http://blog.ciphergoth.org/blog/2010/02/15/blog-comments-and-article/2010-02-23T00:02:46+01:002010-02-23T00:02:46+01:00http://blog.ciphergoth.org/blog/2010/02/15/blog-comments-and-article/#c81

<p>I am starting to agree with this&nbsp;analysis.</p>

2010-02-17T15:43:28+01:00http://blog.ciphergoth.org/blog/2010/02/15/blog-comments-and-article/#c64

<p>As I said on the talk page, I think you&#8217;d have to divert a river through that article to get it into a state where a cryonics advocate could usefully contribute. The &#8220;snarky point of view&#8221; philosophy of RationalWiki rules out useful collaboration, and seems to discourage genuine pride in your work, as evinced by the way that when forced to back down from one lurid accusation against cryonics organisations, you seem to move straight on to the next with no sense of discovery or shame. However, I hope that the work on the article feeds into edits to the Wikipedia article, where <span class="caps">NPOV</span> fosters a much more effective&nbsp;cooperation.</p>

2010-02-17T04:36:38+01:00http://blog.ciphergoth.org/blog/2010/02/15/blog-comments-and-article/#c55

<p>I&#8217;ve added some text to the main article. Trying to balance things out without negating the skeptical&nbsp;tone.</p>

2010-02-16T23:34:58+01:00http://blog.ciphergoth.org/blog/2010/02/15/blog-comments-and-article/#c54

<p>More contribution needed to that article, by the way &mdash; I&#8217;m entirely unhappy that most of the text is by me. Luke Parrish has shown up and is participating on the talk&nbsp;page.</p>