Has Gary North sold out on us? This is a quote that begins his May newsletter

"The mails will be in a crisis in 2000. If the mail is delivered at all, first class mail will get priority, and should. Second class, bulk rate, book rate, and nonprofit rate mail will either be cancelled or dumped. They will have to do this.

That means that every paper-based ministry will face a disaster. The subsidies will end. I want ICE to survive. By moving to the Web and e-mail, it has a far better chance of surviving."

Is this a backdoor way of beginning to announce that he thinks electricity (and thus western civilization) will still be around in 2000?

-- Walt (Walt@lcs.k12.ne.us), April 30, 1999

Answers

I'd say that GN is no more immune to contradictions than anyone else.

Jolly

-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), April 30, 1999.

Don't bet on that!

It means that the internet has a better chance than the PO. Also the mails would not work for this kind in information dispensing.

Bob

-- Bob Pilcher (rpilc99206@aol.com), April 30, 1999.

I recall that Gary North said "if the electricity if off for 60 days, then civilization is doomed". I do not recall ever seeing him say flat out that there would not be any electricity. I think that there are many people who are publically not doomers who would priviately agree to the first statement.

-- David Holladay (davidh@brailleplanet.org), April 30, 1999.

Have you read the article called: 'There is something about Gary' http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/17193.html Interesting. I take him juuussst a little bit less seriously now. Have a good day all.

-- Daniele (daniele@aiservice.com), April 30, 1999.

Did you really PAY for the newsletter? WHY?

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), April 30, 1999.

Danielle,

I used to believe that Gary North was sincere, but deluded. I've begun to wonder of late.

I'm working on some stuff now that I'll post on my Website when I'm done, but here's a teaser: most of the Doom and Gloom behind Y2K is being generated by a surprisingly small number of people -- and North is right in the middle of this tight little community of folks who are profiting (mightily) off of the general public's fear of technology.

Whenever anyone starts questioning them too closely (like, for example, merely asking what Rick Cowles TOTAL qualifications might be, say, in electrical engineering as opposed to just IT), they launch a firestorm of ad hominem attacks.

I'll say one thing more to "tease" you: if this board would enforce the use of real names, instead of handles and fake email addresses, you might be able to connect quite a few dots. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 01, 1999.

Good morning Stephen,

I must question your "tight little community of folks" comment. I was wrong about the $1,000,000,000,000.00 figure that I've been quoting on the worldwide cost of fixing Y2K. The latest estimate is $1,500,000,000,000.00. The legal costs are now estimated to be $2,000,000,000,000.00. Yes, this is trillion. Small, Stephen? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 01, 1999.

Gary's Back-Up Plan:

If you read further into Gary's material, you would find that he is going to send out the newsletter via "packet radio" when access to the internet fails because of the grid down/phones out. If you don't know what packet radio is, do a search and some reading ... then go invest a few bucks in the equiptment.

George

-- George W. Thompson (Bill@gates.com), May 01, 1999.

They'll pay to know what they really think

-- J.R. "BOB"DOBBS ("BOB"@subgenious.com), May 01, 1999.

I have been reading Gary North - y2k for a year. I don't understand his critics? Garys' site is set up to allow you to click through to the source of the info - corp. gov. news etc. All of the information is published by responsible sources. I have found very little of Gary's assessments that I would question or take issue with. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT THE CRITICS TAKE ISSUE WITH? WHAT DO THEY SEE THAT I DON'T? I subscribed to his Remnant publication because I feel his site provides me a service no one else does. I appreciate it enough to want to pay for it. (Never done that before??) I find the subscription worth it.

-- Rick E. (vrevans@bigfoot.com), May 01, 1999.

Gary North has some christian viewpoints that are pretty frindge.Apparently he sees world wide chaos as a precursor to the return of the christian messiah,so possible disasters(aids,nuclear war y2k)coinside with his estatic views.O.K..so he lives according to his religous views?so what?He's taken the view that management has taken too long to address the issue and the problem is systemic,that no matter how much effort we put into it,it's still god's will.As a buddhist,I think people should be able to practice whatever religion they want,drink christ's blood or chicken blood,hey,ain't freedom of religion great? But you will find that secular humanist types cynicly view all religion as social control and that doing anything motivated by a religious outlook as "crazy",not aware of their own dogmatic intractablity. I see G.N.'s postings as editorial and not propaganda primarily because is pretty up front about his motivation and position,don't all christians HOPE for the return of thier savior?

-- zoobie (zoobie@zoob.zab), May 01, 1999.

Sysman,

Why don't you go ahead and use your real name? :)

That number is pure fantasy. The actual figures are considerably less.

Oh, I forgot ... we've still got 1,000,000 computers in Asia that were hammered by the Win95.CIH virus, too ... ?

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 01, 1999.

Rick, I confess I see a lot of difference between almost every link North provides, and his spin on the contents of that link. Often enough, he feels the need to [translate] the links, just in case you might believe what the links say, rather than what North wants you to believe they mean.

Another large category is actually links to good news. Good news represents a big threat to North, and his 'summary' consists of nothing but ridicule of the actual contents of the link.

But most of the time, it's just simple misrepresentation. As one of too many examples to count, he found a poll saying 55% of the public expects banks to experience computer errors. Doh -- banks have computer errors with monotonous regularity, and always have. And how did North title this? 55% of the public expects BANK failures! The link talks about programming errors. North reads this as failure of the entire bank (something not even suggested by the article). And you don't see the difference? If not, you are an ideal subscriber of the Remnant Review.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 01, 1999.

Tell 'em, Flint. Go git 'em. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 01, 1999.

Stephen,

I don't use my name here because my company IS threatened from Y2K. I don't want our clients reading that one of the senior programmers is very concerned about Y2K. Please mind your own business.

The costs of Y2K have been widely published and posted here. I've got better things to do today than dig it out of the archives for you. Do your own research. Why is it Stephen, that you are always right and know it all, and published reports are always wrong and know nothing? What makes you the expert? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 01, 1999.

Sysman:

A simple count will show you that the number of reports that the problems are small or have been corrected, handily exceeds the number of reports saying the problems are large or won't be properly handled. Your report-reading must be highly selective.

I'm not saying that reports of bad news are incorrect or can be ignored. But they are definitely in the minority.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 01, 1999.

Flint,

Where are all these good news reports? I scan the newswires just about every day looking for Y2K news. Sure, we see ONE bank here, ONE utility there. We've only got eight month to go. We should be seeing these by the hundreds every day. Are you going to tell me that it's all lawyers? What about the few companies that have come forward? What do their lawyers know that others don't?

Speaking of lawyers, there's a bunch of news this week about the Y2K bill in congress. Why is it that the big hi-tech companies, IBM, Microsoft, AT&T are pushing congress to pass a bill that limits the amount of a suite? If everything is under control, what are they afraid of? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 01, 1999.

Sysman,

Your logic is impeccable. "Because I haven't seen it, it doesn't exist."

There are plenty of banks, utilities and other companies which are saying that they're ready (or will be ready). You just don't believe them ... because YOU know more than THEY do. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 01, 1999.

George- "Packet radio" is ham radio utilizing the computer. For more info- ask one of the resident "hams" on this forum- Chuck comes to mind.

-- anita (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), May 01, 1999.

Stephen,

I asked you a few days ago to SHOW ME. You didn't, you gave more of your opinions, and one sided comments.

"(or will be ready)" - this says it all my friend. We're working on it. We'll re ready, after a few years of trying, believe me, we're close. Any day now. Oh sure, we'll have a full year to test! No problem.

SHOW ME Stephen! Stop telling me why you are right, and we are wrong. SHOW ME Stephen! POST IT HERE FOR ALL TO SEE. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 01, 1999.

Sysman's Estimate:

One and half trillion eh? Why stop there? Why not make it 10 trillion. A 100! You obviously like writing zeros, go for it. If you are going to tell a lie, why not make it a big one - in the true Gary North tradition.

BTW, if you are representative of the calibre of IT people at your outfit, it is little wonder that it is "threatened from Y2K".

-- Computer Pro (first_minister@hotmail.com), May 02, 1999.

I would like to ask Stephen and Computer Pro and others who think like them a few honest questions.

1. Why do you expect nothing to happen? Is there something you see that the majority of us in this forum do not see?

2. Do you really believe that all the y2k problems are hype? Do you really think that the government and big business is spending all this money for nothing? If so, why?

3. Do you really believe that anyone in this forum would like to see the end of civilization? I ask this because of all the threads I have read asking the 'doomers' how they are going to feel if nothing major happens. (I'll feel about the same way you would have felt if you were first in line to buy a Studebaker!).

4. Can you really not imagine, stop and think about it for a minute please, TEOTWAWKI ever happening? If you can, short of nuclear war, what do you think could cause it to happen? Why do you think a computer problem could not bring about this situation? Do you agree or disagree that our whole way of life at present is tightly bound to computers and electricty.

I hope these do not sound confrontational. I do not mean them to. I really am curious as to why you are so dead set against it being possible. I do not mean to imply you think anyone is wrong for preparing. However, if any of you do, I would like to know why. But I sense alot of hostility (gee, could it be from some names like doomslayer? :P), that I just don't understand.

I have to admit, up front, that you won't change my mind about preparing (unless of course you can present proof that over 3/4's of businesses are already ready!), but I would honestly like to know. And please, no flaming their answers, because I am the one who asked them.

Dian

P.S. If you would feel more comfortable e-mailing me the answers, this is my real name and e-mail address.

-- Dian- (bdp@accessunited.com), May 02, 1999.

Computer Pro,

Don't make me go to the archive and post the report. Don't make me go to Reuters and post the report. Don't make me go to a thousand other sources to post the report. SHOW ME! Show me your opinion of what the cost of Y2K will be. Your opinion? Sorry, not interested. SHOW ME THE FACTS! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 02, 1999.

Sysman,

I asked you a couple of days ago to become rational. Instead, I keep getting invented figures and guesses and lots of hand-waving.

I'm not a puppet on your string. If you really believe that this "challenge" means something, fine; you win. =:*

Go talk about Y2K to the sofa, or better yet, go wave your arms in someone else's face.

You and Andy need to start a club. Now go away.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 02, 1999.

"You and Andy need to start a club. Now go away."

Wanker.

-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.

Dian-

try these to places which are helping me "unget it". no, they don't discourage preps, and they don't think y2k is nothing.

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006

http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn.html

there are many other links on these places, and tons of good info that was not (or will ever) be posted here.

-- clam (ithinki@just un.gotit), May 02, 1999.

Comp Pro - Sysman knows the 1 trill. figure was proven impossible, so he just up-ed it to 2! what the hell!

No doubt someone from the clueless masses department will now transfer that figure to one of the other fear-mongers sites, and it will continue to grow. All for the good cause of...? (why help spread rumors?)

Dian - You need to read a few more threads from the archives if you don't think that a good portion of the regulars here want TEOTWAWKI. some names that come to mind are Invar, ray, andy, prepared, E coli, Nikoli, Cory, Paul Milne, a, A, mass delusions, ect. To a lesser degree people like Leska, Diane, Arlin, Kevin, Sysman, Bigdog, really want to >believe< in TEOTW, and struggle hard to deny any facts that challange that belief. you might want to think twice about hanging here.

-- (postnosp@m.please), May 02, 1999.

Has Gary North sold out on us?

He sold out long ago to the Golden God...

-- @ (@@@.@@@), May 02, 1999.

I've noticed that people discuss Y2K with the same fervor usually reserved for religion and politics. If you think Gary North or anyone else is full of shit, why not just say so instead of frothing at the mouth over it?

If you saw a *National Enquirer* headline: BODY OF JESUS CHRIST DISCOVERED ON THE MOON WITH SCROLL PREDICTING THE END OF THE WORLD IN 2000 you'd probably just shrug or laugh derisively. You wouldn't get all upset about it (at least I don't think people generally get upset about the *National Enquirer*) On the other hand, if you have a rational belief that it's wise to prepare for possible disasters--say, you carry fire and flood insurance on your house--you're not gonna get all riled up because some people don't, are you? Well, actually, maybe you have a valid reason to get upset if you think you'll end up paying for their lack of foresight with higher tax bills.

People's reactions to the topic of Y2K lead me to believe the following: 1. No one really has a clue what's gonna happen; 2. Most people have an intutive feeling that something major could happen and, in fact, is likely to happen; 3. The people who froth at the mouth over Gary North are working hard to be in denial; 4. The people who froth at the mouth in response to the people in category 3 may have a valid reason for getting upset, because if the Y2K problems turn out to be severe, the people who insisted that nothing bad will happen are going to be going through the panic stages right about when the shit hits the fan, which will exacerbate an already difficult situation.

I think I'm talking myself into siding with the people in group 4.

--GG altamira@ecpi.com (I'm not directly involved with IT, so I don't think there's any reason not to use my real e-mail address, is there?)

-- Gal Gardner (altamira@ecpi.com), May 02, 1999.

Gal:

Gary North advertises his agenda. He desperately wants our system to collapse so he can be part of setting up the theocracy he believes in. Just because some of us find this anathema, doesn't mean we aren't preparing. We can laugh at the contortions North goes through to twist reality into fitting his fantasies, and still recognize that y2k is a genuine threat.

I think economic and infrastructure collapse is pretty far-fetched, but cannot yet be ruled out entirely. And in a world of screwups (which we *will* have), you never know when Murphy might decide that this just isn't your lucky day. Being as ready as possible is only sensible.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 1999.

Stephen, Computer Pro, and (postnosp@m.please),

"invented figures" - "proven impossible" - You guys should have just shut up. You're really going to have to crank up your bullshit machine now. While you're getting ready for your next round of no-facts, hot-air opinions, take a look at this link...

$4,000,000,000,000.00 estimate

I'll save you the time. Here's a snip...

"Gartner Group's well-known estimate of $300 billion to $600 billion in year 2000 costs covers only the expense of repairing Cobol code ... Estimates for total costs related to the year 2000, including lost business opportunities, litigation, and the cost of making desktop computers, networks, and embedded technology compliant, range as high as $4 trillion"

I told you to not make me do it. Now, what do you guys have to SHOW US, except for more HOT AIR? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

http://www.kcstar.com:80/item/pages/business.pat,business/30daf2cd.430 ,.html

snip>>>>> Anderson's point was aimed at Y2K spending. He believes information technology professionals at major U.S. corporations have been on a financial sugar high, chalking up all kinds of spending to Y2K. Does the sales department need new marketing software? Put it in the Y2K budget.

"If you give a 2-year-old a hammer, everything becomes a nail," Anderson said. "If you give an I.T. professional extra funding for Y2K, everything looks like Y2K."

That type of hand-in-the-cookie-jar thinking has led to unprecedented overstatement about Y2K, Anderson said.

"Y2K is easily the most overhyped issue of the last five years," Anderson said. "Everybody swore to each other that it was a bigger and bigger and bigger problem."

Anderson believes the capper came when other research firms projected that 1 trillion lines of computer code in the U.S., and another trillion lines overseas, had to be examined and fixed. He took a slap at projections that Y2K would cost $600 billion worldwide.

His projection? Because most Yankee Group clients are spending about 15 to 20 percent of their technology budgets on Y2K, and a total of $706 billion is spent yearly by government and corporations worldwide on technology, Anderson said about $100 billion a year was spent on Y2K. "Maybe $300 billion over the last three years," he said. <<<<<<<<<<

there are other links in this one, I won't add them so as to keep the thread size down.

http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/837.html

this last one may not count, but it does give the numbers for crunching

http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/972.html

And what is the big deal with the big numbers? IBM earned more profits in ONE quarter than their entire remediation tab!

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/bs/story.html?s=v/nm/19990421/bs/ earns_ibm_3.html

-- Mild Mannered Reporter (y2khypeisafraud@don't.buyit), May 03, 1999.

What Sissyman didn't say about his snip is this;

"In case studies of three companies" 3. there are other studies that show companies are getting it done for much less.

-- Hip Hypocite Hater (poiwert@;lasdg.f;lkh), May 03, 1999.

Hippie,

If you're going to post a quote, post the whole thing. You wouldn't want it taken out of context, now would you? <:)=

"In case studies of three companies, Gartner Group found the extent and costs of year 2000 problems in distributed computing environments had been seriously underestimated. The cost of repairing distributed code can be as high as $8.50 per line, compared with only $1.10 for Cobol, Gartner reports."

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

here's a snip from ComputerWorld:

By Gary H. Anthes

Rick Flagler, information systems manager at Miniature Precision Bearings Corp., says he originally "freaked out" at his year 2000 problem. He also freaked out over a consulting firm's $2 million estimate to fix the problem  for just one of the Keene, N.H., company's divisions. Instead, Flagler's group developed its own methodology and conversion software. He now estimates he'll do the whole job  on millions of lines of IBM AS/400 Cobol, RPG and C code  for less than $200,000.

Flagler is one of a growing number of IS managers who are finding that Jan. 1, 2000, won't end the world as they know it. Vendor and press hyperbole notwithstanding, there are ways to approach the problem  and some lucky circumstances  that allow them to sleep nights.

Indeed, some companies and federal agencies are spending millions on pound-foolish projects when penny-wise patches might do, says Thomas Giammo, the former head of IS at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In many cases, year 2000 projects are driven more by fear than by rigorous analysis of need, he says.

"The alarmists have seized the field, and the burden of proof seems to be on those who say it's not that critical," Giammo says.

"I can see where some companies are in trouble, but vendors are really playing on the emotions of companies that are not in trouble," says Chuck Meehan, director of management information services at Insituform Technologies, Inc. in Memphis. "Some companies are spending huge amounts to change out their total software, which is asinine."

-- Mild Mannered Reporter (y2khypeisafraud@don't.buyit), May 03, 1999.

"If you're going to post a quote, post the whole thing. You wouldn't want it taken out of context, now would you? <:)= -- Sissyman"

No, I wouldn't...I was simply posting what YOU left out of your 'snip', hypocrite!

"Gartner Group's well-known estimate of $300 billion to $600 billion in year 2000 costs covers only the expense of repairing Cobol code ... Estimates for total costs related to the year 2000, including lost business opportunities, litigation, and the cost of making desktop computers, networks, and embedded technology compliant, range as high as $4 trillion"

-- Hip Hypocrite Hater (owefkszdg@l.skdgpios.nerg), May 03, 1999.

Sysman, you're getting your numbers from the Gartner Group??? Now that's funny! Let's take a look at how these bandits operate:

Naples Daily News Nov. 10 Naples Daily News March 17

So there you have it folks, the "wizard" from Gartner Group figures a job that actually cost $700,000 should have come in at $14 million. So Sysman, what do you think of the $590/hour that the consultant from Gartner charged for that piece of enlightenment? Let me take a wild guess, it is a bit more than what you are making. For that kind of dough, the least they could do is send you a nice cheque for so obediently posting their propaganda.

Or maybe you should talk to Kevin Schick. He was one of the first of the Gartner gang to do a Carl Sagan imitation when talking about Y2K estimates. He ended up as a VP at Viasoft (VIAS on the Nasdaq) - one of a group of Y2K upstarts who made a lot more money from fleecing investors than from fixing code. 18 months ago this stock was trading at well over 50 bucks a share and the company had a market cap of $1 billion. Now let's do a little reality check. You can buy the shares today for $4.40 and the company is worth less than $80 million. No doubt Gartner Group would put the $920 million that went bye-bye in this scam into their "lost business opportunities" category mentioned in your link. Like they say, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you beginning to talk real money!

Sysman, are you really that incredibly gullible? If so, let me sell you some wheat - good wheat, just 5 bucks a pound, lasts forever 

-- Computer Pro (first_minister@hotmail.com), May 03, 1999.