Message: #0012 - news.groups sci.cryonics Request For Discussion messages (48K bytes) echo ./44586 1>&2 cat >./44586 <<'End of ./44586' Xref: cbnewsl news.announce.newgroups:2134 news.groups:44586 sci.nanotech:1395 sci.med:30696 sci.med.aids:3475 Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.nanotech,sci.med,sci.med.aids Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsm!att!linac!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!usenet From: kqb@whscad1.att.com (Kevin Q Brown) Subject: RFD: sci.cryonics Message-ID: <1992May20.033051.15680@cs.ucla.edu> Followup-To: news.groups Note: non-commercial reproduction. Keywords: cryonics, biostasis, suspended animation, nanotechnology Sender: usenet@cs.ucla.edu (Mr Usenet) Nntp-Posting-Host: sole.cs.ucla.edu Archive-Number: 5421 Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Tue, 19 May 92 21:41:55 EDT Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu Lines: 65 Request for Discussion: Proposed group: sci.cryonics Status: Moderated (proposed moderator: Kevin Q. Brown) Followup: news.groups Purpose: Cryonic suspension is an experimental procedure whereby patients who can no longer be kept alive with today's medical abilities are preserved at low temperature for treatment in the future. This newsgroup will be the place to keep up-to-date on topics related to cryonics, which include biochemistry of memory, low temperature biology, new cryonics-related research and publications, legal status of cryonics and cryonically suspended people, nanotechnology and cell repair machines, mass media coverage of cryonics, conferences, and local cryonics group meetings. Rationale: A cryonics mailing list (moderated by Kevin Q. Brown) has been running for almost four years and the mailing list size and message frequency now have reached "critical mass" for forming a USENET news group. Reaching a wider audience is important for two reasons: (1) we have found that a small, but significant, percentage of the population is looking for something like a newsgroup on cryonics but does not know where to look and (2) cryonics needs a lot of research, critical thought, skilled and knowledgeable communication, and other support to succeed, and everyone will benefit from its success. Naming: Would another newsgroup name be better? For example, some people prefer sci.med.cryonics because a cryonic suspension is, more than anything else, a medical procedure. Others, noting that reanimation from cryonic suspension cannot succeed without advanced nanotechnology, prefer sci.nanotech.cryonics. Since the practice of cryonics is so inter-disciplinary, however, most prefer simply sci.cryonics. Other people, referring to the currently controversial status of cryonics, prefer a name outside the sci.* hierarchy altogether. Discussion Period: The discussion period will be at most one month and at least two weeks (depending on how quickly we resolve our questions about the proposed group sufficiently for producing a Call For Votes). Acknowledgements Many people have contributed their thoughts on creating a USENET cryonics newsgroup. In particular, my thanks (in alphabetical order by last name) to: Keith Henson (hkhenson@cup.portal.com) Perry Metzger (perry@gnu.ai.mit.edu) Russell Whitaker (71750.2413@CompuServe.com) Of course, any errors in this message are mine. Kevin Q. Brown UUCP ...att!whscad1!kqb INTERNET kqb@whscad1.att.com End of ./44586 echo ./44643 1>&2 cat >./44643 <<'End of ./44643' Newsgroups: news.groups Path: cbnewsl!att!att!linac!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!csus.edu!netcomsv!alc!lovejoy From: lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy) Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Message-ID: <1992May20.195722.1270@alc.com> Keywords: cryonics, biostasis, suspended animation, nanotechnology Sender: news@alc.com Nntp-Posting-Host: cortez Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation, San Jose, CA References: <1992May20.033051.15680@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 19:57:22 GMT Lines: 31 In article <1992May20.033051.15680@cs.ucla.edu> kqb@whscad1.att.com (Kevin Q Brown) writes: >Request for Discussion: > > Proposed group: sci.cryonics > > Status: Moderated (proposed moderator: Kevin Q. Brown) A name change is recommended. Specifically, "sci.life-ext(ension)" better captures the goals and purposes of engaging in cryonic suspension than does "sci.cryonics," which focuses on a particular tactic for extending human life. Also, there is probably far more interest in the much broader subject of life extension than there is in cryonics specifically. Were the process of vitrification to be perfected before that of cryonic suspension, interest in cryonics per se would probably wane drastically. Inevitably, much of the discussion in a group named "sci.cryonics" would in fact be concerned with life extension but not cryonic suspension specifically, so it makes sense to label this thing "sci.life-ext." Life extension is the heart and soul of the issues involved. The group name should reflect that. -- %%%% Alan Lovejoy %%%% | "Do not go gentle into that good night, % Ascent Logic Corp. % | Old age should burn and rave at the close of the day; UUCP: lovejoy@alc.com | Rage, rage at the dying of the light!" -- Dylan Thomas __Disclaimer: I do not speak for Ascent Logic Corp.; they do not speak for me! End of ./44643 echo ./44646 1>&2 cat >./44646 <<'End of ./44646' Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsm!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!olivea!uunet!mcsun!fuug!news.funet.fi!sunic2!dkuug!ruc.dk!david From: david@ruc.dk (David Stodolsky) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Keywords: cryonics, biostasis, suspended animation, nanotechnology Message-ID: <1992May20.200926.645@ruc.dk> Date: 20 May 92 20:09:26 GMT References: <1992May20.033051.15680@cs.ucla.edu> Organization: Roskilde Universitetscenter, Danmark Lines: 16 I suggest a change in scope of discussion as well as name. The broader topic of life extension is what is discussed in the "Cryonics" mail lists. Also, there is no question that there is a science of life extension, at least for experimental animals. This has been one of the points of argument and really is unnecessary to discuss. How about sci.lifex? -- David S. Stodolsky Messages: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 24 41 Department of Computer Science Tel: + 45 31 95 92 82 Bldg. 20.1, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 42 01 End of ./44646 echo ./44739 1>&2 cat >./44739 <<'End of ./44739' Newsgroups: news.groups Path: cbnewsl!att!att!linac!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!cass.ma02.bull.com!mips2!bubba!sje From: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards) Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Reply-To: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA Date: 21 May 92 15:51:16 Message-ID: Followup-To: news.groups In-Reply-To: kqb@whscad1.att.com's message of 20 May 92 01:41:55 GMT References: <1992May20.033051.15680@cs.ucla.edu> Sender: news@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Usenet News Manager) Lines: 122 As a co-proposer of the suggested newsgroup name, I support the creation of the "sci.cryonics". I have a preference for non-moderated status, but I would not consider lack of such as an obstacle for voting for the group itself. While a number of other posters, mostly in the group sci.med, have offered positive reasons for this group, I would like to take some space here to answer some specific critical objections against the newsgroup proposal. Objection 1: Cryonics isn't science, so it shouldn't belong in the "sci." hierarchy. Reply 1: First, there have been a number of scientific investigations of cryobiology including low temperature suspension and partial restoration of multicellular organisms. Second, cryopreservation advocates are not appealing to superstition, folklore, or supernatural forces to solve cryonic problems; all so far have stressed the primary role of hard science to bring about successful suspension and recovery. Third, there are already a number of groups that some would refrain from calling "hard science" that have been long accepted in the hierarchy; if sci.cryonics is denied because some consider it to be lacking in "hard science", then I would support a re-examination of the entire "sci." family. Objection 2: A better name would be "alt.cryonics" or "talk.cryonics". Reply 2: Certainly for some of the discussion I've seen in sci.med, the above would apply. However, many sites do not receive these hierarchies and so would be denied access. Considering that much of what is accepted in sci.med is discusion about economic and legal matters and not the science/art of medicine, I think that those complaining there are acting in a rather biased fashion when using the above objection against cryonics. Objection 3: The cryonics proponents are just a bunch of money grubbers. Reply 3: I have no doubt that cryonics, like any other field, has its share of those who primary interest is finacial advancement. However, I've spent thousands of dollars just in the past year alone to physicians, none of whom had any hesitation in accepting my cash. Does this mean that all doctors are money grubbers, too? Objection 4: Even if the cryonics proponents aren't all money grubbers, they are promising things which neither they nor anyone else can deliver. Reply 4: I have never heard the cryonics proponents promising anything other than an honest attempt at performing cryosuspension and preservation for a possible future revival. Nowhere have they said that revival is assured. Nowhere have they given any guarantee about a minimal duration until revival or as to what physical condition a revived client might have. In a way they are like honest physicians who nowhere promise anything except a sincere effort. Objection 5: Cryonic suspension is expensive and offers false hopes. Reply 5: Expense is a relative term, and the money spent is that of the client or an agent acting under the direction of the client. The money spent is not the government's money. It is not the insurance company's money. It is the client's. It is true that there are other places the money could go. It could go to the client's family or estate. It could go to some charitable cause. It could all go for another month or two of high cost palliative care that offers no real benefit at all, except for the health providers' retirement funds. If some say that it offers false hopes, what about the numerous organized religions that offer various hopes for an afterlife? Have any of these been proven? If not, are the cryonics objectors planning a silimar attack against those other proponents? Objection 6: Cryonics is bad for society because it allocates assets to nonproductive services. Reply 6: If this were valid, why aren't the objectors also complaining about funerals that consist of anything more of tossing a corpse into the local Potter's Field? Society can only complain if it were society that funded cryonic suspension. As far as I know, no one is suggesting that the government support any portion of suspension and revival of an individual. On the other hand, society may just want to fund basic reesearch in cryonics related areas such as cryobiology, cryosurgery, transplantable organ preservation, nanotechology, and organ construction and repair. There is plenty here to advance a number of areas; these fields and society as a whole will see the benefits of research long before a human cryonic revival is performed. Objection 7: Cryonics is either scientifically impossible or is so complicated that primitive cryopreservation techniques at this time are useless. Reply 7: It is foolish to claim impossibility for those things that have no basic theoretical inconsistantcies. Cryopreservation today certainly is primitive, perhaps being not much more advanced that the dehydrative preservation practiced by ancient Egyptian pyramid builders. However, liquid nitrogen dewars have been shown to preserve basic organic structure for an indefinite period. Given hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, who could say that a later revival is impossible? Objection 8: Cryonics proponents are nothing but a bunch of libertarian pseudoscientific crackpot yahoo sex-deprived male readers of Omni magazine. Reply 8: After seeing comments like the above in sci.med, I feel like retracting my earlier stance against moderation of sci.cryonics. Moderation may be necessary should some of the sci.med contributors feel a need to continue to use ad hominem in a pro-establishment crusade. [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.] == Steven J. Edwards Bull HN Information Systems Inc. == == (508) 294-3484 300 Concord Road MS 820A == == sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com Billerica, MA 01821 USA == "That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson End of ./44739 echo ./44655 1>&2 cat >./44655 <<'End of ./44655' Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsm!att!linac!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!tpm-sprl!tpm From: tpm@anat.UMSMED.EDU (Terence P. Ma) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Keywords: cryonics, biostasis, suspended animation, nanotechnology Message-ID: <1992May20.174852.20834@anat.UMSMED.EDU> Date: 20 May 92 17:48:52 GMT Article-I.D.: anat.1992May20.174852.20834 References: <1992May20.033051.15680@cs.ucla.edu> Organization: Dept. of Anatomy, Univ. Mississippi Medical Center Lines: 19 In article <1992May20.033051.15680@cs.ucla.edu> kqb@whscad1.att.com (Kevin Q Brown) writes: >Request for Discussion: > > Proposed group: sci.cryonics > > Status: Moderated (proposed moderator: Kevin Q. Brown) > After having reviewed the material sent to me by cryonics advocates and reading many of the articles cited by those folks, I find no rationale at this point to consider cryonics scientific. I do agree that people who want to talk about it should have space available to them. I don't think it is appropriate within the sci.* hierarchy at all. I suggest that cryonics be placed in the talk.* hierarchy. -- Terence P. Ma, Ph.D. Department of Anatomy VOICE: 601-984-1654 University of Mississippi Med. Ctr. FAX: 601-984-1655 2500 North State Street INTERNET: tpm@anat.UMSMED.EDU Jackson, MS 39216-4505 End of ./44655 echo ./44670 1>&2 cat >./44670 <<'End of ./44670' Newsgroups: news.groups Path: cbnewsl!kqb From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown) Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 00:19:34 GMT Message-ID: <1992May21.001934.29088@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> Summary: need new moderator to expand scope References: <1992May20.195722.1270@alc.com> <1992May20.200926.645@ruc.dk> Keywords: cryonics, biostasis, suspended animation, nanotechnology Lines: 27 In articles <1992May20.195722.1270@alc.com> and <1992May20.200926.645@ruc.dk> both Alan Lovejoy and David Stodolsky make similar proposals; expand the scope of the proposed sci.cryonics group from cryonics to life extension. They suggest the names "sci.life-ext" and "sci.lifex", respectively. Their suggestions are not without merit: (1) cryonics is just one of many forms of life extension, which is the real goal behind cryonics, (2) there is even more good, published scientific work on the many forms of life extension than on cryonics alone, and (3) more people are interested in life extension than cryonics alone. If one of you two are willing to moderate such a group, then please submit your own Request For Discussion and see if you can get it created! I will stick to cryonics as the focus for my USENET newsgroup efforts. Here is why. I am concerned that a sci.life-ext or sci.lifex newsgroup will turn into a "sci.vitamins" newsgroup that will: (1) overwhelm the cryonics postings (which are my main interest because I do not believe that other forms of life extension will advance sufficiently rapidly to eliminate the urgent need for progress in cryonics) and (2) generate far too much material and require far too much diversity of background for me to moderate effectively. Of course, if you can find another moderator we might not have such problems! Kevin Q. Brown UUCP ...att!whscad1!kqb INTERNET kqb@whscad1.att.com End of ./44670 echo ./44844 1>&2 cat >./44844 <<'End of ./44844' Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsm!att!linac!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!sdl!tal From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Message-ID: <1992May22.171905.3504@Warren.MENTORG.COM> Date: 22 May 92 17:19:05 GMT Article-I.D.: Warren.1992May22.171905.3504 References: <1992May21.001934.29088@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <1992May21.211618.29024@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Organization: Mentor Graphics, Silicon Design Division Lines: 18 In <1992May21.211618.29024@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat) writes: >Please call it sci.life-ext.cryonics . And please keep the sci.* . Some >say the subject is not scientific, but even if that were true now it >wouldn't stay true for long. Furthermore the sci.* designation would >encourage the discussions to remain scientific. I think that discussions >regarding vitamins and smart drugs are laudable but belong elsewhere. I agree. Maybe it should be an alt. group, more possibly under the talk.bizzarre hierarchy. Have a good weekend, folks! Tom -- Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play) "Tax cuts don't do any good for someone who is out of work," Gov. Bruce Sundlun, D-RI, said in denouncing Bush's economic rescue plan as woefully inadequate. "They don't need a tax cut. They need a job." Feb 3, 1992 End of ./44844 echo ./44766 1>&2 cat >./44766 <<'End of ./44766' Path: cbnewsl!att!att!linac!uwm.edu!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!news From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Message-ID: <1992May21.211618.29024@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Date: 21 May 92 21:16:18 GMT References: <1992May21.001934.29088@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu Reply-To: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat) Organization: Michigan State University Lines: 33 In article <1992May21.001934.29088@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown) writes: >In articles <1992May20.195722.1270@alc.com> and <1992May20.200926.645@ruc.dk> >both Alan Lovejoy and David Stodolsky make similar proposals; expand the >scope of the proposed sci.cryonics group from cryonics to life extension. >They suggest the names "sci.life-ext" and "sci.lifex", respectively. >Their suggestions are not without merit: [says that cryonics is only one aspect but asks them to submit own RFD because] >I will stick to cryonics as the focus for my USENET newsgroup efforts. >Here is why. I am concerned that a sci.life-ext or sci.lifex newsgroup >will turn into a "sci.vitamins" newsgroup that will: > (1) overwhelm the cryonics postings (which are my main interest because > I do not believe that other forms of life extension will advance > sufficiently rapidly to eliminate the urgent need for progress in > cryonics) and > (2) generate far too much material and require far too much diversity > of background for me to moderate effectively. >Of course, if you can find another moderator we might not have such >problems! > Kevin Q. Brown > UUCP ...att!whscad1!kqb > INTERNET kqb@whscad1.att.com Please call it sci.life-ext.cryonics . And please keep the sci.* . Some say the subject is not scientific, but even if that were true now it wouldn't stay true for long. Furthermore the sci.* designation would encourage the discussions to remain scientific. I think that discussions regarding vitamins and smart drugs are laudable but belong elsewhere. SunCat | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu | "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." --Edward R.Murrow End of ./44766 echo ./44891 1>&2 cat >./44891 <<'End of ./44891' Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsm!att!bu.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sgi!llustig!xanadu!thelema!STella From: STella@thelema.uucp (STella) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Keywords: cryonics, biostasis, suspended animation, nanotechnology Message-ID: <1992May23.064535.5350@thelema.uucp> Date: 23 May 92 06:45:35 GMT References: <1992May20.033051.15680@cs.ucla.edu> Organization: Idiosyncratic Anarchic Order Lines: 57 In article <1992May20.033051.15680@cs.ucla.edu> kqb@whscad1.att.com (Kevin Q Brown) writes: > Proposed group: sci.cryonics So far so good. I don't have a freezer contract yet, but expect to sign up when I can afford it. Certainly think it merits wider discussion. > Status: Moderated (proposed moderator: Kevin Q. Brown) Oooops! I'd strongly prefer an unmoderated newsgroup, so that folks who want to ask questions could do so without having to submit their posts to a moderator. I don't see that cryonists have any need to hide from criticism in a moderated newsgroup. I'm certainly sympathetic to the creation of a group, and would prefer to be able to vote for it. But I think that it's beneficial to the spread of the life-extension meme to have a group open to anyone who chooses to post, without the intervention of a moderating elite. Yes, I know the moderator proposed for this group is not going to act as a censor, but I've read moderated and unmoderated groups, and have never seen a moderated group that has the quality and enthusiasm of discussion of a moderated group. I have spent much of my net.life in a newsgroup in the alt.sex hierarchy which periodically receives messages from fools wanting to disrupt the discussion, and have seen that this can be handled. Sci.cryonics would attract less disruption from fools than alt.sex.bondage handles quite effectively, and therefore, I see no need for moderation, and would prefer that it not appear we're afraid of the free exchange of ideas. > (1) we have found that a small, but significant, percentage > of the population is looking for something like a newsgroup > on cryonics but does not know where to look and How about newgrouping alt.cryonics, seeing how it works as an open, unmoderated group, and taking it from there? > Would another newsgroup name be better? For example, some people > prefer sci.med.cryonics because a cryonic suspension is, more > than anything else, a medical procedure. Others, noting that The medicine necessary for the suspension to be followed by reanimation, however, has not been invented yet. While nanotech looks like the best bet we currently know of, however, I think sci.cryonics (or alt.cryonics) is more appropriate, since we don't yet know just how we'll handle the reanimation. > reanimation from cryonic suspension cannot succeed without > advanced nanotechnology, prefer sci.nanotech.cryonics. Since the > practice of cryonics is so inter-disciplinary, however, most prefer > simply sci.cryonics. Other people, referring to the currently > controversial status of cryonics, prefer a name outside the > sci.* hierarchy altogether. I certainly have no objection to sci*, unless it requires (actually or for political reasons) that the group be moderated to succeed. STella@xanadu.com 1016 E. El Camino Real, #302, Sunnyvale, CA 94087 End of ./44891 echo ./44914 1>&2 cat >./44914 <<'End of ./44914' Newsgroups: news.groups Path: cbnewsl!kqb From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown) Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 00:01:44 GMT Message-ID: <1992May24.000144.26495@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> References: <1992May21.001934.29088@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <1992May21.211618.29024@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Lines: 13 In article <1992May21.211618.29024@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> SunCat suggests creating a sci.life-ext.cryonics newsgroup (rather than sci.cryonics or sci.life-ext). That is an interesting suggestion. If a thriving sci.life-ext newsgroup already existed, then creating a cryonics subgroup would seem to me entirely appropriate. Unfortunately, since no life-ext newsgroup yet exists, SunCat's proposal requires us to create both a sci.life-ext and a sci.life-ext.cryonics group. That, unfortunately, complicates the newsgroup creation process too much and I do not recommend that approach. Kevin Q. Brown UUCP ...att!whscad1!kqb INTERNET kqb@whscad1.att.com End of ./44914 echo ./44937 1>&2 cat >./44937 <<'End of ./44937' Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsm!att!pacbell.com!mips!spool.mu.edu!olivea!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!fuug!news.funet.fi!sunic2!dkuug!ruc.dk!david From: david@ruc.dk (David Stodolsky) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Keywords: cryonics, biostasis, suspended animation, nanotechnology Message-ID: <1992May24.195548.23767@ruc.dk> Date: 24 May 92 19:55:48 GMT Article-I.D.: ruc.1992May24.195548.23767 References: <1992May20.195722.1270@alc.com> <1992May20.200926.645@ruc.dk> <1992May21.001934.29088@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> Organization: Roskilde Universitetscenter, Danmark Lines: 20 I suggest then that the moderated group be called sci.lifex.cryonics and that a group sci.lifex.misc be set up to handle the more general material. I do not feel moderation is appropriate on usenet and I have no time to run a vote . But if someone will create alt.lifex.misc I would be glad to read it;-). -- David S. Stodolsky Messages: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 24 41 Department of Computer Science Tel: + 45 31 95 92 82 Bldg. 20.1, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 42 01 End of ./44937 echo ./44954 1>&2 cat >./44954 <<'End of ./44954' Xref: cbnewsl sci.med:31038 news.groups:44954 Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsm!att!rutgers!jvnc.net!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!bsu-cs!bsu-ucs.uucp!yang.earlham.edu!allens From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) Newsgroups: sci.med,news.groups Subject: Re: sci.med.cryonics? Message-ID: <1992May24.144200.18334@yang.earlham.edu> Date: 24 May 92 19:42:00 GMT References: <1992May18.190646.15378@ircam.fr> <59264@cup.portal.com> <1992May19.140250.17744@ircam.fr> <1992May19.214909.0262649@locus.com> Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana Lines: 14 In article <1992May19.214909.0262649@locus.com>, yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz) writes: > francis@ircam.fr (Joseph Francis) writes: > > | Why do the cryonics group want it forced upon an unwilling audience? > > I don't see how anybody is forcing anything on anybody. > > Using sci.med is a lot closer to "forcing" than using a new, moderated > newsgroup would be. > Wait a second. Why should it be moderated? This is the first I've heard of a proposal that sci.cryonics shold be moderated. -Allen P.S. As per the guidelines, I'm setting followups to news.groups. End of ./44954 echo ./44955 1>&2 cat >./44955 <<'End of ./44955' Xref: cbnewsl sci.med:31041 alt.config:8356 news.groups:44955 Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsm!att!rutgers!jvnc.net!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!bsu-cs!bsu-ucs.uucp!yang.earlham.edu!allens From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) Newsgroups: sci.med,alt.config,news.groups Subject: Re: Call it alt.cryonics please!! Message-ID: <1992May24.150244.18337@yang.earlham.edu> Date: 24 May 92 20:02:43 GMT References: <21559@castle.ed.ac.uk> Followup-To: alt.config,news.groups Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana Lines: 24 In article <21559@castle.ed.ac.uk>, eopu06@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Bartos) writes: > If the cryonics people must have a newsgroup to themselves (and frankly > I support this) then why not call it alt.cryonics? > > There already exist groups like alt.cyb-sys and alt.cyb-technology (or > some such name) which deal with wiring things into the nervous system. > There are some people in these groups who have some 'way-out' ideas which would > require the present science-fiction technology which the cryo-people would > require for reconstruction. > > If there is a newsgroup which is closest in nature to cryonics it should > be one of the 'cybersystems' / 'cyberpunk' groups. So please move cryonics out > of sci.med into alt.cryonics. > > Wouldn't this be a reasonable compromise? > If the sci.cryonics proposal doesn't pass (because people appear to believe that people should not be able to spend their money on cryonics, or for whatever reason), then I'd be for alt.cryonics. Not because it's more similar to the alt.cyb* groups, but so it can get a newsgroup. -Allen P.S. As per the Guidelines, I am directing followups to alt.config and news.groups. End of ./44955 echo ./44939 1>&2 cat >./44939 <<'End of ./44939' Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsm!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!renns From: renns@fraser.sfu.ca (R Enns) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Keywords: cryonics, biostasis, suspended animation, nanotechnology Message-ID: Date: 24 May 92 22:59:31 GMT References: <1992May20.195722.1270@alc.com> <1992May20.200926.645@ruc.dk> <1992May21.001934.29088@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <1992May24.195548.23767@ruc.dk> Sender: news@sfu.ca Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada Lines: 9 I am glad to see the current attempt at creating a cryonics groups in the sci.* hierarchy. However, I would like this group to be unmoderated. People who are out to cause trouble are easily placed into a kill file and the best way to handle idiotic comments is to ignore them. -- Darran Edmundson darran@chaos.phys.sfu.ca End of ./44939 echo ./44986 1>&2 cat >./44986 <<'End of ./44986' Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsm!att!pacbell.com!ames!lll-winken!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!fornax!krawchuk From: krawchuk@cs.sfu.ca (Bj Krawchuk) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Message-ID: Date: 25 May 92 21:22:40 GMT References: <1992May21.001934.29088@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <1992May21.211618.29024@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1992May24.000144.26495@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> Sender: news@cs.sfu.ca Reply-To: krawchuk@cs.sfu.ca Organization: Expert Systems Lab, Simon Fraser University Lines: 28 In-Reply-To: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com's message of 24 May 92 00:01:44 GMT (kevin.q.brown ) wrote: _________ kqb> In article <1992May21.211618.29024@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> SunCat suggests kqb> creating a sci.life-ext.cryonics newsgroup (rather than sci.cryonics kqb> or sci.life-ext). That is an interesting suggestion. If a thriving kqb> sci.life-ext newsgroup already existed, then creating a cryonics kqb> subgroup would seem to me entirely appropriate. Unfortunately, since kqb> no life-ext newsgroup yet exists, SunCat's proposal requires us to kqb> create both a sci.life-ext and a sci.life-ext.cryonics group. That, kqb> unfortunately, complicates the newsgroup creation process too much kqb> and I do not recommend that approach. No it doesn't. For now, create sci.life-ext, and discuss cryonics in it. I actually favour this approach, since many of us cryonics supporters are very interesting in other life extension technologies as well (eg. see articles in "Cryonics" or "The Immortalist", the two leading cryonics magazines). And vice versa: I came to an interest in cryonics from an interest in the medical research on life extension. And this way, we might avoid some of the idiot knee-jerk "NO" votes that the name "sci.cryonics" might pull from the woodwork. I'd strongly support the sci.life-ext option. Bj End of ./44986 echo ./44996 1>&2 cat >./44996 <<'End of ./44996' Path: cbnewsl!att!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!bsu-cs!bsu-ucs.uucp!yang.earlham.edu!allens From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Message-ID: <1992May25.132309.18375@yang.earlham.edu> Date: 25 May 92 18:23:09 GMT References: <1992May20.033051.15680@cs.ucla.edu> <1992May20.200926.645@ruc.dk> Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana Lines: 16 In article <1992May20.200926.645@ruc.dk>, david@ruc.dk (David Stodolsky) writes: > I suggest a change in scope of discussion as well as name. > The broader topic of life extension is what is discussed > in the "Cryonics" mail lists. > > Also, there is no question that there is a science of life extension, > at least for experimental animals. This has been one of the points of > argument and really is unnecessary to discuss. > > How about > sci.lifex? > An interesting and possibly useful idea. The subject matter would logically include both cryonics and the material on aging discussed on bionet.molbio.ageing, in addition to other material. -Allen End of ./44996 echo ./44979 1>&2 cat >./44979 <<'End of ./44979' Path: cbnewsl!att!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!uunet!shearson.com!newshost!pmetzger From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: sci.med.cryonics? Message-ID: Date: 26 May 92 00:59:01 GMT References: <1992May18.190646.15378@ircam.fr> <59264@cup.portal.com> <1992May19.140250.17744@ircam.fr> <1992May19.214909.0262649@locus.com> <1992May24.144200.18334@yang.earlham.edu> Sender: news@shearson.com (News) Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Lehman Brothers Lines: 18 In-Reply-To: allens@yang.earlham.edu's message of 24 May 92 19:42:00 GMT In article <1992May24.144200.18334@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes: > Using sci.med is a lot closer to "forcing" than using a new, moderated > newsgroup would be. > Wait a second. Why should it be moderated? This is the first I've heard of a proposal that sci.cryonics shold be moderated. The intention is that sci.cryonics be a gateway to the existing cryonics mailing list. Perry -- Perry Metzger pmetzger@shearson.com -- Just say "NO!" to death and taxes. Extropian and Proud. End of ./44979 echo ./45052 1>&2 cat >./45052 <<'End of ./45052' Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsm!att!linac!convex!darwin.sura.net!mips!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!cmcl2!huff@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu From: huff@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (Edward J. Huff) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Message-ID: <1992May27.063837.27740@cmcl2.nyu.edu> Date: 27 May 92 06:38:37 GMT Article-I.D.: cmcl2.1992May27.063837.27740 References: <1992May21.001934.29088@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <1992May21.211618.29024@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1992May24.000144.26495@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> Sender: notes@cmcl2.nyu.edu (Notes Person) Organization: NYU Chemistry Dept Lines: 15 Nntp-Posting-Host: pgl3.chem.nyu.edu In article <1992May24.000144.26495@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown) writes: > In article <1992May21.211618.29024@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> SunCat suggests > creating a sci.life-ext.cryonics newsgroup [...] Unfortunately, since > no life-ext newsgroup yet exists, SunCat's proposal requires us to > create both a sci.life-ext and a sci.life-ext.cryonics group.[...] > Kevin Q. Brown I believe that this is incorrect. A newsgroup sci.x.y can be created without first (or EVER) creating sci.x. It is true that if you want sci.x.y and sci.x.z, you must hold separate RFD's and CFV's for the separate groups. By the way, I will vote against sci.cryonics but will not vote if the name is sci.life-ext or something like that. End of ./45052 echo ./45055 1>&2 cat >./45055 <<'End of ./45055' Path: cbnewsl!att!att!linac!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!olivea!uunet!inmos!news From: conor@lion.inmos.co.uk (Conor O'Neill) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Message-ID: <1992May27.095247.15286@inmos.co.uk> Date: 27 May 92 09:52:47 GMT Article-I.D.: inmos.1992May27.095247.15286 References: <1992May21.001934.29088@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <1992May21.211618.29024@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1992May24.000144.26495@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <1992May27.063837.27740@cmcl2.nyu.edu> Sender: news@inmos.co.uk (The Usenet News System) Reply-To: conor@inmos.co.uk (Conor O'Neill) Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK. Lines: 12 In article <1992May27.063837.27740@cmcl2.nyu.edu> huff@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (Edward J. Huff) writes: >By the way, I will vote against sci.cryonics but will not vote if >the name is sci.life-ext or something like that. Ditto To me, cryonics means fridges etc (sorry 'refrigerators' to you 'merkins). --- Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd., UK. UK: conor@inmos.co.uk US: conor@inmos.com "It's state-of-the-art" "But it doesn't work!" "That is the state-of-the-art". End of ./45055 echo ./45064 1>&2 cat >./45064 <<'End of ./45064' Path: cbnewsl!att!att!emory!swrinde!mips!think.com!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!wald From: wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald) Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Message-ID: <1992May27.142929.10950@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> Date: 27 May 92 14:29:29 GMT References: <1992May24.000144.26495@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <1992May27.063837.27740@cmcl2.nyu.edu> <1992May27.095247.15286@inmos.co.uk> Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu Followup-To: alt.usage.english Organization: Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT Lines: 23 In article <1992May27.095247.15286@inmos.co.uk> conor@inmos.co.uk (Conor O'Neill) writes: >In article <1992May27.063837.27740@cmcl2.nyu.edu> >huff@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (Edward J. Huff) writes: >>By the way, I will vote against sci.cryonics but will not vote if >>the name is sci.life-ext or something like that. > >Ditto > >To me, cryonics means fridges etc (sorry 'refrigerators' to you >'merkins). You know, this is the second time in two days that I've been told that Americans don't cut "refrigerator" down to "fridge". Can someone tell me where this idea came from? -David -- ============================================================================ David Wald wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu "Blessed are the peacocks, for they shall be called sonship of God" -- Matt 5:9, from a faulty QuickVerse 2.0 ============================================================================ End of ./45064 echo ./45081 1>&2 cat >./45081 <<'End of ./45081' Path: cbnewsl!att!att!linac!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!mips!decwrl!csus.edu!netcomsv!ulogic!hartman From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Message-ID: <60@ulogic.UUCP> Date: 26 May 92 23:50:48 GMT References: <1992May20.033051.15680@cs.ucla.edu> Organization: negligable Lines: 45 In article sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com writes: >As a co-proposer of the suggested newsgroup name, I support the >creation of the "sci.cryonics". I have a preference for non-moderated >status, but I would not consider lack of such as an obstacle for >voting for the group itself. I also would vote for sci.cryonics (assuming it is not too late to do so...., However, this post has something wrong with it: >Objection 1: Cryonics isn't science, so it shouldn't belong in the >"sci." hierarchy. >Objection 2: A better name would be "alt.cryonics" or "talk.cryonics". These Objection/Reply pairs seem perfectly fine when in a post discussion whether or not to establish sci.cryonics &/or whether another name might be more appropriate. However... >Objection 3: The cryonics proponents are just a bunch of money >grubbers. >Objection 4: Even if the cryonics proponents aren't all money >grubbers, they are promising things which neither they nor anyone else >can deliver. >Objection 5: Cryonic suspension is expensive and offers false hopes. >Objection 6: Cryonics is bad for society because it allocates assets >to nonproductive services. >Objection 7: Cryonics is either scientifically impossible or is so >complicated that primitive cryopreservation techniques at this time >are useless. >Objection 8: Cryonics proponents are nothing but a bunch of >libertarian pseudoscientific crackpot yahoo sex-deprived male readers >of Omni magazine. These Objections/Reply pairs (should) have nothing to do with whether a groups should be started, or what it should be named, and seem rather to be topics for discussion once the groups has been started, n'est pas? -Richard Hartman hartman@uLogic.COM =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Ideas are not responsible for the people who believe them." End of ./45081 echo ./45118 1>&2 cat >./45118 <<'End of ./45118' Path: cbnewsl!att!att!pacbell.com!mips!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pipex!ibmpcug!ibmpcug!demon!news From: bgrahame@cix.compulink.co.uk (Bob Grahame) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Message-ID: <1992May27.192009.4718@demon.co.uk> Date: 27 May 92 19:20:09 GMT Sender: bgrahame@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: Bob Grahame Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk Lines: 19 In-Reply-To: <1992May27.095247.15286@inmos.co.uk> conor@lion.inmos.co.uk (Conor > To me, cryonics means fridges etc (sorry 'refrigerators' to you 'merkins). > > --- > Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd., UK. That's cryogenics, mainstream if dull. I agree sci.life-ext.cryonics may be a better idea though, as long as it doesn't need another RFD/CFV. Bob Grahame. End of ./45118 echo ./45168 1>&2 cat >./45168 <<'End of ./45168' Path: cbnewsl!att!att!linac!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Message-ID: <59760@cup.portal.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 92 23:09:52 PDT Organization: The Portal System (TM) Distribution: world References: <1992May21.001934.29088@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <1992May21.211618.29024@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1992May24.000144.26495@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <1992May27.063837.27740@cmcl2.nyu.edu> <1992May27.095247.15286@inmos.co.uk> Lines: 6 Re this discussion, the word cryonics has been in the dictionary for over 25 years. Re naming a group *.life-ext or similar, I might support doing that later, but the proposal is for a news group on cryonics. The name should be as descriptive of the topic(s) discussed as possible, and cryonics is the topic under discussion. Keith Henson End of ./45168 echo ./45353 1>&2 cat >./45353 <<'End of ./45353' Newsgroups: news.groups Path: cbnewsl!kqb From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown) Subject: Re: RFD: sci.cryonics Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 01:46:57 GMT Message-ID: <1992Jun3.014657.3025@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> References: <1992May21.001934.29088@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <59760@cup.portal.com> Lines: 93 My thanks to everyone who has responded to my Request for Discussion for creating a sci.cryonics news group. The diversity of comments has made it clear to me that no proposal will satisfy everyone, but perhaps some proposal can satisfy enough people to make the news group creation a success. As explained below, the best choice seems to be: Name: sci.cryonics Status: unmoderated <- changed! News Group Moderation The replies to my Request For Discussion in news.groups have not only suggested several alternatives for the name of the cryonics (or cryonics-related) news group, but some also have questioned whether or not the group should be moderated. I have seen several reasons for and against moderation, but a postmaster whose opinion I highly regard gave me such a convincing argument against my proposal to moderate a USENET news group that it is no longer an issue for me. News Group Name What should be the name and scope of the USENET news group? Here are the suggestions I have seen: sci.cryonics This name is preferred because cryonics is so interdisciplinary and because this name explicitly focuses on the topic of most interest to cryonicists. One suggested disadvantage of this name is that cryogenics and cryonics often get confused by people not familiar with the terms. Of course, that can be considered an opportunity to teach them the difference, too. sci.med.cryonics Cryonic suspension is a medical procedure. sci.nanotech.cryonics Reanimation from cryonic suspension will require advanced nanotechnology and therefore cryonics does not make sense to people not familiar with the concepts of nanotechnology. sci.life-ext.cryonics Our more general interest is actually life extension, and cryonics can be categorized as one aspect of that overall interest. Also, a lot more research has been done on the various aspects of life extension than on cryonics alone and more people are interested in life extension than cryonics. sci.lifex.cryonics Same as above. sci.life-ext Same as above except that no separate cryonics news group gets created at this time. People may suggest, though, that the name "sci.med.life-ext" would make more sense than the name "sci.life-ext". Also, a sci.life-ext news group easily could turn into a "sci.vitamins" newsgroup that would overwhelm the cryonics postings and thereby defeat the original purpose of creating a cryonics-oriented news group. sci.lifex Same as above. sci.lifext Same as above. talk.cryonics For "cryonics chatter". misc.cryonics Same as above. alt.cryonics Same as above OR as a more politically popular name for a cryonics news group. The simplest and best focussed name for a USENET news group on cryonics seems to be sci.cryonics. I know that not everyone will be happy with that and we may not succeed in creating it, but we aim for the best. I do, however, need to provide more explanation for why the name sci.lifext.cryonics, or some variation of that name, is not being pursued. The main problem with the name sci.life-ext.cryonics is that no sci.life-ext news group exists. Yes, I am told that sci.life-ext.cryonics CAN be created without ever creating sci.life-ext. That is awkward, though. It would hide the cryonics news group behind a "dead" sci.life-ext news group. Also, the broad topic of life extension is not within the charter nor does it have the tight focus needed for a cryonics-oriented news group. On the other hand, a sci.cryonics news group can stand on its own because cryonics is not merely a particular form of life extension; it is not just another vitamin, or another exercise regimen, etc. In fact, cryonic suspension is more properly termed life preservation than life extension since it does not by itself do anything to improve the patient's health; its goal is to prevent total oblivion when all else has failed. Of course, much work remains to be done to ensure that the suspension techniques preserve a person with high fidelity and to create the technologies needed for reanimation. That is why the sci.cryonics news group needs to be created. Kevin Q. Brown UUCP ...att!whscad1!kqb INTERNET kqb@whscad1.att.com COMPUSERVE >INTERNET:kqb@whscad1.att.com End of ./45353 ----------------------------------------------------------------------