Since Rick Potvin has already demonstrated a willingness to misuse obvious typos, media-vaguenesses, and misspeaks as "evidence" for his theory, I suggest that people quit answering him. There can be no motive for asking when someone called Robert Ettinger other than the hope that it will somehow reveal something. Something which is clearly not there. I suggest nobody give him the chance to twist their words.

There are some people actively involved in cryonics who feel the same way about Mike "Darwin".

Who are the people in cryonics that think Mike Darwin is bad for cryonics and why do they think that?

I'm new to cryonics. I just discovered it from Stumbleupon which sent me to the Chronopshere blog. So I don't get it. Why do you say Mike Darwin is bad for cryonics and who are the other people in cryonics who think so too? I've done a lot of google searches and the only comments I see about Mike Darwin were from maybe 10 or 20 years ago, and some made here about a year ago. I can't find anything about the people who posted here except for you and a medical specialist named Melody Maxim. The Chronopshere blog is why I'm not only interested in cryonics, but think it is the most important idea I've ever heard of. What am I missing?

One of the most obvious differences between Mike and Rick is that Mike is results-focused and continually modifies his approach if something he tries is not working. Rick is a broken record with incoherent goals.

"Results-focused" to what end?  One could claim Mike is more tactful and structured than Rick, but that doesn't mean he is being truthful in everything he has to say.  If or where he is not being truthful, what does this say about his focused efforts towards an end?
 
My personal advise- if you cannot independently validate his claims, try to avoid making the assumption he is speaking the truth.

that made me laugh Luke-- you're a stand up comic!

I don't know the motive of Rick's questions. So far they seem to be legitimate questions, regardless of motive. I assume that the cryonics community as a whole are interested in the details of its original leader's passing and suspension. Frankly, I'm shocked at the lack of conversation about M. Ettinger. But then, it's been pretty dead here lately. I do hope to see more conversation about him, though.

I'll just point out that ken is interested in cryonics history. Those who are attempting to de-legitimize my inquiry are not only anti-historian but anti-intellectual.. They're attempting to characterize me in negative terms to prevent anything negative being said about ettinger or cryonics for behavioral/positivist reasons... not for reasons having to do with transparency, truth, and higher values.

thanks ken. email me [email protected]

I'd ask the mod to approve this objection to Fundies characterization of my having pointed out a discrepency in the report on Ettinger. To say I "misuse" typos is absurd since it wasn't clearly a typo. The Ettinger report was much MORE vague than any normal cryonics case report and I'm personally aware of what we ought to be seeing. Filling in blanks speculatively is a legitimate exercise. The Ettinger report was a very thin one considering the overall history. It simply begged to be speculated upon. Fundies request to quit answering me and others' cooperation on that clearly constitutes cryonics coverup. There is no academic validity in that. Cryonics is being handled as a private business rather than a transparent and public experiment. As as result, it lends itself easily to fraud.