X-Message-Number: 4067 From: Subject: Various...... Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 12:04:21 -0800 (PST) I'd like to thank Bob Ettinger for his comments on how CI proposes to deal with the legal liabilities, and also for his addendum. I do have one question for him, though. Since the provider in question has already taken this inappropriate action TWICE, why are you now willing to extend more credit? And if you'll take note of that provider's own message of yesterday #4063, you'll see that even he agrees that such inappropriate action is a very real and dire threat to frozen patients, and cannot be easily dismissed or ignored. Bob analogizes CI's unbundled function with that of a cemetary. He is right that if there is a murder investigation, they don't usually exhume more than one body. But, morticians are not commonly in attendance when their clients die. When Bob suggests that "oversight" organizations would be motivated to repair the damage and pay for it, he is again extending credit without any reasonable basis, especially since he specifically refers to ACS and CryoCare (see also the reply from CryoCare's vice president to my original post). In message #4058 Perry Metzger says that the police wouldn't bother to autopsy all the patients under a given service provider's care since cryonics is just an unusual burial. I couldn't disagree with him more. Back in '87 when the Riverside County Coroner and his deputies raided Alcor over the murder of Dora Kent, they threatened to take ALL of the patients!! It was only due to some carefully executed legal maneuvers, and wide press coverage of the event that saved Dora Kent (and Alcor's other patients) from certain doom. Interestingly enough, the reaction of Alcor's president to those events (back then Mike Darwin) was to have a breakdown, leaving others to clean up the mess. So if the past is any indication of what the future has in store, then I'd say CryoCare members are riding on a VERY thin line that could likely snap someday! Finally, it looks like Charles Platt needs to get together with his cronies and get his story straight. It's getting pretty old that he is always either denying that he knows what has happened, or he goes to extremes to evade the question. If Charles wants to assert that I am in ANY WAY dishonestly representing the past, then he should be urging the injured party to sue me. Ever forward, David Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4067