X-Message-Number: 26874 From: Subject: Reply to Tru Numberman2 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:42:51 US/Eastern Tru Numberman2 wrote: > Aside from all the discussion concerning anonymity, my > posts which kicked that round of debate off are valid > regardless of who posts them-- name or no name. The > essence of the problem I introduced was that CI's > expression of the quantity of their "members" led to a > widely inaccurate understanding of how many people > were "signed up for cryonics" at CI. The important > distinction to be made, from now on, will be that a > member has "verified funding" or "non-verified > funding" (the latter of which covers the possibility > of "no-funding".) Click on the following link where > you'll find the final definitive statement on the > matter, with a no-log in response area where you may > make a final comment. Concerning Tru Numberman's anonymity, I was merely pointing to a certain hypocrisy between purporting to stand for full disclosure while using a false name. The use of pseudonyms has costs and benefits, but I don't think the use of a pseudonym is necessarily unethical. Names are conventions, not "real objects", and a person should surely be able to choose or change the name attached to himself or herself. Tru Numberman2 has softened the accusations of intentional deceit he made against the Cryonics Institute -- and me in particular -- before low ratings may have caused him to increment his name & e-mail address so he could continue to post on CryoNet. Now he simply refers to "CI's expression" which led to "widely inaccurate misunderstanding". Robert Ettinger cannot be accused of this purported deceit because is was not his policy to publish membership numbers while he was President of CI. As President of CI I have steadily been increasing disclosure, partly helped by my creation of a database which made numerical determinations quicker and easier. Insofar as I have been the source of all published Membership numbers (in my regular membership reports in THE IMMORTALIST), it is hard to understand how I could be accused of deceit. Why would I mention the 201 funded as well as the 520 total CI Members in my 29-Apr-2005 report (published in the May-June issue of THE IMMORTALIST) if I really meant to hide the first number? For that matter, why would I have mentioned 181 funded and 283 unfunded CI Members in my 18-Sept-2004 report (which our ace investigative journalist Tru Numberman somehow missed)? Tru Numberman's ignorance and misunderstandings cannot be taken as grounds for accusing me of deception or cover-up. Totaling and comparing the numbers of the cryonics organizations is not a simple matter. The American Cryonics Society has a policy of not disclosing its membership numbers. Comparing Alcor Members with funded CI Members overlooks the fact that CI funding does not automatically include Standby or Transport. No Alcor category corresponds to CI's Option One or Option Two Memberships. The difference in price between Alcor and CI underscores a difference in product. More often people who realize they are terminal and must pay cash to be cryopreserved choose CI, which is part of the reason CI has as many patients as Alcor has. Robert Ettinger and the other founders of CI created a $1,250 Membership fee in 1976 as a means of getting money & commitment prior to sign-up & funding. David Pascal created Option Two Membership in the late 1990s. I have accepted these institutions as part of my legacy and see no reason to change them. The choice of the terms Membership by both Alcor and CI were made for internal reasons, not for purposes of comparison. Alcor's choice is not necessarily "right" because it is Alcor's choice. But if Alcor is "right", why does Mr. Numberman insist on the word "cryoneer"? (If there is a conspiracy, it is a conspiracy of his perceptual apparatus & paranoia against himself.) I have much more objection to a subscriber to Consumer's Report being a Member of the Consumer's Union because it implies that by subscribing to the magazine that I support their policies. -- Ben Best, President, Cryonics Institute Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26874