X-Message-Number: 2297
From: 
Subject: CRYONICS Openness and Honesty
Date: Sat,  5 Jun 93 01:34:33 PDT

To CryoNet
>From Steve Bridge, President
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
June 4, 1993

In reply to  Message: #2292 - honesty/openness
             From: Ben Best <>
             Wed, 2 Jun 1993 


     I  also  attended  the Memorial Weekend Cryonics  Conference,  and  I 
wanted to clear up a couple of misconceptions and to add some thoughts  to 
what Ben has said.  

     To a large extent, I agree that openness has decreased in cryonics in 
general and in Cryonics Magazine in particular over the past year or  two.  
This  is not strictly because Mike Darwin has left Alcor.  The  wide-open, 
hell-bent,  throat-ripping "honesty" on Cryonet and elsewhere  during  the 
past year has sensitized many people to a point where *honesty* appears to 
equal *pain and nastiness*.

     At  one time a group of cryonics activists shared communication on  a 
wide variety of subjects, forming an informal set of advisors to the Board 
of Directors.  This informality is now largely gone, a situation I  regret 
immensely.    I  would  like  to  begin  writing  again  about  the   more 
controversial  and aggravating problems of Alcor and cryonics in  Cryonics 
Magazine.   I agree with the people who think perhaps we have pulled  back 
too far from controversy. (But I have no desire to turn the magazine  into 
the  equivalent  of  Cryonet,  especially as it  was  during  January  and 
February.)   I  personally  am inviting Ben and others to  send  in  their 
comments  to Ralph Whelan, Editor of Cryonics Magazine, as articles or  as 
Letters  to the Editor.  Space may prevent us from publishing  everything, 
and  I'm sure we will have many "discussions" internally on how to  handle 
this.  But I will try to loosen up the policy some more.

>Worse, we spent time at the Conference openly discussing a difficult case 
>involving  an Alcor member -- and Alcor people have decided that  nothing 
>of this case will appear in CRYONICS.

     This  statement is incorrect, and it repeats an  incorrect  statement 
made  on  a  panel at the Conference, but which I did  not  have  time  to 
refute.   Some aspects of this case WERE discussed in the April  issue  of 
*Cryonics*  in my article "Details Make the Difference."  The  reasons  we 
have not published the rest of the details yet are:

     1.   The  amount of information and individual reports  generated  on 
that  case  was  quite large and varied.  Turning  the  often  conflicting 
points-of-view  into  a  coherent and fair article may  require  a  better 
reporter than any we have here.  It will certainly require a lot of  time.  
I am a logical one to work on this but just haven't had the time.

     2.  The case caused a number of emotional wounds among the people who 
worked on it in some capacity.  The wounds are currently scabbed over  but 
not  healed; and most of us have not been ready to rip the scabs off  yet.  
It  may  be we are short on the courage and energy necessary  to  confront 
that so far; but I haven't figured out how to write this up without making 
the inter-Alcor pain worse.

     3.   The member in this case (a Stand-by where the  member  survived, 
but  dropped  his membership) still subscribes to Cryonics  Magazine.   It 
took  us  a long time to understand our mistakes and  responsibilities  in 
this  case  --  and the member's mistakes, as well.   We  didn't  want  to 
publish  an  article  that  misrepresented  the  situation.   A  premature 
discussion of this case at a Board Meeting created a major set of problems 
itself,  because  at  least  two Directors  made  accusations  founded  on 
inadequate knowledge.

     I  still hope to put together this article.  I think it is  important 
not  only for the specific case, but also because it shows us a lot  about 
the  splits that can happen in the cryonics community.  These splits  have 
happened  before and will happen again; but maybe we can learn from  these 
experiences. 


>Curtis  Henderson claims that a former activist in Alcor New York --  who 
>went so far as to get an EMT -- is no longer an activist, simply  because 
>Mike  Darwin  tore a strip out of him for not shaving during  the  Boston 
>suspension.

     "Simply for not shaving" makes for a more colorful and pointed  story 
but doesn't represent the full truth of the matter.  I wasn't there at the 
time,  so I won't comment as to whether Mike or the team member  was  more 
right; but I know Mike had more criticisms than that.


     As  I  commented  at the Conference, some think  that  "openness  and 
honesty" means that we should spread every rumor and story we hear as soon 
as  we hear it, whether it turns out to be correct or not.  Ben  just  did 
that  himself, apparently without checking with either Mike Darwin or  the 
Team Member in question.  Of course, even if he had asked the  individuals 
involved,  the correct answer is sometimes hard to see, partly because  it 
is so easy to slant a story toward one's own benefit.  Every one of us has 
done  that,  usually  unconsciously.   My awareness  of  this  means  that 
sometimes I may err on the side of caution.  The problems of "how much  to 
tell and when" and "whom to believe" will never go away.  

Steve Bridge

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2297