X-Message-Number: 8736
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:31:37 -0600
From: Steve Jackson <>
Subject: The clouds thicken...

S.J. Van Sickle wrote:

> I honestly don't remember thinking that it would be
>anything *but* a sales pitch for the lifetime memberships.

Ahh. You are more cynical or perceptive, or both, than I was . . .

>  I suspect the "scheduling" call was wildly different from the letter

Certainly the "scheduling" call took up a lot of my time listening to Mr.
Cloud butter me up with chat about the weather, amazed noises about my line
of work, and descriptions of how very valuable my input would be, with no
mention at all of life memberships or sales pitches.


>I agree that Fred's response was entirely inadequate and inappropriate.

Thank you. But Linda (see below) contends that Fred answered all my
questions and speculates that I just want a fight.

I received a private communication from an Alcor member well acquainted
with the Chamberlains, saying (to boil it down) "Be easy on Fred; he's
always getting taken in by fast-talkers, it's cost him a lot of money over
the years, and Michael is just the latest."

I'm sorry if Fred is a perpetual and eager target, but it's not just his
money he is playing with now. It's our organization, our reputation and our
money. And our survival.

>Perhaps this would be a good occasion to strongly
>suggest a mailing list limited to Alcor suspension members....There would
>still >be a Cryonet for issues of
>interest to all, and to as a last resort take public issues that
>cannot or will not be resolved internally.

Certainly anything that would encourage honest responses would be a good
thing. Though I'd like to think that potential members would be
*encouraged* if they read a public list with honest discussion of issues.
Still, if there were a list specifically for Alcor members, I would
subscribe.

>BTW, Fred, you *are* planning on using the funds mostly for capital
>rather than operating expenses, aren't you?

That's a good question, and perhaps some of the other directors will
address it if Fred doesn't. And if Mr. Cloud is a paid consultant rather
than a volunteer, I'd also like to know how much he is getting as his
"share."

*********

Linda Chamberlain says:

>Fred Chamberlain is at the Foresight Conference in California this
>week.  He won't be able to read CryoNet until next week, and that
>will be a busy week of catching up, so priorities will have to be
>applied.

I hope he feels that several members' deep dissatisfaction with the ethics
of Alcor's new marketing plan is a "priority."


>So far Steve, you are the only Alcor member (who has been on the
>telecon information exchanges) that has posted any comments on CryoNet

But several have expressed strong dissatisfaction in other venues, haven't
they? Did you also try to make them feel that they were the only ones with
an objection?


>Kennita Watson and Thomas Donaldson have not participated
>in the telecons.  Their comments reflected their own philosophical views, and
>their reactions to your comments.

But that doesn't in the least invalidate their comments, especially given
what they said in their letters, now does it?


(three paragraphs of rhetoric on "why we have to grow" snipped)

> If a large
>enough number of our membership feels a given attempt to grow is a
>nonproductive approach, we will change it.

Thank you, Linda! Even though you don't even hint at what a "large enough
number" might be, and even though you say "nonproductive" instead of
"damaging and dishonest," that statement is the closest to a straight
answer I have gotten to any of my queries.

>You say that we did not answer your questions.  I believe we have.

Oh, Linda! Not the "We've already answered that" brushoff. You haven't
answered at all. Unless you believe that long statements of the *problem*
are somehow a justification of *any* solution that you attempt. That would
be saying "the end justifies the means," and I do not want to put words in
your mouth or Fred's. I want to hear YOUR answers.

>You just weren't listening

Linda, perhaps you should try not to talk down to your members.

If Fred's response contained answers to any of my questions, perhaps you
will be so good as to do a bit of cut-and-paste for me, your slow student,
juxtaposing my questions with the answers Fred gave that I somehow
overlooked.

>or you are just angry and want a fight.

I am certainly unhappy, Linda. I could reach "angry" if you and Fred
continue your "stonewalling" tactic. But I don't want a fight, and it is
not an honest debate tactic for you to try to brush off those who criticize
you by accusing them of combativeness for its own sake.

What I wanted when I first wrote was for Alcor to discard its new regime of
questionable promotional tactics. I'll now add to that: I want Alcor's
leadership to return to the open, honest discussion of issues that we
became accustomed to over the last few years. Talking all around a question
and then saying "You weren't listening; you just want to fight" is NOT the
kind of behavior that will encourage growth.

>We see no productive outcome from verbal fisticuffing.

Good! Then I can expect you not to tell any more of your critics that they
are not paying attention and just want to fight. I can expect you to calmly
answer the questions and give a reasoned justification of what *several*
people have told you is offensive, slick, dishonest marketing.

> In fact, it
>is the viscious manner in which many cryonicists attach each other

Viscously attached, eh? A sticky situation indeed.

>... many of
>the participants on the very telecons that have made you so angry are
>telling us how grateful they are to see that kind of animosity dwindling.

Then be honest with the members you already have, Linda.


 Steve Jackson - yes, of SJ Games - yes, we won the Secret Service case
  Learn Web or die - http://www.sjgames.com/ - dinosaurs, Lego, Kahlua!
          The heck with PGP keys; finger for Geek Code. Fnord.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8736