X-Message-Number: 1871
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 01:22:27 -0600
From:  (Steve Jackson)
Subject: Revocation of Membership

I think Brian Wowk and I are in violent agreement at this point.
I happily concede that the circumstances under which Alcor would
be justified in expelling a member are very unlikely.
 
Still, it could happen. And the argument that "Nobody hurts
Alcor by paying dues and receiving the magazine" is a straw man.
Nobody is arguing that they do.
 
But someone could hurt Alcor by gross public misbehavior related
to their membership, especially if they then publicize that
membership. Want a hypothetical?
 
Englebert Fitz-Fakename the Fourth is an Alcor member. So are
his wife and twin daughters. All are heavily insured, both for
cryonics and conventionally. Englebert kills the other three
for the insurance money, hoping that his "devotion" in freezing
them will throw investigators off the track. It doesn't; he's
brought to trial. At the trial, Englebert argues that he can't be
prosecuted for murder because his poor loved ones are only sleeping,
safe in Alcor's vaults . . . that in fact, he did them a favor.
I will spare you, Gentle Reader, the hypothetical details of the 
media and government reaction.
 
But in this situation I would argue that every day Englebert can
truthfully claim to be an Alcor member, entitled to share a dewar
with his unlucky family, is a bad day for Alcor. And not because
he gets a copy of CRYONICS every month! Alcor needs to publicly
wash its hands of this guy, by revoking his membership and every
other connection. Let him rot, literally.
 
Yes, I stipulate that this is far-fetched. But *something* every bit
this insane is not just likely, but inevitable. When Alcor has enough
members, one of them WILL be . . . unusual.
 
******
 
   As for "Clarissa" - "she" reinforces my belief that "she" is a fraud
with her "I'm going away because you don't deserve me" parting shots.
A typical exit strategy for a fake poster chagrined by exposure.
But if she IS out of here - at least as "Clarissa" - then I can spare
readers any reply to the bulk of "her" honeyed rant.
   But "her" accusation that I'm posting at Keith's request won't go
unanswered. No, "Clarissa," I had not discussed you with Keith - or
anyone else at all - before I debunked you. Not everybody lies.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1871