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