X-Message-Number: 2338
Date: 10 Jul 93 20:11:56 EDT
From: Michael Riskin <>
Subject: CRYONICS...Reading the "Bleach" 

    What started out as a technical  suspension report in Cryonics June
1993, has escalated as of last night to renewal of name calling and
attack-counterattack. I suspect we are far from seeing the end of this in
terms of intensity or breadth of persons involved. 
   I ask those cryonet readers  not involved in the event itself or the
subsequent "spin",  to eliminate from consideration those factors which
are historically political and personal in agenda and viewpoint. There
are more important LESSONS to be learned from the actual suspension and
the reporting which followed. While there is always  a chance I could be
wrong, particularly where interpretation of motive is involved, I believe
that all of the major participants in this "event" have agendas from the
past and priorities for the future that will distort what really is
occurring with suspension capability. One easy way to analyze much of what
people say is to understand what the extension of their argument 
ultimately leads to. What end does it tend to serve? What personal goal
does it serve? What unfinished , still raw business does it address?
   Let me simplify this down to one basic point...the quality of Alcor
suspensions. At one end , we have Mike Darwin pounding at the deficiencies
of bith the suspension and the followup. His point that the suspension
was severely flawed is of course correct. EVERY SUSPENSION THAT HAS EVER
OCCURRED IS SEVERELY FLAWED.  Mikes' insistance that Alcor suspension
personnel does not take the flaws seriously enough to show appropriate
concern, nor have a desire to learn and improve from them, and
consciously engages in procedural violations constitutes serious enough
charges to be answered in detail. I know that current suspensions , NO
MATTER WHO PERFORMS THEM, leave a whole lot to be desired. As an Alcor
member, or any cryonicist desiring services from anyone, we should want to
know if at the least suspension quality is not degrading, and, if our team
of choice is consistenly attempting to improve based on theory, available
research, and hands on experience. 
   As an Alcor member , that is what I want from Alcor. I am simply
technically unprepared to make a technical evaluation, but I sure can tell
if I am being B.S. d'. I recall last year when accusations were being made
that Alcor funds were being gutted, and implications of "criminal "nature
were made . A careful examination showed the more heinous of the
accusations to completely without substance, while pointing out
operational shortcomings that could improve our financial performance..
Lets do the same for our suspension operation. As a CPA I volunteered to
review the endowment fund accusations last year. Do we have any qualified
member who will volunteer to independently review the Alcor suspension
practicality and philosophy?

Michael


   



Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2338