X-Message-Number: 30530
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:29:54 -0500
From: "Charles Platt" <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #30518 - #30523
References: <>

> Dave Pizer's argument is that members could monitor the board's
> actions and replace those that made what they thought were bad
> decisions.  I used that extended incident, which eventually led to
> the disastrous CryoCare split,

Keith I'm sorry, you didn't get it then, and you still don't seem to
get it now. MD being fired from Alcor was NOT the single factor that
led to the formation of a new company. The annual election at which
the board ignored other qualified candidates and mostly re-elected
itself was the decisive factor. That was when we walked out, and a few
hours later, the new company was formed.

It was intransigence over numerous issues (such as relocating in
Arizona) that pissed people off so much. A sense that the directors,
including you and, incidentally, including Dave at that time, simply
didn't care what anyone else thought. This is how Alcor lost almost
all of its best-qualified activist members.

Note that Darwin left Alcor months before that final meeting--long
enough to set up his own lab, in fact. This _enabled_ a new
organization, since the lab was capable of doing human cases. But it
didn't _cause_ the new organization.

I really don't know if any of this matters at this point, but to see
you repeating your rather simplistic version of history is a little
annoying. I was one of the five or six people who wrote the CryoCare
bylaws and ran the organization, so, I do have some idea of why it

> Who do you want to replace, why and with whom?

Again you miss the point. The point is that _the members_ (or a
suitably qualified subset thereof) should have some ability to make
this kind of decision.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30530