X-Message-Number: 31493
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Phil Ossifur <>
Subject: Moderation debate on Cold Filter-- Maxim vs. CPlatt
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/thread/1236989274/Moderation-+Which+is+it+to+be-
Next Topic >> Go back
Moderation: Which is it to be?
March 13 2009 at 8:07 PM charles platt (Login cplatt)
Veteran Member
While I believe Jonathan Hinek is well intentioned, I have reached the
conclusion that the main problem here is moderation. I believe inconsistent,
partisan, or intermittent moderation is worse than strict moderation (at one
extreme) or no moderation at all (at the other extreme). Inconsistent moderation
is like inconsistent government regulation. No one knows what to expect, and no
one knows what is legitimate or illegitimate. Worse still, the site gains
spurious credibility by being "moderated" when in fact some absurd and in some
cases deceptively derogatory personal smears are permitted.
To take one example among many, a diligent moderator would not have allowed a
conscientious and personally committed employee of a cryonics service provider
to be mocked often and repeatedly as "golf pro." This was a rather obvious
attempt to discredit her (and by extension, her employer) by linking her with a
previous career that ended many years previously. The smear was especially
egregious since the employee has studied successfully for EMT certification,
which I believe makes her better qualified in emergency medicine than her
detractors, and unusually well qualified to participate in cryonics cases. I
note that she has worked in numerous practice sessions and training sessions,
and in the one actual case in which she participated, her tasks were executed
flawlessly.
I have also been a target myself, but I am not so much interested in that.
First, I have to respect the source in order to respond to it. Second, I learned
long ago that posting factual corrections in response to mudslinging is
ineffective, the only potent response being to sling more mud, which I am
unwilling to do. (Thus, even though an attorney in Louisiana gave me information
about the criminal record of a participant on this forum more than six months
ago, I chose not to make it public.)
Here is the core of the matter. I have noted with much amusement, on Cold
Filter, frequent demands for "professionalism in cryonics," mostly from persons
displaying the most unprofessional behavior imaginable. But if "professionalism"
really is a desirable goal here, I suggest that denigrating someone as a "golf
pro" is just as inappropriate as referring to someone as having been "convicted
of vehicular homicide."
If you agree, Jonathan, then you have some work to do. My question is: Are you
willing to do it?
Respond to this message
Author Reply
Finance Department
(Login Finance_Department)
Veteran Member
The Forum I Was Going to Start 5 Years Ago
March 14 2009, 3:10 AM
http://www.network54.com/Forum/288161/
I have posted this a couple of times here before. It has a lower number than CF.
I was going to do this as an alternative to Rock Pitvin's constantly
disappearing catastrophes. Then CF came along and I have been enjoying the ride.
If CF ever becomes a place for censorship, partisanship, or other ships that do
not take cryonics afloat, I would consider launching this old boat. I don't want
to tho. I have other things to do than to run a N54 forum.
Cheers,
FD aka NonEMoose
P.S. Enjoy the lame jokes.
Respond to this message
Melody Maxim
(Login melmax)
Veteran Member
Subversive Manipulation
March 14 2009, 10:18 AM
Platt: To take one example among many, a diligent moderator would not have
allowed a conscientious and personally committed employee of a cryonics service
provider to be mocked often and repeatedly as "golf pro." This was a rather
obvious attempt to discredit her (and by extension, her employer) by linking her
with a previous career that ended many years previously.
When I first questioned the salaries at SA, on this forum, the person in
question wrote to me, stating he/she could be earning as much money as he/she
was at SA, but as a "golf pro." Prior to his/her EMT-Basic training, Platt sent
this person, along with two equally unqualified people, to perform the washout
procedure, (a perfusion procedure), on a Cryonics Institute patient. The
subsequent report, (written by two equally unqualified persons who weren't even
present for the case), was a medical nightmare, in my opinion, and I believe
anyone familiar with perfusion procedures would have interpreted it just as I
did.
Platt: The smear was especially egregious since the employee has studied
successfully for EMT certification, which I believe makes her better qualified
in emergency medicine than her detractors, and unusually well qualified to
participate in cryonics cases...
The "smear" was primarily directed at the employer of the person in question,
because the salary for that person, while I was at SA, was ridiculously
excessive for someone with NO qualifications for providing medical services, and
no duties that would warrant such a generous salary. I believe that salary to
have been roughly equivalent to that of 3-4 experienced, EMT-Basics. Also, the
"smear" can probably be credited for the person attending EMT-BASIC training
since, as I recall, the person was not interested in patient care, until he/she
was publicly criticized.
I doubt the person in question is "better qualified in emergency medicine than
all of her detractors," because at least one of them spent six months, (during
perfusion school), performing the same clinical rotations as a medical intern,
which included inserting IV's, drawing blood, giving injections and assisting
with other invasive medical procedures. That person also did a semester of
clinical rotations for nursing school in recent years, which again, included
quite a few invasive procedures that EMT-Basics are not allowed to perform, and
hence are not trained to perform. Platt's comparison of the medical skills of
these two people is painfully inadequate and, perhaps, knowingly deceptive.
Platt: I have also been a target myself, but I am not so much interested in
that. First, I have to respect the source in order to respond to it.
As I recall, Platt was only capable of responding to the criticisms directed at
his activities in cryonics, by spreading blatant lies which were published on
this forum, by his co-worker at the time, Steve Harris. As a result, Platt felt
compelled to hire an attorney who instructed him to publicly retract and
apologize. It's understandable he would cease to respond to the criticisms,
after that. I believe it has more to do with "not having a leg to stand on,"
than it has to do with respect.
In response to Platt's comparison of criticisms, I am going to argue that the
attacks he is complaining about were mostly made a long time ago, and were
directly related to the lack of qualifications of an employee of a company said
to be offering medical services for cryonics patients. When a person who has
defended their salary at SA, by claiming to be able to earn as much, working as
a golf pro, is sent to perform medical procedures, PRIOR to receiving any type
of medical training, I believe the public has a right to know. The "smear" was
meant to discredit SA and Platt's selection, (as manager of SA), of grossly
under-qualified employees who were grossly overpaid. On the other hand, the
comparison Platt makes is totally unrelated, and nothing more than a personal
attack.
In response to Platt's plea to the moderator, I ask the moderator to consider
that most of the recent criticisms of the lack of qualifications of cryonics
employees, (which have not been solely restricted to employees at SA), have
contained a number of examples of professionals who shouldn't be sent to perform
medical procedures, (ballet dancers, accountants, used car salesmen, rocket
scientists, etc.). I also ask the moderator to recognize that Platt's mention of
details regarding an incident totally unrelated to cryonics, was a subversive
personal attack intended to re-post identifying details which the moderator has
already removed, and an attempt to manipulate the moderator to limit commentary
on the qualifications, or lack thereof, of cryonics employees.
Most of the "smear" Platt is complaining about took place a long time ago, so I
have no idea why he would want to revive it. As I've written before, there are
personal details I know about people associated with SA, (including Platt, and
the person in question), but I would never post them here, as those things,
though true, would be nothing more than "personal attacks," not relevant to how
these people perform as cryonics patient care providers.
Respond to this message
Current Topic - Moderation: Which is it to be?
Next Topic >> Go back
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31493
Warning: This message was filtered from the daily CryoNet digest
because the poster's reputation was too low.
It thus may need to be rated.