CryoNet #32441 - #32442

CryoNet - Tue 2 Mar 2010

    #32441: Court rules frozen remains of Springs woman should go to Ariz... [MARK PLUS]
    #32442: Rating system [Steve Jackson]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32441%2D32442

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    [email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32441
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:10:47 -0700
Subject: Court rules frozen remains of Springs woman should go to Ariz...
From: MARK PLUS <[email protected]>

http://www.gazette.com/articles/springs-94927-arizona-court.html

March 01, 2010 11:05 AM
JOHN C. ENSSLIN
The Gazette

A magistrate in El Paso County Probate Court ruled today that the
frozen remains of a deceased 71-year-old Colorado Springs woman should
go to an Arizona-based non-profit that has a contract to cryogenically
preserve her head.



Magistrate Barbara L. Hughes ruled that Mary Robbins' last will
directs that her body be turned over to the Alcor Life Extension
Foundation of Scottsdale, AZ.



Her daughter Darlene Robbins of Pueblo had contested the action,
stating that her mother changed her mind about cryogenics while in
terrible pain a few days before her Feb. 9 death.



Hughes granted a 72-hour stay of her ruling to allow Robbins to take
the case to the Colorado Court of Appeals.



Alcor officials said they are ethically bound to honor the contract
that Mary Robbins, a retired nurse, signed in 2006.



Mary Robbins body remains packed in dry ice in a local funeral home
pending the outcome of the legal battle.
-- 
Mark Plus
Life is short: Freeze hard!

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32441

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32442
Subject: Rating system
From: Steve Jackson <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:24:27 -0600
References: <[email protected]>

David Stodolsky says:

" . . . There was only 1 rating contributed in response to the remaining 8  
messages. We can conclude from this that the Rating System is not  
being used significantly at this time, except by those who wish to  
censor. This explains why we are seeing censorship."

David, by "censorship," do you mean "Some people are prevented from posting because their previous posts have been rated low?"

If you will recall, the whole purpose of the rating system was to make it possible for users to report what they considered abuse in order to develop a community consensus which would tend to filter out the ranters and loons. So what you're actually reporting is that the system is working.

An expected consequence of any rating system is that the ranters and loons will change pseudonyms, get others to post for them, and holler that they're being "censored."

If there are not a lot of comments on most posts, it does not indicate "censorship" - I can't even see how you reach that opinion. A low number of comments probably indicates that

(1) most users don't find most of the posts here to be toxic; this is a good thing.

(2) more users are more inclined to give a wrist-slap when offended than an Attaboy when pleased, and - of course! - no one is likely to log in and vote "Neutral" on the posts that they don't care about. Therefore, there more negative votes than positive and neutral.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32442

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************