X-Message-Number: 22578
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:46:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Potvin's Problem

Someone has copied me on a recent statement from Rick Potvin
which is so wrong, I have to deal with it, even though I
suspect that everyone is as sick of the topic as I am. I'm
told that Potvin wrote:

> Charles Platt made the stunning admission, in a post to
> Cryonet in response to John Grigg, that Larry Johnson had
> indicated severe problems with Alcor four weeks before he
> didn't show up for work.

Rick, it was not a "stunning admission." I had already told
dozens of people. If you would ever take the trouble to call
me to check your facts, I could have told you too.

> This is critical to understanding how it was that Larry was
> able to get away with what he did.  Apparently, Larry WAS
> giving signals but the signals were not transmitted to the
> higher Alcor authorities.

Rick, this is absolutely, offensively wrong. Now please pay
attention. The following phrase was included in a press
release which Alcor sent out to the Associated Press and
other news media in mid-August:

   "I know that Johnson had some personal differences with
   our CEO," Mondragon comments. "But we pledged to resolve
   any issues."

I was the one who supplied the information for that statement
in the press release. Obviously I had told Alcor director
Carlos Mondragon that Johnson had some dissatisfactions, and
far from keeping this a secret, Alcor conveyed it to the
whole world (sorry you seem to have missed it).

If you suspect that I *delayed* notifying anyone about
Johnson's dissatisfactions, this also is untrue. The *very
same day* that Larry Johnson first told me he had substantial
issues regarding his job at Alcor, I communicated this
information, in complete detail, to an Alcor director.

Even before this, I had told Alcor's CEO, Jerry Lemler, that
Johnson did not want the responsibilities associated with the
"C.O.O." title, and Johnson felt that he should be paid more.
I mentioned this at least twice and (are you still paying
attention, Rick?) I brought up this particular issue *in a
public board meeting* on July 13th, 2003. (I think you were
at that meeting yourself, weren't you?) Afterward I
specifically asked the person who was writing the minutes of
the meeting to include my question and Jerry's response in
full.

Moreover (Rick, I do hope you are still paying attention) I
included the issue of Johnson not wanting to be C.O.O. in
the 27-page memo which I hope everyone is tired of hearing
about. This memo of course went to all board members.

You seem to be implying that I was negligent or participated
in a coverup. As you can see, this is absolutely, totally
false. I find your implication offensive, and I request an
immediate apology, plus I want you to place a complete copy
of this post on your web site, wherever it is, and I would
like to know who your source was for your incorrect
statement.

Also I will ask you a question. What is your problem? Why are
you still so irredeemably reluctant to send email or pick up
the phone to check your facts?

--Charles Platt

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22578