X-Message-Number: 15276
From: 
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 22:32:22 EST
Subject: Platt's points

Various friends have suggested it is demeaning for me even to notice Platt, 
let alone engage him point by point. For example, one wrote:

> Don't bother with Platt. Line by line refutation drags you down. Don't
> waste your time. I skip all Platt's stuff now, and for others, a few lines
> on your part should suffice.

I answered:

"You may well be right. On the other hand, different people react 
differently, and a perceived failure to respond may in some cases be seen as 
an admission. Anyway, for now I have committed myself to nailing him on every 
point."

Yes, there is the question of wasted time, and there is the chance of turning 
off newcomers by what strikes them as unseemly squabbling. Psychology in this 
sense is not exactly a science. On the other hand, extended tit-tat can also 
have a certain educational effect, and can also send visitors to our web 
site. Sometimes a little dust-up can seem to enliven some fairly heavy 
subject matter. And it may be salutary to convey a don't-mess-with-me 
message; you don't want to be perceived as a passive target.

Yes, making tit-tat responses also allows Platt to divert me temporarily from 
the main current topic, the deflation of Alcor's "vitrification" claims. So 
it will just stretch out longer. I'm not planning to die any time soon.

For now, just a couple of little things.

In # 15266 Platt asserts his lofty motivation: "As a writer by trade, I care 
a lot about the dissemination of information, as an end in itself." In 
context, of course, this means he wants the dissemination of (some) 
information that is sufficiently full and correct, by his criteria.

Balderdash. Some of us try hard to be rational at all times, but no one can 
avoid some degree of emotional vested interest in positions previously taken. 
He is grinding his axe as fast as he can. I am not immune, but I have been 
much better inoculated. 

I have said before that I make plenty of mistakes, on average maybe six every 
day--before breakfast. But my mistakes (or sins, or crimes, or acts of moral 
turpitude) are not the ones of which Platt accuses me.

In any case, the judgment is for the reader. Now:

In reference to his personal insults against my character, he says,

"The worst I suggested is that you were telling a slightly one-sided story in 
order to present your organization in a favorable light." 

Poppycock. Platt's characterization included "grossly and intentionally 
misleading," "worst kind of professional jealousy," "extremely offensive," 
"disgusting." And after that, he said he had restrained himself and otherwise 
would have used language five times that strong!

He is a professional writer, and chooses his language with care. I don't have 
to be a mind reader to know that he lied when he wrote, "The worst I 
suggested is that you were telling a slightly one-sided story   "

Finally, for this particular message, he says I still haven't answered his 
"central point"--why I "chose to omit mention of the most significant 
vitrification experiment in the history of cryobiology." 

Omit it? I have referred to it many times, and it has been extensively 
reported in The Immortalist and on our web site. My vitrification series is 
just that--a series--and not everything is mentioned, let alone fully 
covered, in every segment. The vitrification work at 21CM and elsewhere has 
merit--and so does Alcor's effort to exploit it--as I have also said many 
times; but I am not obligated to lavish effusive praise on the work at every 
turn. My stated aim in this series is to deflate overblown claims. 

Of course the work deserves praise--but exactly how much is precisely the 
question we are examining. As I have reminded readers repeatedly, with 
examples, there are many episodes in the history of cryobiology of partial or 
potential "breakthroughs" that stalled and were followed by many years or 
decades of disappointment. So far the "vitrification" evidence is only 
partial, indirect, and unsupported by independent verification. Welcome it, 
yes--but it's not time to holler Hallelujah.

Now, why has Platt STILL not responded to my question about Paul Wakfer? 
Wakfer has had close ties to 21CM and INC and the others in the research 
consortium, and also to some in Alcor, and is not (usually) friendly to me or 
to CI--but he has written public criticisms of Alcor's overblown claims 
rather similar to mine. So why doesn't Platt treat us to a public excoriation 
of Wakfer? Draw your own conclusions.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15276