X-Message-Number: 16355
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 07:20:22 -0400
From: Kitty Antonik <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #16353 Attacking Vs Judging
References: <>

This message is from Paul not Kitty.

>Message #16353
>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 19:39:20 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Ben Best <>
>Subject: My membership in CI


>    I suggest to you Charles, that your attacks on CI are
> not doing anything to improve the organization. One of the many reasons
> that Paul Wakfer has put me on his list of people he deems unworthy of
> his association is because I did not join him in attacking CI on 
> CryoNet.

What Ben and others need to learn is that there is a difference between
"attacking" and "judging", between writing scientific truth and making
political arguments! Ben and others are indeed on my list of people I
deem are unworthy of my association, but the reason is because I do not
tolerate those who betray their own principles and beliefs by not being
willing to stand up and speak and support the truth wherever they see or
read it. However, in Ben's case the main reasons were first, that he
admitted to not even reading my posts about cryopreservation science let
alone not supporting them, and second, his behavior concerning the
election of a new Cryonics Society of Canada Director and President
(which is documented elsewhere on CryoNet). 

> Again, I find this behavior to be counterproductive -- and 
>I want to point this out to you in the spirit of constructive suggestion
>rather than as an attack on you.

If saying that your intention is constructive makes it so, then why does
speaking the truth become an attack?

> Mike Darwin has stated that in his
>attempts to build Kryos he is refraining from publicly attacking or
criticizing other cryonics organizations.

Again why can you and others not understand that criticism does not
equate with attacks? Are you maintaining that the same words words would
be fine so long as we prefaced them with "I am only trying to be
constructive here" or some such?

>   I am a somewhat simple-minded person in many ways, and can be moved
> by some simple allegories & sayings.

Then we have something in common. I too like them because they are short
form summations of quite deep philosophical thinking. I give no apology
for using them and do not consider such use to be "simple-minded" at

> A Chinese saying that has stuck
> with me for many years is, "It is better to strike a match than to
> curse the darkness."

Speaking the truth is like striking a match. Compromising with those who
are still in the dark (and don't know it) after they have been given
light from matches struck by others is not at all like striking a match.

> And I am moved by the fable of the Wind & the Sun
>-- when the wind tried to blow-off a man's coat, the man only wrapped
>the coat more tightly around himself. But when the Sun shone brightly
>the man removed his coat and hung it over his shoulders.

As Ranger Marcus Cole said: "I have often found that a kind word and a
two-by-four work much
better than just a kind word." :-)

Seriously, what method is used depends highly on the character of those
on the receiving end. If they are pig-headed and arrogantly intransigent
as some in cryonics appear to be, then different methods are necessary
than if they are open to logic and reason. 

> But I also want desperately to survive, and
> I believe that the best way to do so is to be as constructive as I
> can be.

Although not desperate, I too want to live for as long as possible. But
I think that the best way to do so is to always speak the truth and to
support others who do so in any reasonable manner. 

>   Again, please don't take this as an attack -- it is a suggestion.

Again, you cannot deny making a judgment just by saying it is a
Paul Antonik Wakfer

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16355