>I did read the article. What a piece of crap. He got quite a number of
facts
>wrong, and didn't appear interested in surfing beyond the couple of web
pages
>he looked at. What's more, he didn't even get the info right on the few
pages
>he did look at. (E.g., his sample survey of cryonicists consisted entirely
>of Ralph Merkle's links to home pages of some (26) fellow cryonicists. He
>claims 25 of them are male, citing Kennita as the only female. I can only
>assume that he didn't follow the links, since he missed Ailing Freeman,
>Chris Peterson, and Terry Stanley, females all).
>
>I'm probably going to send him an email message. Hopefully, I can muster
>enough
>diplomacy that he'll consider printing corrections.
>
I *did* e-mail him and expressed my strong disappointment with his shoddy
reporting and with the flippant and sarcastic tone he used throughout the
article. Inaccurate and misleading articles like this are a disservice to
the reading public, and I wanted him to know it.
As for the survey, I was actually pleasantly surprised to see that almost
half of those responding indicated that they *would* be willing to be
cryonically preserved if the funds were available, and that about half would
place their trust in the cryonics firm to revive them. That's a *much*
larger percentage than I think most hard-core cryonicists would have
expected.
I am hoping to design and conduct a more comprehensive survey in the late
summer, perhaps, assessing the publics familiarity with and their attitudes
towards cryonics. I hope to identify the most common misconceptions and the
relative strength of various persuaders / dissuaders. More when I am
further along.
I love this list!
Scott Badger, Ph.D.