CI-agent defends CI slipshot procedures

In addition to misattributing my motives and trying to frame me, see how an anonymous poster to a previous thread about CI I made responds to me. [+] I can't ban IP's in this blog-- or at least I don't know how yet-- but I should learn-- for situations like this.

The CI-agent anonymous poster basically throws up a defense of CI based on what "really goes on"-- which is far different from what CI's website says. He says "most" CI cases involve this sort of real-world action that's not written about-- but I don't believe him... becuase when you look at "most" cases at CI,they don't EVEN meet THAT standard (mortician based). That's why when C81 came along-- THAT was a real potential case-- and that's why Ben called SA-- because the CI "real world action" was STILL insufficient to be called "standard cryonics"-- In fact, the ONLY standard cryonics being done by CI-- has to be looked at as those 36 (up from my 16) who have an SA rider.

To be sure, Alcor has it's share of substandard cases too but the difference is in how well prepared a cryonics firm is-- what is their potential action plan? In Alcor's case, the potential action plan is far and above anything that CI "calls" cryonics. My argument today is that we all need to develop a "generally acceptable cryonics standards" like they have in accounting or other professions-- and a precise idea of how to do the FIRST PERFUSION in the field upon legal death-- is the MOST IMPORTANT link in the cryonics chain of events. Without that-- or an effort at that-- it shouldn't be called cryonics but rather pseudo-cryonics. "Most" of CI's cases have been pseudo-cryonics in my view. Just look at the case histories.