X-Message-Number: 26810
From: 
Subject: Reply to Tru Numberman (False Nameman & False Interpretationman)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:33:31 GMT

  Tru Numberman wrote:

> So an unfunded CI member comes up with 28 grand in 24
> hours-- cash-- and this is presented in a way that
> supports the idea that many of CI's unfunded members
> seem to be able to do this-- lending credibility to
> the claim to 529 members, not just 211 who are fully
> funded. Further thoughts on this will be posted at the
> following area: 
> 
> http://www.network54.com/Forum/431922
> 
> I consider Ben Best's highlighting of the CI#69 payment to be clever deceipt.
> 

> CI President Ben Best's highlighting of CI#60's payment is, in my view, 
cleverly 

> deceiptful. Here's why: Ben has stripped the context off of the news of the 
payment 

> of $28,000 in 13 hours, and has associated the idea of an "unfunded member" 
with 

> that payment as though this is an example of "many" of these cases. What he is

> implying, as a result, is a pool of funds that is 300+ "unfunded members" X 
$28,0000

> -- or close to 10 million dollars of "hidden reserve funding" that CI can draw
upon

> whenever a "member" goes down. This clever implication-- a result of saying 
less 

> rather than more-- is again cleverly associated with implying that CI's claim 
to 

> 500+ members is justified. This, to me, is like a poker game. I don't know 
what 
> it would mean to call CI's bluff-- or how that would be done exactly. I do 

> believe Ben is bluffing in his apparent implication, however. Of course, it's

> perfectly within legal constraints to bluff this way so ultimately there's no

> "real" problem. In this poker bluff, however, I'm just calling a spade a 
spade. 

> I think it's very interesting that Rudi Hoffman has been pushing Ben on his 
front, 

> in this little situation. The bottom line right now is still, in my book, 
CI=211 
> "members" meaning full-funded members. 

   There was no deception in my statement. As I have asserted in my previous 
messages (CryoMsg 26717 & 26720) there can be no exact comparison between 
the categories of CI Membership and the categories of Alcor Membership. But
I frankly don't give a shit whether you or anyone else believes that CI 
only has 211 Members. I am not a party to your numbers game and I am not
a party to the kind of boasting and breastbeating I see in CryoNet. My reading 
of your personality is that you are someone who tries to enhance your stature 
by deprecating others. 

   It is true that it frequently happens that many unfunded CI Members
(non-Members by your definition) do manage to come up with funding for 
cryopreservation -- especially when deanimation looms. But in other cases
they don't. In most cases I am disappointed by the patient care received
by our Members -- a problem exacerbated by the fact that funding is often
arranged in haste when more attention needs to be paid to stabilization. 
I want to do much, much better than we are doing at present. It might interest
you to know that 6 of the 7 patients CI received in 2004 had only become
Members in the year previous to their cryopreservation. There seems to be a 
trend of our Patients being people (or close relatives of people) who became 

Members after discovering that they (or a close relative) had a terminal 
disease. 

 CI and Alcor are different organizations. There are many qualitative 
differences that cannot be quantified. For cryonicists, there is strength in
diversity of cryonics organizations. CryoCare, once the "greatest" of 
cryonics organizations (though never the largest) is now nothing more than

a decaying carcass. Eventually I hope that other organizations will emerge. Many
may be small and fledgling at first -- particularly those in other countries
-- but the diversity will be our strength. Save your hatred for our enemies,
Mr. Tru Numberman, unless you are really one of them. No cryonics organization
is so invulnerable that it cannot be destroyed by a bad turn of events. 

              -- Ben Best, President, Cryonics
Institute

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26810