One of the things that first impressed me about Gary North's www.garynorth.com web site was his open invitation to use his links and commentary in any fair way that one might feel inclined to. This included the option of setting up a quasi-mirror web site that would point to the same LINKS that his commentary did, only giving a completely independent (and presumably more optimistic) commentary. Clearly, since everyone recognizes North's site as being the ultimate "doomer" Y2K site, one would think the natural thing to do would be to set up the ultimate "polly" site by using the SAME evidence that North points to, but then using different commentary to "de-bunk" North's comments. AS FAR AS I KNOW, NOONE EVER DID THIS.

We have "Gary North Is A Big Fat Idiot", which as it's name indicates, just spews out personal attacks on North (mainly ridiculing his religious beliefs; well, ok, they ARE pretty darned weird, I must admit). We have CPR's zoo, which consists of a handful of loonies babbling back and forth, again mainly at a personal level, not only on North but also on prominent TB2000 posters. But NOTHING in the way of a one-to-one response to the postings at www.garynorth.com.

So I ask: WHY did no pollies ever take up the North challenge? (I think we already know the answer....)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 25, 1999

Answers

Yo King! Well stated!

-- Everitt Simpson (rainboe@evestamail.com), December 25, 1999.

A person also has to ask why Gary North, Cory Hamasaki, etc. never got sued to hell and gone for bad mouthing the Big Boys about their abilities to function in Y2K. The only answer that makes sense to me is the Big Boys could not have afforded what would have come out in the discovery process of a lawsuit.

-- Ocotillo (peeling@out.===), December 25, 1999.

Ocotillo...Good Point, Lady-logic would be wise to think in those terms. And Laura, don't try to say "They wouldn't bother..." Corporations sue over the slightest thing if they are sure that they can win, especially when it comes to Libel.

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@Aol.com), December 25, 1999.

Lady Logic,

I stuck up for you the other day but then was shown very quickly how wrong I was. Then I see this...

"It takes someone like me and Pro with a lot of time and revenue to stay here and debate you guys...and a lot of heart. But, maybe you haven't noticed my heart:"

Your heart ? As in what heart ? You have been naughty and now you want pity ? LOL. You and Pro (of what I have no idea), are indeed inherent losers. Your life is so miserable you want others to share it with you. You want power, but have none. You want recognition of any form and the only recognition you can get is for the piss-poor deeds that you can pull off because you aren't good at anything else. That is why you have so much time to sit and hound-dog. You are only good at PH*CKING UP. Not to offend anyone else, but you are probably, out of choice, a ward of the state. Some have no choice, you, my dear, do. Enough said, point well made.

-- Guess (doomer@polly.off), December 25, 1999.

Gary South was pretty funny, but it was a 3 page joke, not 7000+ pages of links. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), December 25, 1999.

"Lawsuits have been filed." Okay LL, I'll bite. What's the URL for the info. If no URL, which corporation, against who, when filled, and at what court?

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), December 25, 1999.

Lawsuits to shut up activists are SOP with Corperate American. I believe they are called "slap down suits".

-- Ocotillo (peeling@out.===), December 25, 1999.

There is one really simple explanation for the lack of suits. Its called "discovery." Just to show how things can go wrong in a suit, let's revisit the Paula Jones suit and the discovery deposition of Bill Clinton. This is when Paula's lawyers got to ask questions about Monica and that gave him the opportunity to lie. We know what occurred after that. If the suits were filed against North, he would be able to ask very pointed questions of those who sued him. Perhaps they just don't want that type of pointed inquiry under oath. I know that Bill would have done it differently if he had another chance.

-- smfdoc (smfdoc@aol.com), December 26, 1999.

King

North does have multiple Polly debunking sights. I watch them almost everynight on any given news station. They're very effective, and don't even have to mention his name.

-- ~***~ (~***~@earth.ebe), December 26, 1999.

Troll/shills like Flint and Ladylogic also wouldn't have dared sue Gary North for fear of revealing their true identities to the world. I'll leave it to the imagination as to why a troll/shill would NOT want be found out should Y2K turn into TEOWAWKI.

-- Ocotillo (peeling@out.===), December 26, 1999.

Jeepers-creepers, what do LAWSUITS have to do with the price of eggs in the country formerly known as Yugoslavia???????!!!!!! GAWD!!!

OK, back to square one:

1) Gary North has a web site.

2) On his web site, he has web pages.

3) On nearly every web page, he has his COMMENTARY.

4) On nearly every web page that has his COMMENTARY, he provides a LINK to what he is commenting on.

5) He invites anyone to use his COMMENTARY/LINKS on their own web site to give their own interpretation.

My question to the pollies is:

Why, rather than these asinine "de-bunking" sites that I already mentioned above, has not anyone come up with a simple web site that would:

1) Have web pages that LINK to the same material that North does, but provide it's own COMMENTARY that puts things in polly perspective (even perhaps showing the logic errors in North's commentary)?

Now, is that simple enough? Judge Judy has no jurisdiction here, OK?? (And please, pollies, don't come up with some BS like, "Oh, that's too much work." It surely would not take anymore time and effort than maintaining the current asinine "de-bunking" sites do.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 26, 1999.

The only reason I've ever seen as to why people attack personalities etc., instead of attacking their position with facts, is because they can't come up with anything to disprove what you are saying and deep down they know you may have a valid point but it would force them to change and go back to step one.

Was listening to Rush the other day and an opponent got on the air and instead of using the air time to back up his point he called Rush a "1400 #, nose picking idiot." Attack the man.

I know nothing about computers. Years ago I chose to study the Bible. As a result I came upon many things which contradicted what was being preached in the pulpit. When I asked about these things the PTB told me to shut up and not defy the "authorities" in the church.

As a result of "knowing what I know", and as a result of that, knowing that I really didn't know that much, I got booted from the respective "churches".

"Tickle my ears with false data and tell me I am going to be Raptured off the earth while everything and everyone on earth is incinereated." Not many want to hear that the Rapture Theory is pure fancy, not a mention of it in the Book.

"Don't confuse me with the facts!"

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), December 26, 1999.

Good King:

I believe you have answered your own question, and rightly so.

I want to thank you for your participation in this forum. You've provided much insightful commentary, as on this thread, and a lot of interesting visual imagery.

BTW, I count myself among the plucky who have been asked....

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), December 26, 1999.

Everyone says that Noone has really debunked Y2K. Who exactly is this Noone character? Does anyone know his/her first name?

-- no one (someone@r.j), December 26, 1999.

My observation of Y2K discussions is that the people who are most optimistic about Y2K rarely address the evidence. They tend to try to smooth things over with gross generalizations (e.g., vague references to American Ingenuity) and dismiss any evidence with a cross between Things Will Work Out Because They Usually Do and Doomsayers Have Been Wrong Before So They Must Be Wrong Now.

Had a serious attempt been made to address the evidence on a case by case basis, using Gary North's web site as the backdrop, I suspect it would have served to convince yet more people of how serious the threat of Y2K disruptons are.

4 days.

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), December 27, 1999.