X-Message-Number: 1477
From: 
Subject: CRYONICS Reply re 1470
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 22:59:20 PST

In Message: #1468-#1470 Steve Bridge writes: 

>     Some more things that disturb me about Scott's letter:
 
>---  Keith Henson's original letter (which Saul was replying to) was 
>only written to the Board and to Saul.  

Steve and I have discussed this over the phone since he posted, and he 
added a note on this to his re-posting.  Mine started with "Open 
letter to the board and Saul Kent."  It is my understanding (and 
anyone is welcome to correct me if I have this wrong) that an open 
letter is just that, for unrestricted distribution.  I made mine 
unrestricted for the practical reason that I expected it to be copied 
and handed around anyway. 

>                                        He did not post it on the open
>network.

True, I wanted to discuss it with Steve before posting.
  
>          Saul's letter was only written (as far as I know) to the
>Board and to Keith.  I do not believe he posted it on the open
>network.
 
>     Yet Scott, without Saul's permission, posted Saul's letter.

Saul's letter starts with "Open letter to Keith Henson and . . . ."

I would certainly find fault with Scott if he had posted private mail 
or something marked "confidential" without permission, but when 
something starts with "Open letter," I think Scott is justified in 
thinking that permission to post or print in the nearest newspaper has 
been given. 

>     Keith's letter to the Board (which Saul was responding to) was, in my
>personal interpretation, a gloom+doom letter which added nothing positive
>to my knowledge or preparedness for being president.  I told Keith so,
>privately -- the way I prefer to discuss negatives.  

I am *very* sorry that you reacted to my letter as gloom+doom.  In 
very short form, it says "Ok, we're not going to be sore losers, but 
the 'winning' side in this affair is going to have to take 
*responsibility* as well as authority."  I have been particularly 
galled by Saul Kent's public denial of responsibility, and it may be 
that his main annoyance with me is my pointing out in that letter that 
he can't get away with it.  

I am also *quite* irritated with Saul for what I consider his 
irresponsible actions earlier this year in changing the management of 
Cryovita (and from what Scott and Paul posted, it should be obvious 
*why* I think this was irresponsible).  If anyone doubts who 
orchestrated the management change, please consult the first paragraph 
of 0014.4 where Saul informs us that "Cryovita without Jerry Leaf will 
not be in the cryonic suspension business."  But this is getting off 
the track. 

>                                                     Fortunately, Keith
>usually writes more useful stuff, included a fine fund-raising letter
>which he spent several days on recently.  More examples are easy to find.
>I hope that Keith and all of the other Board Members will recognize that
>there is no benefit in me failing at the job of President.  I will
>need the support and advice of all eight other Directors, plus all of
>the Alcor suspension members that each of you like and those which
>you may not like.

Actually, most of the work on that letter was done two months ago.  I 
presume that Ralph Whalen (the person who should have done something 
with it at that time) missed seeing it or was distracted by political 
maneuvering.

I think the last paragraph of my letter made it *very* clear that I 
fully understand that our very lives depend on Steve being successful 
(or at least not failing).

>     Saul's message to Keith was to support Steve or to leave the
>Board.

Steve, I have Saul's "Open letter" right in front of me.  Try as I 
might, I simply cannot read your interpretation into any sentence of 
the first three paragraph of his letter.  

Instead I find: "inappropriate for him to continue to serve . . . . 
Keith presents a scornfully negative opinion . . . . question his 
motives . . . . invites the contempt . . . jealousy and arrogance . . 
. . clearcut bias . . . . completely destroyed any value he might have 
had . . . . no longer has the objectivity . . . . owes it to Alcor to 
resign," etc.  

This is, of course, in the context of Saul's reputation for getting 
what he wants, and furthermore, this came with what I consider to be 
reliable reports that Saul has already picked my replacement.  

Should I brace for a 200 page book being mailed to half the Alcor 
members detailing my sins of omission and commission and attacking my 
character?  Or does he have the votes to dump me without working up a 
lynch mob?  Or was it, as you seem to think, only a warning shot to 
keep me in line?

I was not so much opposed to Steve as I was opposed to Carlos being 
replace by *anyone* who is an unknown quantity in the next crisis.  
Why?  Because I developed a lot of confidence in Carlos by working 
closely with him through some *extremely* rough times.  Ralph and Mark 
have little knowledge of those times.  Brenda, Al, and Steve were 
not deeply involved in getting Alcor out of the Dora Kent mess.  
Carlos, Hugh, Dave, and I were.  

I considered the abilities Carlos demonstrated both in dealing with 
crisis and (as important) all the times he worked to head off crisis 
to be far more important than his failing to make a few phone calls 
for Saul.  Because crisis is something which comes looking for Alcor, 
I expect (though I certainly don't "relish" it) that I will have ample 
opportunity to develop a similar confidence in Steve.   

To keep Charles Platt from complaining about the length of postings, I 
will quit here.

Keith Henson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1477