X-Message-Number: 33451
From: "Chris Manning" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: All About Evil, Part 2
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:23:55 +1100

I try to read every cryonet post and I have read all of every recent post 
from Mike Darwin.
There is a lot which I as a non-scientist can't claim to understand, but I 
try to understand what I can. About his most recent post I would like to 
make a few comments as follows:

> This lengthily detour is germane in responding to your (George's) comment,
> because Maxim did not bother to ask clarifying questions, or even to in 
> any
> way  qualify her remarks - rather she attacked and accused. In the first
> instance, by  incorrectly and unjustly calling me a liar. That indicates
> pre-judgment, and it  also cuts off further communication.

It need not do that. A person who is accused of lying could respond by 
asking their accuser such questions as 'What the true state of affairs (in 
your opinion)?', 'How do you know that I know that (i.e. that I am not 
simply mistaken)?' or 'What reason/motive would I have for lying?'

These are just general remarks. I am not concerned here with the truth about 
any specific instance.

> Attempting to make  meaningful technical change at CI is a frustrating,
> micro- incremental, and  mostly unrewarding process. Most suggestions are 
> met
> with the ripostes that they  are "unaffordable, impractical, or 
> unnecessary"

Well just as one small example, here is what happened when I made a 
suggestion to CI. The Nov-Dec 2009 issue of 'Long Life' magazine had an 
article about the annual inspection of the CI premises carried out on behalf 
of the American Cryonics Society. The article contained a photo of Andy 
Zawacki manually measuring the level of the liquid nitrogen in each 
cryostat. I posted the following to the CI group:

'I was surprised by the method of measuring the level of the liquid nitrogen 
in the cryostats. I had assumed there was some automated process with gauges 
connected to floats (like in a car) and you just go around and read the 
gauges. Surely something like this could be done.'

I will take the liberty of quoting Andy's reply:

'The method we use to measure the liquid nitrogen level is simple, accurate, 
foolproof and inexpensive. Floats and gauges can and do give false readings. 
The more complicated things are, the more chances you will have for a 
failure. Why would you want to change our measuring methods and increase the 
risk to our patients, even if the risk may be small?'

The response seems perfectly reasonable to me - my suggested change *was* 
unnecessary - and I will be happy for CI to continue using the method it 
uses now. And I will be happy for the cryostat I eventually occupy to have 
its level measured in this way.

> This is also an artifact
> of CI President Ben Best considering  himself an expert in just about 
> every
> technical area of cryonics, with the added  handicap of being unable to "
> weight," scale, or do cos- benefit analyses on  various technologies - as
> well as also frequently lacking the necessary  experience base to 
> understand
> them.

While I can't think offhand of any specific examples, I don't get the 
impression that Ben claims expertise that he doesn't have. I don't know what 
is meant by 'unable to "weight," scale, or do cost-benefit analyses on 
various technologies'.

> It is only necessary to look
> at CryoNet, to  look at Cold Filter, and to look at the reams of internal
> criticism of cryonics  BY cryonicists TO other cryonicists, to understand
> that the vast majority of  people signed up simply don't care. They are
> informed of the screw-ups, the  incompetence, and the often grotesque 
> errors, and
> THEY SIMPLY DO NOT CARE. One  of the really good things about Ben Best's
> nightmarish CI case reports, are that  they constitute due diligence
> documentation to CI members, to prospective  members,and to the public, of 
> just what a
> mess they can expect to have made of  their care.

I do read every CI case report, with the same layman's approach as described 
above for reading the posts made here. I would not describe them as 
'nightmarish', I certainly would care if I thought they were, and I don't 
get the impression that they make a 'mess' of members' care.

I am intrigued by the fact that Mr Darwin has the *time* to post these many 
long emails. I assume he would say that the time spent composing them is 
justified by the importance of setting the record straight (as he would see 
it). 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33451