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