X-Message-Number: 23625 From: "Michael P. Read" <> Subject: RE: reply to Mike Read Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:00:53 -0700 Charles, >First, the original bill was bipartisan. Party affiliations >are not very relevant. Maybe, but he was the one who submitted the bill. >Second, contrary to your statement, we did start this crap. We didn't start the crap of being dishonest. We (actually the others-- I just watched) stated in committee we our not opposed to regulation. We came forward in good faith. >Third, you are not trying to see this from the other side's >point of view. Sure I did, but Stump screwed us over. I understand that regulation is inevitable. I even defended Alcor's compromise with Stump during the committee hearing against the "other Paul" who insulted the leadership of Alcor and then dropped off the list. Problem is Stump went behind our backs twice. The first was when he submitted his bill without contacting the affected parties. But we overlooked that at the hearing because it seemed to be the right thing to do because of Stump's claimed desire to work with us now. The second was when he pulled his little maneuver by privately garnering support for his bill and keeping out any of the changes he agreed in committee to make sure were in there. > Even if you regard them as your enemies (which >I don't think is productive) you should still try to >understand them. Of course. > So imagine you are a person in a similar >position to Rep. Stump. Of course I am speculating, but it >might be something like this. You are a sincere fellow who That might all very well be true. Still, there are two important facts. The first is he submitted his bill without alerting affected parties. Alcor hired a lobbyist and alerted its members in response to that. Second, he betrayed us by going forward with his original bill after agreeing to work with us in good faith. It is the betrayal that I find unforgivable. Anyway, according to Alcor's last post on Cryonet, things seem to be basically back on track. So, I guess it will all work out. >So, what to do? >I believe press relations are important, because every >elected representative is sensitive to the press. I agree. Joe Waynick said to me he thought the AZ Rep has been getting a little friendlier to us over time in terms of the tone of some of their articles. That's a good sign. >I think grass-roots activities in Arizona are important. >Alcor needs as many friends and allies as possible. I agree. How to do that is something else. The organ donor people helped us out for their own reasons. >Willingness to litigate is important; it won Alcor its >victory in California, against all odds. I don't know much about the history of that, but it makes sense to me. >I think an industry group (i.e. a collaborative effort by >Alcor, CI, and SA) should set standards to indicate a >good-faith attempt to police our own field. This has been >obvious for more than ten years. I agree. Getting it to happen is something else. There seems to be a lot of bad blood between cryonics orgs for some reason. >Pacts are important. Cryonics organizations should be willing >to help defend each other. I agree with this as well. I guess the next time one of them gets in trouble we should write letters, etc. to help them as well. Always being polite of course ;) > I don't think CI's attitude, which >basically locked out any assistance, was helpful. I know this was fairly recent but I don't recall all the details. >But anyone who wants to go back to the easy days when >cryonics was unobserved, under the radar, is dreaming. I agree. >immersion in liquid nitrogen. I felt I had moved to and fro >across an invisible line between science fiction and reality. >It was as dramatic as time travel. There was a huge I know what you mean by this. I experience it every time I help out during a suspension. Mike Read Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23625