X-Message-Number: 22952
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 03:41:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: The old "influential wealthy person" argument

Flavonoid writes,

> I might also mention that wealth does not necessarily
> enable good decisions about who should be a manager, any
> more than a high level of technical expertise or intellect
> necessarily makes a good manager.  In each of those
> scenarios, just the opposite frequently occurs.

If this elliptical statement is rewritten in plain English,
it makes no sense at all. Is Saul Kent being blamed for
"influencing" Alcor to hire Dr. Jerry Lemler, because Kent
paid Dr. Lemler's salary? Presumably the directors were
perfectly capable of searching for an alternative field team
leader (as was done in January of this year) and were also
perfectly capable of searching for an alternative CEO (as has
been done, quite publicly, after Lemler gave notice that he
was going to quit). To suggest that somehow the Alcor
directors are mindless "Kent slaves" is simplistic,
insulting, and silly. In my experience, having attended far
more board meetings than I would prefer, the three most
influential directors, in terms of motions proposed or
seconded and opinions which are initially expressed, would be
Mondragon, Riskin, and Merkle, in that order. Is their
influence "undue" also?

> Now, where in the cryonics archives have we seen similar
> instances of Charles Platt jumping to the defense of Saul
> Kent or seeming suspiciously to be acting as his
> mouthpiece?

Saul is perfectly capable of expressing himself without any
help from a "mouthpiece," and I am perfectly capable of
reaching my own opinions, as is everyone else in this small
forum. This should be so obvious it hardly needs to be
stated.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22952