I already stated that I disregarded the last link for lack of evidence that the source is trustworthy (published papers and the like).

I don't see where you said that. And even given that, I find that response to be deeply confusing. We are talking about this post http://lesswrong.com/lw/1rv/demands_for_particular_proof_appendices/) yes? That post has nothing to do with specific claims of evidence. It is a self-contained argument about what sorts of arguments are or are not valid when discussing cryonics, or for that matter, when discussing any future technology. I don't see what trustworthiness has to do with the arguments there. Can you point to specific claims in that post that you would want to be backed up by evidence that isn't there?

Actually to be fair cryonics has to many single points of failure yet to be avoided to make deciding about it any thing more then a total crapshoot.

I'll refrain from quoting The Princess Bride but what do you mean by "to be fair" in that sentence? Normally when that phrase is used people are mentioning an argument which goes against the position that they are arguing for, or to clarify that a position being argued against is not the position of some relevant source. How are you using that phrase?

In general, telling Bayesians that something is a "total crapshoot" isn't generally helpful. We can make estimates for technologies.

Who knows but this falls in the realm of a problem with to many unknowns making it impossible to answer. So I say anyone claiming otherwise is claiming based on blind faith not on reason.

But there are many things which aren't unknown. We have a pretty decent understanding of how brain tissue functions. We know that synapses (barring acousting fractures resulting in large sheering) are by and large intact. Many things aren't unknowns. And this really doesn't help given that even most proponents of cryonics agree that the chance of revival may not be very high. So where in any of that is there "blind faith?" Are you using the term "blind faith" in a non-standard fashion?

You guys like cryonics thats lovely I hope it works for you.

Another reason you are getting voted down may be the lack of grammar and spellchecking which reinforces the perception that you aren't putting much effort into your posts. One doesn't need perfect grammar and spelling. But many modern browsers have an option (often set as the default) so that words which are not in the spellchecker turn up with a red underline. "Thats" turns up red on Firefox for example. "That's" does not. Your sentence above could also use a few other punctuation marks. Two periods and a capitalization of the T would be nice.

Aside from the poor grammar, the most puzzling thing about this sentence is that it doesn't seem to fit in with your earlier attitude. I would find your remarks more believable if you switched from contempt to careful neutrally writing. But in this case, your sentence seems almost Pi radians from [your earlier position http://lesswrong.com/lw/2f5/cryonics_wants_to_be_big/28wx where you talked about "corpse popsicles" and talked about "popsicle people" being "e revived from popsicle land, which is the flip side of Mr Rogers neighborhood." Frankly, this looks like another attempt at emotionalism rather than rational argument, this time trying to appear like your attitudes are more sympathetic to pro-cryonics people than they are. Frankly, this attempt comes across as so clumsy it might be more damaging to the goal of getting people to listen to you than you would if you just kept up the "corpse popsicle" language.