X-Message-Number: 31500 From: David Stodolsky <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #31488 - #31497 Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:57:20 +0100 References: <> On 15 Mar 2009, at 10:00, CryoNet wrote: > Message #31488 > From: "John de Rivaz" <> > Subject: religion declining > Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:52:09 -0000 > > It makes sense to me that secularised societies are more anti- > cryonics than > religious ones. What makes sense to you is at odds with the data. If you don't understand that there is a difference between opinion and scientific findings, then you are out of your league in this discussion. > > > > Message #31489 > From: "John de Rivaz" <> > Subject: publicity, organ transplants > Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:52:47 -0000 > > Publicity etc. > > I may be getting confused here, but Dr Stodolsky did mention a large > sum of > money on the Venturists' list - maybe even more than the entire > capitalisation of the existing cryonics organisations. Consulting previous posts is a way to overcome confusion. > > > "Development of a new model" suggests to me another way of saying > "thinking > up a new way to present cryonics". This sort of brain storming has > been > going on for decades within the movement, at meetings, in > newsletters and > laterly on the internet. I find it very hard to beleive that this > can be > bettered by giving large sums of money to professionals, however well > qualified, to spend a few weeks or months on the job. > There is a difference between 'brainstorming' and scientific investigation. There has been a single data collection of attitudes toward cryonics. My reanalysis uncovered what that data mean for the promotion of cryonics. I am not going to waste my time repeating myself or responding to attempts to question my motives. Any objection to the results has to be an objection to the scientific findings. Other comments will be ignored. dss David Stodolsky Skype: davidstodolsky Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31500