THANK YOU, GARY NORTH, ED YOURDON, JIM LORD, ETC. : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I think we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to brave souls like Gary North, Ed Yourdon, Jim Lord, and many others, who had the guts to sound the alarm about Y2K loudly enough so that people and companies and governments took notice and made the necessary code corrections to fix the problem (or so it seems) in time to avoid a massive social and economic meltdown. Without their efforts we would have seen a very different and nasty New Year's Eve.

-- Jeff Davis (, January 01, 2000



-- Sheri (, January 01, 2000.

Dittos!! They woke me up too...and I am glad nothing (much) happened yet, and I am (still) glad I am prepared! Jody :)

-- Jody (, January 01, 2000.

THey made their calls out of honest, well educated prudence. These folks are taking a lot of heat right now, but I for one do not blame them for anything.

They did what they thought was right, based on a thorough understanding of the situation and they took the chance. THey should be commended for getting the word out that things could go south.

As an added note, NOBODY should relax until we know how everything is going to tie in after several, full-blown business days. It is far to early to call it a bust. Even your government is saying that today.

-- Rob (, January 01, 2000.

Y E P !!!

I wonder what year the utilities are in right now?


-- Mike Taylor (, January 01, 2000.

God bless all. Keep your fingers crossed....

-- Mara (, January 01, 2000.

Yes, these folks I believe were a voice of reason during the madness. I must add Lane Core to this, his commentary and insight were valuable in helping make what I still believe were informed decisions. Its interesting because even within the few mentioned above (and there are many others) that a wide variety of projections were given. It will be interesting to see where we are at by next weekend, although even then I don't think the verdict will be out. Again thanks to all and to the forum regulars, even with the flames this has been an interesting experience.

-- shockwave (, January 01, 2000.

Thanks, shockwave.

-- Lane Core Jr. (, January 01, 2000.

Yes, good point I am sure because of these men, many public and private organizations got their act together. Sincere thanks.

-- LALA (, January 01, 2000.

Voice of "reason"? Haw haw haw! So far, it's becoming increasingly clear that these people were the voice of WRONG!

What's interesting is that when someone suggests that these fearmongers misled a lot of people into misallocating their money, the response is that only a tiny, tiny percentage ever heard of them anyway. And when they turn out to be dead wrong, these same people give them full credit for inspiring worldwide remediation!

Folks, these people had essentially nothing to do with the preventive measures taken at such great cost. Ask around, take a streetcorner sampling. You'll find that the ONLY people who ever heard of them were those who got suckered into their hype.

I believe in giving them credit where it's due. But they are NOT due the credit of "waking up the world". The y2k problem has been known for decades. When it reached critical mass, it was addressed. Without their efforts, we'd have seen exactly the same new year's eve, except we wouldn't be wondering what to do with hundreds of pounds of rice and beans, or with our generators.

Jeff et. al. are giving them credit for the sun rising, because they screamed for years that it would not. And that's a joke.

-- Flint (, January 01, 2000.

Amen Flint!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! maybe we should give credit to Peter DeJaggar and that's about all. He's right .No one except prophecy buffs and the like ever even heard of Gary North.I only know of North because of a friend. when she called at midnight to say that "I guess the world didn't come to an end" she sounded a tad p*ssed. Sad.

-- betty dillon (, January 01, 2000.

Add my thanks to the rest.. to those named, and many more, including Cory, Paul Milne, Rick Cowles, Michael Hyatt, Larry Sanger, Patrick Shannon, and quite a lot more (including the regulars on this forum). The preps in all levels of my life were a good thing - no matter what. Yesterday was WONDERFUL... a real blessing to just relax and have fun with the family and watch the parade of midnights and parties around the globe. I just cannot believe we don't still have some pretty significant glitches coming our way, but I am thankful for the peace of yesterday.

And IF the DGIs were right IN SPITE of their ignorance (i.e. - lack of research),

...and if the GI's were wrong IN SPITE of having done tons of research

...and if it didn't really matter how late a company or country started or how little money it spent, it still got compliant by the deadline

...and if fix on failure was just as good a plan as any other

...and if what sounded like PR spin was really the gospel truth

... well then, the world works in more strange and wonderful ways than any of us could possibly imagine, and there is no logic to it that I am capable of understanding.

I may just give up reading altogether, and watching TV and listening to radio... a sabbatical on information from all sources (including my faulty internal BS meter).

But first... a few more days and weeks to track things.

Thanks again to all... and Happy New Year (I sure appreciated my shower and this computer just a little extra today, didn't you?)

-- Linda (, January 01, 2000.

During the summer of 97, I went to my first prepareness expo. At that time, I did not know anything about a Y2K computer problem. I was there for the usual conspiracy theorists reasons -- you know, martial law, UN invasion, all that jazz. There was this very nice older gentleman with his family there selling his book on Y2K and I got an autographed copy. I read it, started discussing it with my metaphysics group - then I put it away. I just pulled it back out this morning and discovered that it was Jim Lord's book. Thank you Jim Lord for sounding the alarm early. Whatever has been done to effect this transition, I give you and GN, EY and others credit for having the courage to inform people no matter what any doubters, etc. may have (or are) saying and thinking. Just imagine what today would have been like had everyone done nothing....

Just a thought.

-- Mello1 (, January 01, 2000.

betty: Do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), January 01, 2000.

The only problem with North is that he had a personal agenda in all this. He is quoted as saying he longed for this so thatChristian Recronstructionism (his brand of Christianity) could step in and rule society and bring men to God. His campaign was meant to help and usher in the fall of modern society and he has clearly said so.

..." I am getting support from a handful of laymen who perceive that they are at risk, society is at risk, and secular humanism is at risk. To lay blame effectively, you must be willing and able to predict the event. That's what I'm doing. I'm also laying the groundwork for handing out the blame. The battle for the minds of men after 1999 will, to a great extent, be a battle to assign and evade blame for the millennium bug. Christians will be in a position to win this battle." Gary North

..."The y2k crisis is systemic. It cannot possibly be fixed. I think it will wipe out every national government in the West. Not just modify them -- destroy them. I honestly think the Federal government will go under. I think the U.S.A. will break up the way the U.S.S.R. did. Call me a dreamer. Call me an optimist. That's what I think."

Gary North

"This will decentralize the social order. That is what I have wanted all of my adult life. In my view, y2k is our deliverance."

Gary North

Verify quotes here:

-- DAVID (, January 01, 2000.

I'd like to thank the above people for alerting terrorists to the problem. I'd also like to thank the government for their work in combatting the terrorists.

-- Butt Nugget (, January 01, 2000.

Butt-- It's nice to know that someone has such high confidence in the gov't and the media in telling the truth.

-- Mello1 (, January 01, 2000.

Flint -- R U having a bad day or something?

One interesting line of research on this topic that I don't care to devote the time to is to find out from the IT management people who started to take serious y2k remediation steps in early 1998 (judging from the front pages of Infoworld, Information Week and the half dozen other computer freebies I have to shovel into recycling every couple months) whether the "doomsayers" created any pressure to get them the resources to do their projects. Not that we'd get much of a straight answer, but I suspect it created alarm at the top, and that got passed down.

The gov's fear of societal panic, too, probably got y2k on the agenda of several White House business breakfasts.

I'd explore the hypothesis that Gary North's August 1997 mass mailing was the single most effective document in overcoming the y2k peril.

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), January 01, 2000.


[...and if the GI's were wrong IN SPITE of having done tons of research]

If you go back and look at it dispassionately, you'll be thunderstruck that this "research" consisted almost entirely of finding every bad prediction and possible problem written anywhere, combined with (1) pretending this was the ONLY valid information available, and (2) exaggerating the hell out of it.

This is NOT research. This is pure advocacy, total spin. Most of the time, your "GI's" went to absurd lengths of illogic to build as one- sided a case as possible. And those who tried to point out what they were doing were shouted down, sometimes quite viciously.

Maybe once the dust settles, you'll be able to go back and see how you did it to yourselves. In the meantime, it's impossible to awaken someone who is only pretending to be asleep.

-- Flint (, January 01, 2000.


-- William Casey Jr. (, January 01, 2000.

Hey William, I didn't buy dehydrated food, I bought canned food, which I can use anyway, and my generator can be used for power failures during storms, so how was I suckered?

-- Boy Scout (, January 01, 2000.

I also want to thank Bill Clinton and John Koskinen and their whole team for disseminating important Y2K information without inciting panic or riot. By keeping the country and the world from mass panic, they have saved literally millions of lives.

Thanks guys!!

-- (go@skin.that), January 01, 2000.

Thanks to the above heroes as well. The y2k truth as always been that no one knew how bad y2k would hit. Those labeled doomers were the ones who saw the potential danger and prepared.j

The proof that North, Yourdon, Lord, et al. were correct in sounding a warning is found in the fifty million dollar bunker our government built, the FEMA control centers, the NY mayor in an underground bunker, the reserves (my nephew) put on alert for Jan. 1, and our own FEMA Emer. manager and staff in their bunker all NY's eve. Need I go on. The media was reporting on Y2k all day and night.

NO ONE KNEW HOW THIS WAS GOING TO TURN OUT!!! The ones who prepared were the wise ones. PERIOD! And Y2k is not over.

We live in a dangerous world as well. I'm glad I've been given more time to prepare. Anyone wanting to sell their stuff at this point is a fool.

-- BB (, January 01, 2000.

Flint said:


[...and if the GI's were wrong IN SPITE of having done tons of research]

If you go back and look at it dispassionately, you'll be thunderstruck that this "research" consisted almost entirely of finding every bad prediction and possible problem written anywhere, combined with (1) pretending this was the ONLY valid information available,... etc.

Well Flint, if that is the case I am certainly not the only one. It wasn't me that convinced military and local/state/nat. governments to spend mega bucks on bunkers/command centers.. or convinced CEO's to cut into profits to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. It WAS often difficult to get good information. But besides this forum, I tried to read what I thought was the "best" info.. the Senate and GAO reports, the NERC and NRC documents, the U.S. Dept. of Commerce reports, etc. I guess they were all deluded doomers too.

It's a bit too early to write the final chapter on Y2K, but I certainly have considered that my investigatiing ability, and reasoning and decision making may be due for some soul searching too. One thing this is NOT.. it is not an ego issue for me. If I came to wrong conclusions it will be important TO ME to figure out why (so I can trust future conclusions).

But in ANY case... prepping made more sense when faced with an unknown and unknowable risk... than not prepping. I will NEVER regret that.

-- Linda (, January 01, 2000.

Thanks to all of you. I've really enjoyed this forum. To everyone, have a happy,healthy,safe and prosperous New Year! It's not over by a long shot.

-- Lurking under many names (, January 01, 2000.


My understanding is that you were wondering at the low problem levels seen so far, and the inaccurate predictions made by those who had researched so hard. I was trying to make suggestions that you might find useful in your soul-searching.

The problems were, and still are, very real. And a huge amount of money was spent, and a great deal more will be spent. But I suggest you get some perspective on this. In total, the Federal government spent about 1 weeks' income on y2k. In the US, private companies spent at the very most 20% of their IT budget on y2k, and their IT budget is a fairly small part of their total budget.

As a clue, look at who you are thanking: Gary North, Yourdon, Jim Lord, Cory, Paul Milne, Rick Cowles, Michael Hyatt, Larry Sanger, Patrick Shannon. You should surely notice that *every single name* on your list predicted impacts far beyond anything we've seen or are likely to see. Trying to come up with a realistic picture of what to expect from y2k from listening to those on this list, is like tying to come up with a realistic picture of how people in general feel about gun control by listening only to NRA leaders.

Clearly, you aren't thanking these people for *informing* you correctly, you're thanking them for telling you what you wanted to hear, even though it has (so far) been dead wrong. So far, the most *accurate* picture of y2k has been painted by Koskinen, in terms of what has actually happened. Now, just how much do you prize accuracy? Enough to admit Koskinen was right?

-- Flint (, January 02, 2000.

Flint - "So far, the most *accurate* picture of y2k has been painted by Koskinen, in terms of what has actually happened. Now, just how much do you prize accuracy? Enough to admit Koskinen was right?"

Hmmm... I could live with that. I can't recall (without more coffee and actually doing some digging) anything that he said that set my BS meter on full alarm mode. I distrusted what I SAW as his role - to deflect blame from the Prez. (and the Father of the Internet) and to avoid panic. He DID an admirable job at both. I resented that he didn't do more early to encourage PERSONAL "contingency plans" the way he incouraged business and government "contingency plans". But IF it turns out (and I think it is too early to be sure) that there were NO major "glitches" that cause widespread and persistant problems for the economy and for individuals... then yes I would have to declare him the Seer of Seers, the Czar of the Crystal Ball.

But then.. he DID have access to MUCH more information than all the other prognosticators. At least I assume he did. We were reading tea leaves (10 Q's), CEO droppings, etc. and trying to get a peek inside the boardrooms and IT centers from that. Even the Senate reports were often based on rediculously small numbers of returns on their inquiries. If those were less than rosy it just didn't make sense to assume that only the ones having the MOST trouble bothered to reply.

If Koskinen had a better view of the present/future, it was likely because he had better access to inside information - which I guess is your point.

And as for the other prognosticators coming to faulty conclusions because they only looked at the gloomy reports.. well.. there were a TON of those reports. About 4,000+ on GN's site I think. BTW - I studied Y2K for 6 - 8 months and came to the conclusion that it was potentially very serious BEFORE I discovered Gary North or any Y2K forum. For me, those people served as a valuable conduit of information, but they didn't MAKE me a "doomer". If I overestimated the POTENTIAL for disaster I will have to look within to see if some adjustments are needed. But so far I don't see the flaw in the logic behind the predictions of POTENTIAL disaster. Keep in mind that POTENTIAL disaster is not what actually happens, but what COULD happen. None of us KNEW what WOULD happen. And we still don't. Some of the breakdowns we DID find out about only came to light after weeks or months. Stay tuned... it ain't over yet.

-- Linda (, January 02, 2000.


Somehow I think your emphasis is misplaced, though it's hard to put my finger on it. Yes, North did have a lot of things on his site, but they were by no means all bad news -- not much more than half of them, though North's spin intro material always *interpreted* them as negative or (often enough) silly (in his opinion). The interpretation is the critical part.

When we're looking at the *potential* for problems, there are different ways of looking at it. As an analogy, consider the potential for an automobile accident. It's certainly there every time you drive. It's there every time everyone drives. But how sensible is it to extrapolate that everyone will have an accident all at once? And from there, to conclude that automotive transportation *must* be nonfeasible as a result?

So I don't believe it's the important factor that Koskinen had better information or more information than we do. Far more important, IMO, is an understanding of the distribution, frequency, and severity of problems. Those people you name, by and large, made the conceptual leap from the knowledge that anyone can have an accident, to the invalid conclusion that *therefore* everyone WILL have an accident., and therefore transportation will collapse.

I think the claim that "selective exposure to potential problems leads to an exaggerated picture of impacts" is backwards. My reading is that the expectation of big problems came first, and the selective exposure was an artifact of the effort to build a case for the foregone conclusions.

So if I were doing this (I have been), I'd start by trying to understand why some people find apocalyptic visions so congenial. And to me, the claim that "I was forming rational conclusions based on the available evidence" is disingenuous at best. The conclusions came first, and the evidence was collected and interpreted to support those conclusions.

And this is what makes honest soul searching so difficult. It requires that we start by assuming that something inside us caused us to feel that the notion of big problems sounded "right" somehow. This is not nearly so simple as the claim often made (and rejected) on this forum that doomers "wanted" collapse. Of course they didn't. But the effort expended here to build a worst-case scenario, and to reject all of the many indications to the contrary as lacking sufficient credibility, is undeniable. The standards of evidence applied have been howlingly biased. Why?

I've been trying to point out what many here have been doing for a long time now. But as for *why* they've been doing it, I have no insight. I hope you can help.

-- Flint (, January 02, 2000.

Hey, if y'all are dissapointed in your generator purchase, or are looking to unload all of those dried beans, there are places in the world right now where people are starving and without power. These people suffer from the results of natural disasters with consequences far worse than the most terrible Y2K consequences predicted. Let's give these items to world relief organizations.

-- Mike Smith (, January 03, 2000.

Mega ditto Thank you

-- davebullis (, January 06, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ