X-Message-Number: 1348 From: Subject: CRYONICS Reply to Charles Platt Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 16:04:19 PST Charles-- Had the intention of Mike's article been to point out that there are problems at Alcor, just as there were when he was here, and that he just wanted to be helpful and point them out, now that he has some distance and some objectivity, I would have applauded (assuming that the content matched such an intention). But no, his intention was very, very different: He did his goddamnest to convince all comers that he was justified in quitting all invovlement with Alcor, and that if they have any sense at all they will do the same. I'm not sure whether you read for yourself my response to Mike, or had someone else describe it to you. What is this nonsense that people (in this case Mike) "tend to use hyperbole," and that his article "must seem exaggerated or unfair to people working hard at Alcor?" Over and over again in his article Mike's statements distorted the truth so thoroughly that they were WORSE than outright lies, for to the casual observer they have the vague, fuzzy appearance of truth. Were his intentions good? I'm sure he thinks so. Was their some merit to some of the things he said? Unbdoubtedly. But let me emphasize here, in case it somehow didn't come through in my article, that nearly every problem Mike describes was JUST AS BAD OR *FAR WORSE* when he was here. And a whole SLEW of things have improved. It is my sad and reluctant opinion that Mike's article is a pack of lies and distortions specifically intended to defame Alcor and the people who work here, and that it springs from the pain and bitterness that accompany his lack of control over an organization and a group of people that he once controlled utterly. I have no doubt ruined my own relationship with Mike by expressing this opinion and by doing my best to refute his article. More than you can know I regret that I was unable to alter the chain of events that necessitated this. Life goes on, however, and my regret could in no way substitute for clear, honest action in the face of unpleasantness. You are worried that "something is getting lost here," and you state that in your opinion Mike "is correct when he states that cryonics, generally, is a business which does not have a built-in self-correcting consumer-driven feedback mechanism. . . ." Although I would state that at least to some degree it in fact DOES have such a consumer- driven feedback mechanism, and that you (a consumer) are demonstrating it right now, I would certainly agree that it is SUB-OPTIMAL. I bet we can ALL agree about this. I've listened to Mike say this for years as well. He didn't quite know what to do about it, and I'm afraid that I don't either. No one is attempting to sweep anything under the rug here. You suggest a self-critical newsletter, perhaps semi-monthly, going to Suspension Members only and serving as an uncensored forum for feedback and debate. I think that that is a GREAT idea, and I've not heard anyone here (at Alcor) speak against it. I in fact specifically stated in my response to Mike's article that I saw that is inevitable and desirable. I seem to recall you volunteering to act as Editor for it as well. I hereby request that you make a proposal and submit it to me, describing the probable length, format, cost (including production, management, and mailing), distribution (Suspension Members only?), regularity (semi- monthly?), and editorial policy (if any). Have I left anything out? I consider this whole topic of crucial importance, and encourage you to continue posting about it until you are satisfied with the outcome (or frustrated beyond the limits of your patience; preferably the former). Best, Ralph Whelan Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1348