X-Message-Number: 1378
Date: 01 Dec 92 00:14:52 EST
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: CRYONICS

To: Kevin Brown

Let me get this straight. Scott Herman has resigned from 
Alcor for reasons unstated. Another member, named Parkman, 
will resign if Saul Kent takes over (in some sense 
unexplained). Mr. Parkman is mad at me for a) being flippant 
about Keith Henson, and b) failing to read one of Keith's 
messages as closely as I should, so that I falsely accused 
Keith of being misleading. Mr. Parkman says he was going to 
contribute a rebuke to me, but decided not to (because people 
in California don't mess around with mere words, they take 
some sort of direct action--undefined). But then Mr. Parkman 
issues his written rebuke anyway. Finally, he expresses his 
disgust at what he describes as the "coup" at Alcor. 

I have a hard time understanding all this. I am not sure why 
I have been singled out for criticism (maybe because I was 
the only person who poked fun at Keith instead of denouncing 
him? Maybe because mine was the only posting that was short 
enough for Mr. Parkman to read?) Since I am the target, 
however, I suppose I should try and come up with some sort of 
response. 

Firstly, and obviously, no "coup" took place; a new director 
for Alcor was voted in by board members in accordance with 
bylaws of the organization. A coup is usually understood to 
mean an illegal operation by which a despot seizes power. 
Anyone who imagines that Steve Bridge is a despot simply 
knows nothing about the man. I suggest that Mr. Parkman 
should read Steve's resume, posted here on the net. That 
would be a good place to start. 

I am not clear whether Scott Herman has quit Alcor because 
Mike Darwin is no longer doing suspensions, or because Carlos 
Mondragon is no longer the CEO. Since I am told that Scott 
used to have his finger on the nuclear button, maybe he's a 
bit clearer-headed that Mr. Parkman, in which case he might 
like to clarify this. 

As for my error re Keith Henson, I've already admitted it and 
apologized for it, which seems more than fair since Keith's 
posting did include several other statements that genuinely 
WERE misleading. If Mr. Parkman insists, I will itemize them; 
but other people have already done so, quite thoroughly. 

I infer Mr. Parkman is also unhappy about changes in Alcor's 
board which took place earlier this year. These changes 
occurred in a very scrupulously run election--again, 
according to Alcor's bylaws. Paul Genteman, one of Alcor's 
former directors, effectively put himself out of office by 
miscalculating the situation and omitting to vote for 
himself. I can make an excellent case for this being the 
crucial factor which tipped the balance, leading ultimately 
to a majority in favor of replacing Carlos Mondragon. Really, 
coups should be made of sterner stuff! And if Mr. Parkman is 
so concerned with propriety, why wasn't he worried during all 
the years in which Alcor ignored its own bylaws, and no 
elections took place? 

Again, I'm not sure that this is worth getting into. But 
since I am being targeted (while others far more notorious 
for their opposition to the old status quo are being passed 
over for some reason), I felt I should at least try to make 
sense of it all. 

--Charles Platt

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1378