reply to post by TSOM87
I see where you're coming from, but I don't think that the comparison to Y2K is a smart comparison, even though I've heard/seen it be used a
lot.
When you eliminate all of the BS surrounding Y2K, the just of it was that we as a collective group panicked and freaked out over a hypothetical
computer glitch that was hypothetically supposed to destroy our planet via nuclear bombs going off without warning and all computer systems crashing
due to this hypothetical glitch. It was never explained
how exactly something like this could happen simply because the year on a computer
went from 1999 to 1901, but that didn't matter, because our fear based society jumped right on the bandwagon and started crapping our pants over the
issue.
So, because of that fact, I don't blame anybody for thinking 2012 will be nothing more than Y2K. The problem is, and what people fail to remember,
is that that MSM/big business didn't invent 2012 to sensationalize the possibility of the end of the world for profit, like they did with Y2K. 2012
has been called for thousands of years, by many different cultures that had no communication with each other (that we can prove, at least). And every
time the 2012 number pops up in those cultures, they don't speak of the end of times, they simply speak of a great change, a great enlightenment, a
golden age, etc...no Armageddon.
Do I think the MSM and big business are
currently trying to sensationalize 2012 into something it's not, for the sake of profit and to keep us
afraid? You're darn tootin' I do. But all that does is make me come to the conclusion that the mainstream, corporate owned media cannot be trusted
on the subject of 2012 (or any other subject for that matter), and that I should be doing my own
objective, unbiased research on 2012; which
would really tie in well with the motto of this site (Deny Ignorance, in case people have forgot, lol).
[edit on 8-1-2009 by matth]