X-Message-Number: 1378 Date: 01 Dec 92 00:14:52 EST From: Charles Platt <> Subject: CRYONICS To: Kevin Brown Let me get this straight. Scott Herman has resigned from Alcor for reasons unstated. Another member, named Parkman, will resign if Saul Kent takes over (in some sense unexplained). Mr. Parkman is mad at me for a) being flippant about Keith Henson, and b) failing to read one of Keith's messages as closely as I should, so that I falsely accused Keith of being misleading. Mr. Parkman says he was going to contribute a rebuke to me, but decided not to (because people in California don't mess around with mere words, they take some sort of direct action--undefined). But then Mr. Parkman issues his written rebuke anyway. Finally, he expresses his disgust at what he describes as the "coup" at Alcor. I have a hard time understanding all this. I am not sure why I have been singled out for criticism (maybe because I was the only person who poked fun at Keith instead of denouncing him? Maybe because mine was the only posting that was short enough for Mr. Parkman to read?) Since I am the target, however, I suppose I should try and come up with some sort of response. Firstly, and obviously, no "coup" took place; a new director for Alcor was voted in by board members in accordance with bylaws of the organization. A coup is usually understood to mean an illegal operation by which a despot seizes power. Anyone who imagines that Steve Bridge is a despot simply knows nothing about the man. I suggest that Mr. Parkman should read Steve's resume, posted here on the net. That would be a good place to start. I am not clear whether Scott Herman has quit Alcor because Mike Darwin is no longer doing suspensions, or because Carlos Mondragon is no longer the CEO. Since I am told that Scott used to have his finger on the nuclear button, maybe he's a bit clearer-headed that Mr. Parkman, in which case he might like to clarify this. As for my error re Keith Henson, I've already admitted it and apologized for it, which seems more than fair since Keith's posting did include several other statements that genuinely WERE misleading. If Mr. Parkman insists, I will itemize them; but other people have already done so, quite thoroughly. I infer Mr. Parkman is also unhappy about changes in Alcor's board which took place earlier this year. These changes occurred in a very scrupulously run election--again, according to Alcor's bylaws. Paul Genteman, one of Alcor's former directors, effectively put himself out of office by miscalculating the situation and omitting to vote for himself. I can make an excellent case for this being the crucial factor which tipped the balance, leading ultimately to a majority in favor of replacing Carlos Mondragon. Really, coups should be made of sterner stuff! And if Mr. Parkman is so concerned with propriety, why wasn't he worried during all the years in which Alcor ignored its own bylaws, and no elections took place? Again, I'm not sure that this is worth getting into. But since I am being targeted (while others far more notorious for their opposition to the old status quo are being passed over for some reason), I felt I should at least try to make sense of it all. --Charles Platt Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1378