X-Message-Number: 1348
From: 
Subject: CRYONICS Reply to Charles Platt
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 16:04:19 PST

Charles--

     Had the intention of Mike's article been
to point out that there are problems at
Alcor, just as there were when he was here,
and that he just wanted to be helpful and
point them out, now that he has some distance
and some objectivity, I would have applauded
(assuming that the content matched such an
intention).  But no, his intention was very,
very different:  He did his goddamnest to
convince all comers that he was justified in
quitting all invovlement with Alcor, and that
if they have any sense at all they will do
the same.

     I'm not sure whether you read for
yourself my response to Mike, or had someone
else describe it to you.  What is this
nonsense that people (in this case Mike)
"tend to use hyperbole," and that his article
"must seem exaggerated or unfair to people
working hard at Alcor?"  Over and over again
in his article Mike's statements distorted
the truth so thoroughly that they were WORSE
than outright lies, for to the casual
observer they have the vague, fuzzy
appearance of truth.  Were his intentions
good?  I'm sure he thinks so.  Was their some
merit to some of the things he said?
Unbdoubtedly.  But let me emphasize here, in
case it somehow didn't come through in my
article, that nearly every problem Mike
describes was JUST AS BAD OR *FAR WORSE* when
he was here.  And a whole SLEW of things have
improved.

     It is my sad and reluctant opinion that
Mike's article is a pack of lies and
distortions specifically intended to defame
Alcor and the people who work here, and that
it springs from the pain and bitterness that
accompany his lack of control over an
organization and a group of people that he
once controlled utterly.  I have no doubt
ruined my own relationship with Mike by
expressing this opinion and by doing my best
to refute his article.  More than you can
know I regret that I was unable to alter the
chain of events that necessitated this.  Life
goes on, however, and my regret could in no
way substitute for clear, honest action in
the face of unpleasantness.

     You are worried that "something is
getting lost here," and you state that in
your opinion Mike "is correct when he states
that cryonics, generally, is a business which
does not have a built-in self-correcting
consumer-driven feedback mechanism. . . ."
Although I would state that at least to some
degree it in fact DOES have such a consumer-
driven feedback mechanism, and that you (a
consumer) are demonstrating it right now, I
would certainly agree that it is SUB-OPTIMAL.
I bet we can ALL agree about this.  I've
listened to Mike say this for years as well.
He didn't quite know what to do about it, and
I'm afraid that I don't either.  No one is
attempting to sweep anything under the rug
here.

     You suggest a self-critical newsletter,
perhaps semi-monthly, going to Suspension
Members only and serving as an uncensored
forum for feedback and debate.  I think that
that is a GREAT idea, and I've not heard
anyone here (at Alcor) speak against it.  I
in fact specifically stated in my response to
Mike's article that I saw that is inevitable
and desirable.  I seem to recall you
volunteering to act as Editor for it as well.
I hereby request that you make a proposal and
submit it to me, describing the probable
length, format, cost (including production,
management, and mailing), distribution
(Suspension Members only?), regularity (semi-
monthly?), and editorial policy (if any).

     Have I left anything out?  I consider
this whole topic of crucial importance, and
encourage you to continue posting about it
until you are satisfied with the outcome (or
frustrated beyond the limits of your
patience; preferably the former).

     Best,

     Ralph Whelan

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1348