X-Message-Number: 1470
Date: 19 Dec 92 01:56:53 EST
From: STEPHEN BRIDGE <>
Subject: Various politics
This is a reposting of message #1468 with errors fixed and additional
text. Steve Bridge.
**********************************
>From Steve Bridge
My deepest apologies. My posting yesterday (MSG #1468) had some
electronic flaws in it, which caused a few sentences to be dropped
and, at least on the copy bounced back to me, dropped the ending
and made it hard to access Perry Metzger's wonderfully calm message
#1469. I am re-posting this. Please also note two major additions
re: points brought up by Keith Henson.
As a warning to e-mail posters, be cautious when you attempt to use
your home software to access your e-mail using someone else's machine
away from home. One little glitch and you may be lost, since you
aren't using your normal settings and you probably didn't bring your
rescue capability with you.
**********************************************
Alcor members, friends, non-friends, and stunned onlookers:
I am Steve Bridge, President-elect (after January 22, 1993,
President) of Alcor. For the past week I have been here in Riverside,
interviewing Alcor staff about their jobs, discussing the problems and
needs of cryonics, and learning about the job from Carlos Mondragon.
I have been deeply impressed with the amount of cooperation from all
staff, and especially of Carlos's commitment to make this transition
(no doubt a painful one for him) go smoothly.
There is an understandable amount of staff apprehension about the
new situation, about my abilities, and about the kinds of changes I
might bring to this job. But each and every staff member is prepared
to do the best job they can in teamwork with whomever is President.
This is admirable and bodes well for the future of Alcor.
I cannot say the same about some of the recent postings on this
net. I am greatly disappointed in some of the complete irrationality
put on recently from Scott Herman and (most surprisingly) from Lola
McCrary. Lola's phrase "or from your jail cell" in reply to Saul Kent
marked a new low in bitter slams from sane people.
And then there is Scott Herman's letter. As much as I want to
include the largest number of people in Alcor and as much as I am
willing to work with people of different opinions and personalities, I
am still at a loss to understand how Scott's head could have been
twisted so wrongly. He is angry at the changeover in management and
so he invents plots under every carpet and murder in every eye.
Scott has met me exactly twice, for a total of perhaps 30
minutes, some five minutes of which included direct conversation. He
cannot know my thoughts, my management abilities, my opinions, or my
commitment to cryonics. He certainly cannot know whether or not I
have to get permission from Saul Kent to "take a dump."
This notion that I am somehow beholden to Saul for getting me
this wonderful (low-pay, high stress, life-disrupting, romance-reducing,
risk-taking, insanity-putting-up-with) job and that I will dance to his
tune no matter what, is a fairy tale, with Saul as the wicked witch and
with me as poor Jack lost in the woods. I am an individual. I have been
a cryonicist for 16 years and I have been influenced by any number of
people, including some currently in suspension. Those of you with short-
time involvement in cryonics or with short memories may not know that over
that 16 year period I have had strong disagreements with Saul Kent, Mike
Darwin, Brenda Peters, etc. on any number of subjects, and I have had
agreements and cooperation with Carlos Mondragon, Keith Henson, Hugh
Hixon, Dave Pizer, etc.
This is NOT a case of blind obediance, folks. Here I must admit
some irritated amusement at suggestions that to be a really good
President I should now completely ignore all of the suggestions of
anyone who *wanted* me to be President of Alcor and ONLY pay attention
to the suggestions of those who did NOT want me to be President.
Pretty peculiar, huh? Would anyone do that? Seriously, would anyone
else try as hard as I have been trying to learn what people on BOTH
sides have to say?
Some more things that disturb me about Scott's letter:
--- Keith Henson's original letter (which Saul was replying to) was
only written to the Board and to Saul. He did not post it on the open
network (unless my e-mail is even more messed up than I think). Saul's
letter was only written (as far as I know) to the Board and to Keith. I
do not believe he posted it on the open network.
Yet Scott, without Saul's permission, posted Saul's letter. I
recall an earlier series of arguments about this kind of unauthorized
posting last summer which led to some very ruffled feathers. I hope
we can ALL refrain from ever doing that again.
*** [NOTE: to second posting. Keith tells me I may be off base here,
since both he and Saul labelled their letters as "open," which in Keith's
interpretation means that posting to the network is OK. Comments are
welcome on this issue. In my own case, when I write a letter -- if I
want it posted, I will post it myself. I have written letters that in
one sense were "open", i.e., I didn't mind people reading and discussing
them, but which I DID NOT feel were appropriate for the open network. I
much prefer this sort of thing to be private or in the POLITICS file --
although I despair of that ever happening again.] ***
Keith's letter to the Board (which Saul was responding to) was, in my
personal interpretation, a gloom+doom letter which added nothing positive
to my knowledge or preparedness for being president. I told Keith so,
privately -- the way I prefer to discuss negatives. Fortunately, Keith
usually writes more useful stuff, included a fine fund-raising letter
which he spent several days on recently. More examples are easy to find.
I hope that Keith and all of the other Board Members will recognize that
there is no benefit in me failing at the job of President. I will
need the support and advice of all eight other Directors, plus all of
the Alcor suspension members that each of you like and those which
you may not like.
Saul's message to Keith basically was to support Steve or to leave
the Board. I would modify that somewhat, to all Directors, "Support Alcor
or leave the Board." I recognize that sometimes Directors may believe
they are supporting Alcor by opposing some position or decision of
mine, just as some Directors opposed some decisions or actions by
Carlos. Good; I can deal with that. Sometimes I will certainly be
wrong and they will be right.
I am NOT calling for Board changes right now. That may change if
I see that some Director is refusing to participate or constantly
opposes every change I want, without good reason. I do not suppose
that the current nine Directors are likely to behave that way. It is
possible that at the next Board election in September I will see
other members that I think would make better Directors than some of
the current ones. There is nothing wrong with that. After all, none
of the current Directors received more than 6 votes at the last
election.
*** [Another addition to the second posting: Keith has also suggested
to me that, while the above paragraph is not a call for his
resignation, it is certainly not a ringing declaration of support
either. It is true that there is a certain amount of "weasel
wording" there, at least partly in an attempt to avoid something
like George Bush's "No new taxes!" promise. But it is also true that,
under Alcor's bylaws, a Director may be removed AT ANY TIME by a
majority vote of the Board. In essence, all Directors are under
probation at all times.
My personal feeling is that this seems like an unstable situation
and that once a Board has been selected, the members should have to work
in that situation for whatever term the members are elected for. I think
that a situation where Directors are elected for a specific term and then
could only be removed by a 2/3 or 3/4 majority would be preferrable.
Finally, I should think everyone would recognize it is only natural
that I am not giving Keith a ringing recommendation just yet. After all,
he did not want me to become President and he has not yet given me much
of a recommendation either. A period of observation, discussion,
jockeying for position, and negotiation should be expected.] ***
--- Scott writes "It takes 5 votes to manipulate the Board." This
shows such a degree of hate and anger that it obliterates Scott's
understanding of how organizations work. The principle of majority
vote is not "manipulation;" it is ORDER. "5 votes" is how action gets
passed. The only other choices are degrees of dictatorship and chaos.
I will no doubt be ending many of many messages now with pleas
for cooperation, understanding, effort and ... donations.
Make it so. :-)
Steve Bridge
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1470