X-Message-Number: 2519
Date: 07 Jan 94 04:43:33 EST
From: Mike Darwin <>
Subject: CRYONICS Re: Schroeppel's criticism of Darwin's criticism

In reply to Richard Schroeppel's criticism of my criticism of Douglas
Skrecky's proposals I would note the following:

1) I HAVE NOT, contrary to Mr. Schroeppel's assertion, tried to suppress
alternative storage approaches and in fact I spent several paragraphs not
only discussing the importance (and limitations) of such, but actually
suggesting some lines of research to pursue.  I challenge Mr. Schroepppel
to produce any REAL evidence that I feel or have acted otherwise.

2) Douglas Skrecky's material was and is claptrap for the reasons I stated
it is.  I did not attack Mr. Skrecky in an ad hominem way and was quite
careful to limit my criticism to what I perceived as scientific
sloppiness and gross inaccuracy.

3) There is a BIG difference between trying to RESPONSIBLY FILTER new
ideas and trying to suppress them.  Creativity is a two-part process:
generation of new ideas followed by DISCRIMINATION in evaluating/testing
them.  99% of all new ideas are crud (mine included).  That is why we
filter them first.  The first (coarse) step in this filtration process is
to eliminate KNOWN problems, scientific impossibilities, misconceptions,
etc. Indeed, the person originating the ideas has the primary
responsibility to do this.  Someone who STOPS at idle theorizing and puts
it forth as a credible solution to a serious problem is NOT acting
responsibly.  Nor are those who aid and abet them.

4) During my tenure as Editor of CRYONICS I saw a ton of obvious garbage
cross my desk.  If I had published it all, many valuable and
scientifically credible things would not have been published.  Was I
discrimnating and suppressing when I did this?  You bet, and I'm proud of
it, too.  Obvious claptrap is a waste of everyone's time.   

5) Per #4 above, the number of demented, misguided, screwed-up,
misinformed and otherwise obviously WRONG people out there who can write
is staggering.  Until you edit a magazine you will NEVER know!  This is
not hubris on my part, this is reality (ask any magazine or book

6) Leaving aside the sloppy and the nut cases, there is often material
which while intellectually sound (or at least not obvious claptrap) the
Editor feels doesn't win in the competetion against better material.  I
rejected a number of pieces for CRYONICS which in my opinion just weren't
as important, or as good, or as whatever,  as what I chose to publish.  I
bring this up to point out that this is NOT what I am talking about here. 
It is about material which doesn't make the grade any way you look at it.

So what is your problem with that, Richard?

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2519