X-Message-Number: 23744 From: "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <> Subject: RE: Hoffman's Hubris (ref. Wakfers Wonderment - #23705) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:54:52 -0700 > > Message #23726 > From: "Michael P. Read" <> > Subject: RE: Hoffman's Hubris (ref. Wakfers Wonderment - #23705) > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:57:45 -0700 > > Kitty, > > In Rudi's defense, I've pretty much got the same impression from > your writings. You seem to be a very angry person. And your anger and > the length of your postings really aren't warranted by the topic. > That's how I see it. Mike Read appears to be reading anger into my posts to CryoNet; I am assuming he is referring to the 5 since 3/13. Where he sees anger in any of those except the most recent one is beyond me. I was merely factual with no emotion attached to the very first, but was growingly disappointed in the responses by Aubrey as I stated with my last message regarding him. (But then Mike too appears not to believe that what I wrote about my disappointment in #23682 was the truth.) I was definitely annoyed, even initially angry, to see Rudi's post - I would expect that most people would be the same, if someone made statements that were in effect accusations that they had lied. As for the length of my posts since 3/13, the first was 7kB. It would have been *much* shorter if I had merely made an assertion without providing any facts and without any additional examples of incorrect/misleading statements regarding Aubrey. But I didn't think (and still do not) that making assertions is of any value, especially not when attempting to show that errors have been made. In order to respond to Aubrey fully, without mere assertions and by courteously leaving much of his message for reference in my own responses, the length did indeed grow. I would not have thought that, in the attempt to be scrupulously fair and complete, the resulting message length would be reason for condemnation. But apparently that isn't so, at least for Mike Read. However be assured that I'm not angry now either, just once again disappointed that any understanding of the intent of the exchange with Aubrey was missed by another reader of CryoNet. I will suggest another way of looking at what I was doing in the exchange with Aubrey here at CryoNet (and what Paul has done with him and others elsewhere on the Internet) - it is as a "peer review" of interpersonal activity. This is what everyone should often do with others, but being sure that conclusions drawn and stated are based on facts and logical reasoning rather than mere opinions (and insults). Is this not what is being done with respect to Kennita's plans to attend FDGD? > > As far as Aubrey goes ... I met him when he came to Phoenix to > defend Alcor. He seems like a decent person to me. As I said in my last response in the exchange with Aubrey (#23682, the one that is in the archives only, so maybe Mike didn't bother to read it), I'd had some email exchange with him prior to and some conversations while at the IABG 10th Congress at Cambridge last September. Many of these last were on Tuesday Sept 23, the day following the actual 3.5 days of presentations. That activity was comprised mostly of "punting on the Cam"; there are a number of photos at MoreLife accessible from the Photo Index page, including ones of Aubrey - and Paul and me with him. Direct to the "downriver punt": http://morelife.org/personal/photos2003/photos_30.html Most certainly, Aubrey seemed to me to be "a [very] decent person" (and to Paul who had much more interfacing with him - since 1997 - than I had); consequently the significant disappointment I expressed as a result of him not simply acknowledging the misleading information re. titles and employment vs. "work" and stating that he would correct them. > If there are any > errors posted about his credentials, semantic or otherwise, it is > reasonable to figure that they are honest errors. Just lighten up. I fully expected after my very first message that if Aubrey - or anyone writing for him - were going to respond at all, it would be simply to acknowledge the misleading information re. titles and employment vs. "work" (as "honest errors") and state that these would be corrected so as to be factual. This is not what happened at all with Aubrey's response, and because truth is important - whether it is "lost" through "honest error" or by intent, I did not slink off into the shadows. As to Mike's suggestion that I "[just] lighten up", I do so when the circumstances are light. (I don't even require alcohol to have a good time or to lose inhibitions before dancing, like many I know. Just witness Paul and me on the dance floor at the clubs we frequent - at Heart-Five in Tucson on Wednesday nights till we return to Toronto on 4/7. Tonight's set of house music was especially good & we got in a good 90 minutes straight of high energy dancing.) But then Mike does not know me at all. And furthermore, when I initially point out a person's error (suspected, apparent or obvious), I do so with the facts and with a minimum, if any, conclusions stated as to the person's intent. Now this message is probably far too long for Mike's liking - and likely because it is not just a "light" two-liner, he will conclude that I am "angry". But because he cannot read my mind (and I cannot read his) there is a requirement for words to be written in order that the contents of my mind on this subject be communicated in hopes that they be understood. Mike can choose to ignore what I have written (here and in the previous posts), dismissing the contents as not "light" enough, and he is of course entitled to do so. But getting the serious message out about the valid scientific basis and promising future of cryonics (and anti-aging research), as a means to maximize the lifetime happiness (primary goal) of an individual who wants it, requires factual non-misleading statements - which can at the same time be sincere and enthusiastic. Once interacting individuals understand *and* agree on these principles, there can be appreciation for and enjoyment of truly "light" moments. **Kitty Antonik Wakfer MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23744