X-Message-Number: 24684
From: 
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:29:12 EDT
Subject: Re: CryoNet #24670 - #24678

Referring to the message below, Alcor member "Greg" or  "nsane1" refers to 
"attacks" on Alcor on CI's web site. There are no  attacks, only defense and 

explanation. There are explanations of what CI  does, and of our understanding 
of 
what Alcor does, and of our reasons for our  preferences. Once again, the 

reason for comparisons on the CI site is  simply the long and continuous history
of Alcor deprecating CI and making claims  we believe are sometimes 

unjustified. In any case, is there anything on the CI  site that could be 
interpreted as 
imputing bad faith to Alcor? I don't  think so.
 
On the other hand, look at Joe Waynick's message today:  "If Mr.  Ettinger 

truly wants a  no comparison  d tente, then he needs to stop  the justification
for the outlandish comparisons and misrepresentations on his  own website."
 
First, it isn't my web site, but CI's, and is the product of several  

writers, with review by others. "Outlandish misrepresentations"?  This  is a 
clear 
accusation of gross bad faith, and I resent it mightily.  (I  won't comment on 
the words "stop the justification")
 
Secondly, "he needs to stop" implies we should make a unilateral gesture,  in 
return for nothing, with Alcor continuing its exaggerated claims. (Also,  

again, it's not "he"--the site is CI's, not mine and I do not have the highest

office in CI, thanks be to the Omega Point, and I no longer do much of the work
 on the site.)
 
Ben can play peacemaker all he wants, but my advice is that cooperation  must 
be a two-way street. 
 
Robert Ettinger
In a message dated 9/21/2004 5:00:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  
 writes:


Message #24676
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:45:37 -0500
From:  
Subject: Re: Comparing Organizations

>I have  to agree with everyone on this.  Ettinger's first email was right  
>"we shouldn't be disparaging each other".  I've said this many  times, we 
>are way too small, and have too much in common, and have way  too many 
>common enemies to be getting fragmented.

Having said  that, after read Joe's comments, I checked out the CI site, and 
he's  right, in retrospect, Ettinger's comments seem a tad hypocritical... 
While  Alcor is mentioned only a few times by name, there are direct 
"attacks"  made against the financials of an unnamed company that charges 
the same  fees as Alcor.  Also compared are a Toyota and a Rolls.  And then,  
a crazy allusion to Consumer Reports...

I agree with both, it's one  thing to believe you represent the best org, 
quite another to attack  directly (even while unnamed).

And for the record, I do NOT like  consumer reports (like I give a crap 
about a comparison of 2 cheap cars or  toasters I would never buy), and will 
always prefer the rolls over the  toyota.  So if you are marketing to me 
(admittedly I AM an Alcor  member) you missed the boat, but hey everyone is 
different, and CU sells  tons of mags...

Can't we just all get  along?
Greg







 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24684