First of all, I'll let you in on a little secret. The moderator of these boards does not read every post. I have that from a pretty good authority, since, while I do not pretend to own or operate these boards, I am, for the time being, site moderator for HabitableZone.com.

Here’s some light reading for you (please excuse all typos, as all have been brought to the writer’s attention time and again). Now, due to time constraints in the site owner’s chosen field of work, one item on the Info page has fallen to disuse, that being the coveted Moebius Digression Award. However, e-etiquette shall remain in play at all times. We’re a community here, one ranging from the serious scientist to the curious passerby, with ages ranging from high school to old school -- and beyond.

About your initial post which created this thread, it was your openly spiteful apology to our religious readers that prompted my reply, as well as earlier attacks upon tenured member(s) of these boards. If you have a particular beef against religious people, or certain members of this site, I’m sure they would be more than appreciated at some hate-site. If the attacks are mere flames that flicker and dwindle with time, we do have another place for them. Please don’t post them here.

About the obvious tripe associated with Mr. Disney, that merely came across to me as an added enticement to reply. Regardless of the plethora of questionable sites you yourself may post to back this ridiculous claim, or any other known falsehood, the falsehoods seem to remain. Odd the way in which reality does this, isn’t it? And if you would like a better site than Snopes, I could send you to JustDisney.com. An argument against this might be that JustDisney.com is merely owned and operated by domain provider Network Solutions, Inc., so would be called upon as questionable. The only practical source, then, would have be -- Disney. Well, and as it should happily turn out, Network Solutions handles Disney.com as well, so I consider their JustDisney.com site to be more than adequate. I also consider it in good taste that reference to Uncle Walt’s passing should be placed on a page indirectly associated with Disney.com, which understandably gets a lot of preteen traffic. And if you should feel a need to insist upon more, how about the fact that cryogenics, in reference to the preservation and reanimation of dead/near-dead human tissue via deep-freeze, was not advanced enough to be considered viable at the time of Disney’s death? Cryogenics itself had only been around approx. 30 years prior to the man’s death, and then only with applications for machinery. For humans, real work did not begin until the early 1960s, with the first scientific publication in 1964. Uncle Walt died in 1966, and human cryogenics would not have been able to support him a full year, let alone until there was a cure and “reversal” of lung cancer, or until a clone could be grown for his imaginary brain transplant. If, however, you feel a need to insist upon fanciful words for your supposedly “factual” postings, at least post some kind of link indicating that you’re referring to a fiction event -- such as Larry Pontius’ novel, “Snowbird”.

For the rest, where the real logic comes into play, with my interpretation of the ascension of humanity to personal interstellar and intergalactic exploration, I do thank you for agreeing with me, regardless of how feigned that agreement may be. As far as human cryogenics is concerned today, it is a growing business -- like cloning -- and will likely have something to do with interstellar/intergalactic travels, just not the way in which you implied. The crews will likely remain alert at all times, possibly even forgoing sleep for the duration of the years-long, centuries-long -- millennia-long -- journeys.

And when I write “cheers” to someone, I actually do mean it.

Cheers,
Dan