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