X-Message-Number: 12870
From: "George Smith" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: message #12849 : A clarification 
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 22:24:39 -0800

A Clarification.

In message #12860 Charles Platt suggested I was speaking against 21CM in my
reference to those who support funding research to the exclusion of current
cryonic suspension (in my message # 12849).

I was not.

I have no doubt that 21CM is entirely supported by dedicated individuals who
desire authentic breakthroughs in cryopreservation.  I have no reason to
believe otherwise.

My entire statement was taken out of context.  My statement was in direct
reference to those IN GENERAL who believe the current state of cryonics to
be poor or unworkable when I responded to Alex Berg (in message #12840) who
wrote:

> Please note that it was such long-time cryonics activists like Darwin e.a.
> who changed  their opinion on the probability of success with current
> methods.

The word "like" is critical here.  I was discussing the effects of public
statements of those IN GENERAL who have a low opinion regarding the
"probability of success with current methods" upon those who have not yet
decided to sign up for cryonics.

Those IN GENERAL who suggest that money should go to research (ANY research)
for future development of cryonics (what I referred to as "their" research)
and who state that they feel the current suspension methods won't probably
work - it was the impact of this perspective IN GENERAL which I was
discussing.

I was also attempting to discuss research IN GENERAL being offered in place
of signing up for cryonic suspension.  I can see how my reply could be
interpreted otherwise if someone read too quickly and got lost in my replies
to the shifts between Alex Berg's first discussing some 21CM researchers,
then quoting an unnamed researcher, and finally speaking of researchers IN
GENERAL "like" Darwin et all, etc..

Therefore I am submitting this clarification to be certain there is no
misundersanding regarding my intended meaning.

To answer my own question to Charles Platt, at the end of my reply to him,
"No the shoe DOESN'T fit 21CM."

21CM is, in my opinion, a responsible and leading research group and has my
support and respect as such.  I would suggest that if one were to actively
support research, 21CM would be the wisest current choice... AFTER one has
set up his own suspension first.

I apologize to any and all who misunderstood my meaning (particularly as
Charles Platt interpreted it) and hope this clarification makes my true
position clear.

Sincerely,

George Smith

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12870