... I generally avoid critique of spelling as I am as guilty of "typos" as most. This said, please consider using a dictionary to check your spelling as you write. It really would make your posts more readable.

Andrea... I appreciate the thought (and if in the future you might use quotation marks when quoting other folks.) You are right in suggesting that any view (including "bump in the road") can become an article of faith. The few "polly's" on this forum, however, have made modest preparations. Individuals like Flint can actually (gasp!) change their mind. I am willing to change my mind about Y2K, but it will take better data and better arguments than forwarded on this forum.

Old Git... who is trying to dissuade you? I, for one, have never thought you had any interest in an objective reading of my posts. You now have an entire forum dedicated to your homespun advice. If you don't want to read (or consider) alternative viewpoints, just stay on your "preparations" forum. Seriously.


-- Mr. Decker (, July 19, 1999.

Mr. Decker says "Old Git... who is trying to dissuade you? I, for one, have never thought you had any interest in an objective reading of my posts. You now have an entire forum dedicated to your homespun advice. If you don't want to read (or consider) alternative viewpoints, just stay on your "preparations" forum. Seriously. "

Mr. Decker, apparently you don't realize that this forum was originally intended as a resource for people preparing for Y2K. Because you and your ilk have come along to argue and in general try to draw attention to yourself and hopefully meet some women, existing members have politely formed a new preparations forum so that you can have your fun on this one.

-- Amy (, July 19, 1999.


You are quite right! If you think my spelling is bad you should see my handwriting. That is why I have worked with fish, lumber or stone for most of my life.


Unlike myself, someone can write, good job.

-- Brian (, July 19, 1999.


If you bothered to read the original "tag" on Ed Yourdon's home page, it invited "everybody" to come in and discuss all aspects Y2K... and not just the "beans and rice" perspective. Furthermore, one of the most important points of any "preparation" is a realistic assessment of what may (or may not) happen post-Y2K. Of course, this point is lost on the "true believers" of Y2K as "end of the world."

I am delighted the preparation buffs have their own forum. Three cheers and a tiger for them. Perhaps we can use this forum to discuss Y2K impacts... and let Old Git and Company swap recipes elsewhere. In the long run, I think everyone will be happier.

Oh, and you forget I attended the Virginia Y2K gathering. Trust me, Amy, it was not a "singles" scene. (laughter)


-- Mr. Decker (, July 19, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ