CryoNet #32714 - #32715

CryoNet - Fri 16 Jul 2010

    #32714: Re: Again for Melody & others [robomoon]
    #32715: NYT Mag article [Ettinger]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32714%2D32715

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.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject line.


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

Message #32714
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:44:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Again for Melody & others

This evening I deleted an email from the Cryonet message queue. It was a response to Message #32713 that made me answering in cynical comments due to something that has been described as the action of "deliberately throwing mud for profit". It doesn't make sense not to delete that message, because I got the idea that I cannot achieve the necessary public relations for myself to defend my opinion when it's not unambiguous enough. But something is to clarify: "for profit" is the wrong description for a documentation in the form of a thrilling non-fictional book with an interesting documentary like photos and audio records. "Deliberately throwing mud" is what someone can defend who is backed up by a legal system and skilled attorneys that allow this kind of "explanation" in public. There's no
 thing more I want to write in this case now, the more I write, the more stress there is.

> Message #32713
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:22:19 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Again for Melody & others
> 
> ____________________________________
> What's  left after  all the palaver is mostly contradiction and confusion, 
> 
> the only clarity being Johnson's deliberately throwing mud for profit.  
///


-- 
E-Cards: Schon fertig fur die ganz Eiligen oder individuell zum Selbstgestalten - fur jeden Anlass gibt's die richtige E-Card auf arcor.de.
http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32714

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

Message #32715
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:33:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: NYT Mag article

On the July 9 Cryonet  Mark Plus mentioned an upcoming  article by Kerry 
Howley, which appeared in the New York Times Magazine of July  11, "Until 
Cryonics Do Us Part," about Alcor member Robin Hanson and his  disapproving 
wife, Peggy jackson. Strangely, no further comment seems to have  surfaced on 
Cryonet, although relatively significant public relations questions  arise. 

The article appeared July 11, last Sunday. You can access it on  line for 
free. It is interesting in several ways. 

First, the piece  itself was not particularly negative about cryonics, 
although the focus was the  "hostile wife syndrome." One of the facts a reader 
might easily overlook is  that, while the wife does indeed express 
disapproval in fairly strong terms, she  does not say or imply that she will try to 
interfere with her husband's plans.  

Of course there were many sins of omission, neglecting some of our best  
arguments and evidence. On the matter of interpretation of the alleged hostile 
 wife syndrome, the author doesn't mention that one would expect dissension 
in  any family, simply because a huge majority of ANY group at present is 
hostile or  indifferent. In fact, families concur surprisingly often. 

Her  male/female numbers are wrong too. In the Cryonics Institute, about 
one third of  members are female and slightly more than half of the patients 
(52 out of 98).  (I attribute this to the fact that mothers are often beloved 
and tend to live  longer.) 

Interesting also are the comments from readers that the  Magazine has 
published on line. Opinions differ as to the sentiment and  meaningfulness, but 
it appears to me that the prevailing sentiment, among those  who commented, 
was not at all unfriendly. The number of comments, I am told, was  also 
somewhat higher than average. Also, the CI web site got a noticeable blip  in 
hits that day. 

All in all, nothing earth shaking, but my impression  of this as a PR event 
is positive. 

Robert Ettinger 


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32715

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

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