X-Message-Number: 1380 From: Subject: CRYONICS Reply to Paul Wakfer by Ralph Whelan Date: Tue, 1 Dec 92 01:25:17 PST TO: Readers of Paul Wakfer's "detailed amplification" of posting #1333 FROM: Ralph Whelan DATE: November 30, 1992 I hope that Charles Platt and others can forgive this posting, which is somewhat lengthy, and which may resemble "Hensonage"--a term that I dislike for its thoroughly derisive etymology and for its seeming lack of consideration of the clear utility of a quote-and-rebut approach to debate. I hope that persons active--or considering being active--on this list are not now so afraid of "stooping to Hensonage" that the meaningful exchange of information and opinions is impaired. I wish to remind everyone of what seems obvious to me: if someone posts a dreadfully long and tedious "position paper" that repeatedly touches on your area of responsibility (or for that matter your character and/or integrity), it may be necessary to post an equally long and tedious response. That's life. (And that's why Gawd made PAGE DOWN buttons.) >From Paul Wakfer's posting: >[Mike's] knowledge and experience are so important, that if it is a choice >of having him doing suspensions or having the people who do not like >working with him doing suspensions (it is my understanding that these are >mainly Tanya, secondarily Hugh and thirdly Ralph in deference to Tanya, >his lover), then they must be taken off suspensions or at least told to put >up with it or quit suspensions. Paul's "understanding" that I--in deference to Tanya--do not like working with Mike, is not an "understanding" at all. It is an assumption. An incorrect assumption. Some of my most enjoyable moments at Alcor were at Mike's side. Do I currently prefer working with Tanya to working with Mike? In some respects, yes, in others, no. Either way, Paul doesn't have the *slightest idea* of what he's talking about here. He is acting and speaking with a fantastically tiny understanding of my relationship with Tanya, and, as evidenced by his words, his understanding of my relationship with Mike is pretty pathetic as well. This is not a reason to lose respect for Paul. Rather, it is his insistence on acting as if he *does* have this understanding that condemns him. We will see as we progress that Paul excels at making assumptions and treating them as facts, and that based on these assumed "facts" he labels others as arrogant. This was idly amusing, once. Now it is tedious. >When will we wake up to the fact that we are no longer a dozen >cryonicists and if one goes there will be no one to replace him. Yes Paul, when? Why don't you sleep for a couple of days and then re- read your own words? >There are many people out there in cryonicsland who would be happy and >eager to come and work at Alcor if given the chance. There are many >who are eager to work with Mike Darwin whom most of them admire >greatly for his many accomplishments and his decades of dedication to >cryonics. If Directors and management don't believe this, then I say let's >find out by advertising the Alcor job positions to an open competition by >anyone interested and choosing the 'best' applicant (which may well be the >current holder of the position). Am I reading this correctly? Paul, is it actually your "understanding" at this point that while "we" (Alcor's current staff and management) fully wish we had the inner strength to work with Mike, we do not have this strength, and we're simply unwilling to turn Alcor over to those who do? Obviously, there are people willing to work with Mike Darwin. *I'm one of them, so is Hugh Hixon, so is Tanya Jones, and probably everybody else on the Suspension Team.* I'm participating in research with him right now, *as you well know*, and so is Hugh, and so would Tanya *if Mike would let her*. However, MIKE QUIT, in case it has escaped your notice. And the manner of his departure has made many of us (those who are now here picking up the pieces left from his parting shots) less than eager to join forces with him again. However, none of us has refused, we just think it's a BAD IDEA. We think that Mike is unstable. And we think that it would be STUPID to turn Alcor over to a crew of "happy and eager" applicants who DO NOT UNDERSTAND the pitfalls of working with Mike--and of working with you, for that matter. It boggles the mind that you could fail to understand this, at this point. >[Carlos] had already been removed from being chairman of the Board >(one of my recommendations in "Its Time For A Change"). Assumption incorrect. Carlos ASKED if someone else would be willing to take over the duties of the Chairman, since he was quite fed up with the thankless task. Paul Genteman reluctantly agreed, and we then decided to switch to a rotating chairman system, at least temporarily. > I now add Ralph's name to the list of Directors who should not be on >the Board. He was, of course, on the list indirectly before since he is an >Alcor employee. But some of his recent actions, the details of which I >wish not to report, and his reply to Mike Darwin's departure statement >show that there are enormous gaps in his understanding of many >fundamental issues involving Alcor and the criticisms which many have >levied at its current principles of operation. In addition, I believe he is >not able to be objective concerning his own shortcomings or those of his >lover and Alcor staffer Tanya Jones. I suppose I should apologize for not being objective about my shortcomings. In fact, I guess we all owe Paul an apology for this. I'm sorry, Paul, that I am me and not someone else. Am I less than objective about Tanya? Of course. Am I adequately objective about Tanya? I believe so. If Paul has a *single specific example* of actions I've taken that betray any kind of favoritism or improper treatment of Tanya or anyone else, he should list them in defense of that statement. My reasons for feeling the way that I do about working with Mike are *clearly stated* in my response to his article. If Paul has ANY EVIDENCE that I prefer working with Tanya over Mike because of an emotional bias, he should STATE THAT EVIDENCE. The existence of a personal relationship is not rouse suspicion in his readers, while simultaneously making my life and especially my relationship much more difficult. I hope that readers will not treat this innuendo as fact. >[Tanya] completely and continually fails to understand the depth of >knowledge and experience that is required to be the technical leader of >transport and suspensions. Assumption incorrect. Tanya FULLY understands that her level of medical knowledge and expertise is far from ideal for a person in her position. >She has consistently refused to take, or even acknowledge the necessity >of, any formal technical or university biological or medical training. >Instead, she is working on a correspondence course MBA (hardly >something which will make her more competent at transport or >suspensions). Assumption incorrect. Tanya DOES view it as necessary that the Suspension Team Leader have "formal technical or university biological or medical training." She does not desire this training. Nor does she desire the title of Suspension Team Leader. She is doing it because NO ONE ELSE WILL. You've got a lot of nerve attacking her for this, especially considering the improvements she has made and the effort she has expended. And you've got a lot of nerve representing her as so obtuse that she thinks medical training is unnecessary, when YOU DON'T KNOW her feelings about this because YOU NEVER ASKED HER. >She has this totally unrealistic and arrogant attitude that by watching >Mike Darwin and reading and mimicking what he does, she somehow >becomes as qualified as he is at transport and suspensions. . . . Tanya is >just simply too arrogant and too incapable of responding positively to any >criticism to be in charge of suspensions. Assumption incorrect. Tanya does not have "this totally unrealistic and arrogant attitude that by watching Mike darwin and reading and mimicking what he does, she somehow becomes as qualified as he is at transport and suspensions." That's nothing but a substanceless lie. Worse, you use this lie as a springboard to attack Tanya for wishing to improve, and for wanting to study with Mike Darwin. Which is it, Paul? Is she incompetent for refusing to acknowledge the necessity of medical training, or is she incompetent for trying to get it? >Ralph Whalen has argued that Alcor suspension capability is better now >because Tanya has done so much work organizing it and it was totally >organized before. I have never argued that Alcor's suspension capability is better now "because Tanya has done so much work organizing it." What I have said is that it is more ORGANIZED now that Tanya has organized it. Paul, do not do me any favors by trying to synopsize my arguments. Since you either can't or won't understand me, perhaps you should just quote me. >Again to his credit in contrast to Tanya, Ralph, I believe, would gladly >relinquish his suspension team job if such a person came along. Assumption incorrect. Tanya WOULD gladly relinquish her suspension team job if a better person came along. If you don't believe me on this, you may want to try, for a change, ASKING HER! >To my chagrin, it wasn't more than 2 months after I had upgraded him >from WordStar on an original IBM PC to Ventura and WordPerfect on a >16 MHz 286 with 4 MB of memory and a special 14" white screen for >Ventura, that he demanded and received a 486 with hard disk and color >monitor. Assumption incorrect. I did not "demand" anything. Since I did not believe that your blazing 16MHz 286 was adequate for layout, I OFFERED to take a CUT IN PAY, which has been in effect for over six months now, and which--spread over three years--would equal the cost of the 486 PLUS INTEREST. Now, either you did not know this, and chose to speak with arrogant authority--again--on something about which you can only assume, or you knew this and chose to misrepresent the whole thing. Which is it, Paul? >In essence, completely rejecting my gift and my judgement. Well *string me up*. But just to set the record straight: last year, I wanted a copy of Pagemaker 4.0, since I'd heard from several people that it's the best layout program on the market. Someone recommended that I call you, since you might have a copy of this that you'd like to donate. Despite my misgivings, you INSISTED that Ventura was adequate, and you INSISTED that a monochrome monitor was adequate, and you went ahead and made them available. I did not like Ventura, so I went ahead and made arrangements to fund a better system with MY OWN MONEY. It might be noble to donate something to a cause you believe in, Paul, but it's not noble at all to get pissed because the recipient(s) won't pretend to like it. >Mike Perry did essentially the same thing, Assumption incorrect. Mike Perry did not "demand and receive" a 486 either. He bought one with his own money. >however, I don't blame him [Mike Perry] so much because he is just too >insensitive of human relationship in all areas to ever think of such a >thing. Paul, isn't there ANYONE you wish to refrain from needlessly offending? >No suggestion was ever received from Alcor that I could have back my >donated equipment which was no longer being used. Mike Darwin has >urged me several times to go and reclaim it. But I find the whole thing >too distasteful to face. I have never liked attempting to take back gifts, >however much they were spurned, preferring instead to resolve never to >be burned, at least by the same people, again. Wow, you are a bitter, bitter man. First, no hardware that you donated is going unused. Derek is using the screen and RAM you donated. As for Ventura, if you would like it back TAKE IT. It may well see use here someday, but I doubt it, and I don't know if I can live with myself knowing that I'm spurning Ventura with every waking moment. >Just to let you know, Alcor did immediately refund my $35,000.00 >suspension prepayment plus interest. They borrowed $15,000.00 of it >from the Endowment Fund! ASSUMPTION INCORRECT! GET A HANDLE ON YOUR IMAGINATION!!! Where do you get the gall to make such a serious accusation without even checking the facts?!? To Paul's credit, he printed a retraction of this once he became aware that he was in error, but it is only because Carlos called him and told him of his error that he became aware of it. He made no effort whatsoever to substantiate that claim prior to posting it on the Cryonet. ****END OF POINT-COUNTERPOINT**** As with my response to Mike Darwin, I wish to point out that I am not attempting to assert that all of Paul's comments and complaints are without merit. Yes, we are hurting from the loss of the skills of Mike Darwin. It will probably be a long time before we feel the confidence without him that we felt when he was present. However, the entire Alcor staff and certainly a good majority of the Board of Directors believes that we should not be directly involved with Mike right now, and furthermore MIKE feels that we should not be directly involved with Mike right now. Maybe the problems and differences that have brought us all to this uncomfortable point will change someday, and maybe not. Either way, I'm doing my best to make the choices and take the actions that I think are most likely to move Alcor forward to a point where we can consistently offer the best cryonic suspension services that modern medical technology allows. That is what we are all trying to do here, even Paul. I have to be honest in saying that I believe that as long as we all have only one hand free because the other hand is pointing at the dunderheads who are causing all of our problems, we're going to make halting progress at best. Let's put down the sticks and stones and get some WORK done here. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1380