X-Message-Number: 1467
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 22:33:52 PST
From: Lola McCrary <>
Subject: CRYONICS: Re: open letter from Saul Kent to Keith Henson
Subject: CRYONICS POLITICS: open letter from Saul Kent to Keith Henson

Saul, your double standards never cease to amaze me.

When Brenda opposed Carlos on the board, because in her opionion (as well as
the opinion of other non-board members) he no longer made a good president, you
didn't call for her to resign from the board, though it was clear she could no
longer support the then president.  On the contrary, a big ruckus was raised
when the idea of the Board voting Brenda off was hinted at by you as a
possibility because she opposed Carlos.

How dare you call for Keith to resign because he dares to bring up to Steve
Bridge things he needs help with as president, and concern about who he goes to
for help?  He does not "predict" failure by Steve.  You somehow read that in.
Could it be because he cautions Steve about taking *your* advice?  Oh, no.  Of
course not.  How foolish of me to even *think* it.

If Steve is afraid to have contrary opinions about the issues for Alcor on the
Board (and I don't believe he is), then he shouldn't be president.  There
should be a variety of opinions represented on the Board. That way we don't end
up with a rubber stamp for any one person's desires (be that person on the
board or not).

Even the fact that you feel it necessary to jump to poor Steve's defense
against the horrible "opposition" of the vindictive and jealous Keith Henson
shows (IMHO) how poorly you think of his ability to defend himself and his work
and opinions at Alcor.  Just another datum about you thinking you will be the
power behind the throne during his tenure, in my book.  Believe it or not, I
don't know Steve well, and *I* trust him more than that.  As well as the other
Board members.  Each has a vote to back up his or her decisions and opinions.

How many witch hunts are you going to start?  When will it be Dave Pizer's
turn?  Or Hugh Hixon's?  Or when will you regretfully suggest that Carlos even
resign from the Board and use his talents as "just" a volunteer?

That's another thing:  You seem to think that people such as Carlos and Keith,
if they are forced off the Board because *YOU* don't want them there should
continue, with a smile, to devote large chunks of time and money to Alcor.
Excuse me?  You tell these people (and potentially Hugh and Dave as well) that
they don't have some "right stuff" to be Board members, but they do have it to
be good volunteers for drudgery.

What's wrong with this picture?

Based on that criteria, I would suggest that you withdraw from any up front, or
behind the scenes leadership at Alcor and do what you do best: Donate money.
After all, since individual opinions are important here, I don't think you are
a good influence on Alcor. You can write checks from the comfort of your home
(or perhaps jail cell) and leave the work and leadership to people who are not
tearing Alcor up from within to re-create it in their image.

I would like to hear from the Board members (only please) in this forum whether
they feel that the board should be sanitized of differing and opposing points
of view.

Sincerely,

Lola McCrary
Secretary, Alcor North

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1467