X-Message-Number: 30522
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:04:46 -0700
From: hkhenson <>
Subject: Re: Protection from Pseudonyms
References: <>

On the Subject: The Sky Is Falling! Does Alcor need Dictator Protection?
At 03:00 AM 2/22/2008, "Finance Department" <> wrote:

>After extensive thought and research, I am finally getting down to
>addressing a couple of Keith Henson's posts.

The point of which you entirely missed.

>He seems to think that a
>particular incident in Alcor's past was of such magnitude and importance
>that the ordinary Alcor member could not be trusted to elect who is on the

It wasn't the incident.  It was the fact that those on the board who 
knew about it didn't say anything for what we felt at the time was 
extremely good reason.  The analysis was that--had it come out at the 
time--at least one suspension member would most likely have been lost 
and there was a fair chance that Alcor would have been put out of business.

Remember this was only a few years from the Dora Kent 
persecution.  Few people realize how dicey that was.  One line of 
attack on Alcor only stopped when an employee ran an official off at 
gunpoint.  Of course this could not be seen as an official act (and 
it wasn't) so the employee had to be dismissed for what was in 
reality a heroic act.

Dave Pizer's argument is that members could monitor the board's 
actions and replace those that made what they thought were bad 
decisions.  I used that extended incident, which eventually led to 
the disastrous CryoCare split, as an example where for darn good 
reason the members would not have known why board members, and more 
important the officers the board backed, acted the way they 
did.  Without such knowledge, how could suspension members possibly 
make informed decisions as to who should be board members?


>Henson continues "Is there anything *specific* that you
>think has to be done for the long term survival of the patients that
>the board has rejected? If there is and it makes sense I might help."
>One thing might be moving them to a climate more hospitable to patients that
>depend on things being very cold, for their ultimate viability.  We have
>discussed this extensively on Cold Filter; I am not in a hurry to do so also

This is ambiguous.  Do you mean political climate?  Or are you 
thinking of moving the patients to Greenland or the South Pole?  If 
the latter, have you run an economic analysis?  I have if you want to 
see it.  If the former, where?  I want to move there!

>Besides, it is beside the point of the hour - while the patients are
>the most important thing, they are not the only important thing.  As long as
>they are being adequately protected and cared for, there is no reason Alcor
>can't grow significantly in its ability to service new
>customers/members/future patients.  It can improve its procedures and the
>bar can be set higher on its expectations.  Right now this type of forward
>movement is being retarded by the current sit-on-their-butts board.

I see no evidence whatsoever to support this statement.  Given the 
limits of what boards can actually do, this is actually an attack on 
the officers and staff of Alcor.

Be up front about it.

Who do you want to replace, why and with whom?


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30522