X-Message-Number: 1023 Date: 19 Jul 92 20:15:26 EDT From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: Re: cryonics: #1018 - #1020 Hi again, Steve: Incidentally, this morning I tried to reach you for a quite different purpose. But sorry, for what it's worth I think "deanimation" and the other cryonics terminology remains needed. Perhaps I've been involved for too long, but it just seems quite impossible to make our point without making the distinctions these words make. I DO want to say, though, the last thing we should do is simply use them without defining them. The thing about using a special word is that it fixes the idea much more firmly in the mind than to use an older, sloppy word which could mean this, or could mean that, or could mean many other things. That's why "nanotechnology" is so good: anyone who knew biochemistry would be aware of nanotechnology, but all the implications don't become so clear without the name. Best Thomas PS: and please phone about the other matter. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1023