X-Message-Number: 32484
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32479 - #32481
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:41:33 +0100
References: <>

On 15 Mar 2010, at 10:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> I've been a bit curious as to what agenda whoever negatively rates my
> posts has. Is it someone from the Cold Filter holding a grudge? Is
> there a bot that automatically flags as abusive anyone who mentions
> Melody's name? Or did I actually step on some toes?

My guess is that any talk about room temp. suspension is regarded as  
subversive on a cryonics list, because it is not cryogenic temp. and  
would cut into the business of current suppliers by offering a cheaper  
option.

They fail to understand that any more available suspension option,  
leading to greater numbers accepting suspension, would also legitimize  
cryogenic temp. suspension.


>
> Whatever the case, I find it more humorous than worrisome. The post
> was clearly not abusive, much thanks to Kitty and Melody for standing
> up for me on this. However, I actually think the system is functioning
> well, in that people *are* reacting against negative agenda-driven
> ratings, and combating them with positive ones.

This means extra work for readers and doesn't improve the List. There  
is no way this can be regarded as positive. It is simply a waste of  
time and shows cryonics in a bad light to the world. We are asking  
people to trust their lives to a new unproven technology, when the  
people applying that technology can't even manage a proven one - email.


dss


David Stodolsky
  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32484