X-Message-Number: 27183
References: <>
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Cryonic Suspension vs Cryopreservation
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:30:42 +0200

On 9 Oct 2005, at 03:54, Jordan Sparks wrote:

> It also makes more sense because it does
> not imply that it's reversible.
>
> I'll use cryopreservation.

This leaves the question of what to call the persons in that state.  
'Cryopreservees' or 'preservees' doesn't sound like it will fly. The  
term 'patients' is loaded, since only cryonicists accept it. The term  
'suspendees' is somewhat better, since it would be agreeable to all.

In any case, it would be better to come up with a universally  
acceptable terminology, than get stuck some mass media generated PR  
disaster, such a corpsicles.


dss

>

David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27183