Welcome to the Blogger.com site for Alcor Democracy. [More] just below is the latest post-- below that, several of the latest posts by subject line-- and then below that-- the alphabetical index. Finally at the bottom, some useful introductory remarks.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Cryonics keyword test 3

cryonics keyword test 3--->Proceed to [Christian Humanist Cryonics World]

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Cryonics-- Dave Pizer's conclusions on Alcor democracy

I'd like Dave Pizer to give us all his conclusions on the Alcor Democracy project he launched that the start of 2008.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Alcor cryonics case goes very badly.

Here's the latest case report from Alcor. [+] The case studies are where you will find out how things actually work out. In this case, do not live in Hawaii-- if you're interested in cryonics.

I myself am signed up for cryonics and made the decision to live near a cryonics facility a long time ago. The best thing you can can do if you're signed up for cryonics is live near a cryonics lab and make friends with cryonicists.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Is Saul Kent buying Alcor?

Maxim writes

Did Steve Van Sickle and Carlos Mondragon step down from the board, (after opposing the funding offer from Kent and friends), because they felt like Alcor was being bought?
Source: ]+]

If Kent is indeed buying Alcor, that would be consistent with his original mission in the 1960's to "consolodate" cryonics. In effect-- to "own" cryonics-- including the "context".

Thursday, March 27, 2008

00-- OVERVIEW-- 00-- Pizer and CPlatt have gone silent

What has happened here is that we've discovered that Alcor has already been illegally taken over by a rogue group-- that then proceeded to change the bylaws only last year to eliminate the original Director Electorate. Dave Pizer and Cplatt have gone silent on the issue. I've known for some time that there were two very different factions vying for control. The wrong group has won-- for now.

Thursday, March 6, 2008

FD-- 04-- reports board threw a bone to Pizer-- insufficient

[+] Sound like a class action law suit would be needed to force the issue. I doubt that will happen. Besides the finanicial system is crashing-- we have to get through the election cycle. I don't think Pizer is going to push harder. I think this will be this historical 3rd attept to look at this-- and fail again.

BYLAW APPROVAL?-- 01-- What's this??? Take a look

Hey, people-- take a look at what I just found... [+]. The board approved a REVISED set of bylaws in May 2007 almost a YEAR ago! They SAY the changes were "non-substantive". Hardee har har. Oxygen NURSE! please.

When God created Google, I'll bet humans didn't figure on this--> [+]

HEre's another interesting piece of Alcor bylaw history [+]... from 1984!


On Sunday, August 5th, the ALCOR Board of Directors voted
to adopt new bylaws. The new bylaws basically reflect major
changes in the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporations
Law which went into effect in 1980. The new bylaws are much
more comprehensive than our old ones (17 pages single-spaced
versus 6 pages double-spaced) and provide guidelines for basic
administration. One change of importance is that the new Bylaws
provide a detailed summary of our purpose for existence. We
would like to share those purposes with you:

MY COMMENT-- I don't have time and money to research this further. Dave Pizer does though, right Dave-- our Alcor Democacy leader-who-denies-being-a-leader?

In some fashion, it appears to me that Dave is "hanging back" a bit-- that he is intending to appear to be putting this on the plate but he's not pulling out all the stops-- and this is indicative to me of a certain type of "play" where you "co-opt" an issue in order to "control" the direction of it- to "neutralize" it.. so in effect Dave's posts have the effect of neutralizing the forward movement of the point... by "pretending" to be pushing on the envelope when in fact... he's hesitating--

What this calls for is a budget and a private investigator.... nobody can tell me that the guys who got their names and faces into the Wall St. Journal for perp trusts in cryonics in Jan 06 can't imagine hiring a PI to look into this in the way I did this morning in terms of a simple google search that found an Alcor bylaw history LITTERALLY LITTERED with bylaw CHANGES-- that Dave hasn't point to yet.

Man-- what's the hell's wrong with ME? Am I truly smarter than the entire 1000+ cryoncists put together? Damn!

It makes me want to return to using bad words... like Holy fucking shit!

TRIPPER MCCARTHY--04-- alternate system ignores bylaw


DAVE PIZER-- 01-- Reappears with open ultimatum letter to board

Pizer posts to Cryonet again suggesting Alcor board may be invalid-- however does not take a next step. Suggests that Alcor hire a lawyer to figure it out when in fact Dave could hire a lawyer to figure it out-- and subpeona certain people-- if it turns out that the board is not valid. The other step forward would be wider notification to members of the situation. As it is, it's beginning to look as if this will go nowhere-- Dave offerred no report on the recent board meeting-- so the next indications would be Alcor's blog report on that meeting. My personal view is that this problem is merely interesting at this point-- but I have more pressing concerns. It's probably true with other members too.

QUOTE from DAve on Cold Filter and Cryonet [+]

Go back
March 5 2008 at 6:57 PM david pizer (Login davidpizer)
Veteran Member
To: The Alcor Board
To the Alcor members through various cryonics forums.

Here are the only important issues:

1. Which election system should be legally in place now?

2. What are the ramifications?

I will discuss each of these issues briefly and give my opinions about each subject below:

1. What system should be legally in place for electing Directors now at Alcor?

The way I read the Alcor Bylaws and the California law that regulates them, I believe that at the present time the only people who have the right to elect Alcor Directors are Alcor members. (I have given members and Directors previous specific information on this).

The Directors do not have the right to elect Directors according to the 1972 original Alcor Bylaws.

I believe these Bylaws are still in force today because I do not think they have every been legally amended. They have been amended but the California Corporation Code (Section 5150) seems to say that when Directors amend Bylaws that have to do with the voting rights of members, then the members have to approve those amended Bylaws. I don't see where the members have ever done this.

If all this is true, as I believe it is based on what I have read so far, then the amended Bylaws giving the Directors the right to elect Directors are not valid. Therefore all persons calling themselves Directors, who were elected by other Directors and not the membership, (I believe that it all of those who presently call themselves Directors) are NOT Directors.

I am not a lawyer. I am not an expert. This is the way I read the matter to be and for the balance of this work, I will go on the assumption that I have read the matter correctly. If I am wrong in this assumption then the rest of this work may also be incorrect.

2. The ramifications could be many. Questions that I worry about are:

a. Are the things the people who presently call themselves Directors are doing now in Alcor's name legal? If these people are not the legal Directors what is the status of all their actions?

b. Does their continuance to run Alcor, knowing they might not be the legally elected Directors, cause some liability for Alcor?

c. Does it cause some personal liability for them? Directors are often not held liable for their mistakes in running a corporation, but that may assume to only protect legally elected Directors?

What we have here seems like a complicated problem that involves Alcor members rights as set forth in the 1972 Bylaws that may still be in force today.

I would hope, and I request, that those calling themselves Alcor Directors would hire a legal expert to give an opinion on what the situation is and how it can be made right. I would hope that at the initial meeting, and all following meetings, with this expert, that representatives of the members and the Directors would both be present to give information to the expert who is going to give his/her opinion.

I can't see any other way this is going to get resolved. Also it seems that if it turns out that the present Directors are NOT legally elected, then they need to fix the problem before they take anymore actions in Alcor's name.


I am not saying that any particular Director is or is not a good Director or does or does not need to be replaced.

I certainly am NOT looking for any position of leadership in Alcor other then trying to get this problem fixed so that Alcor members can go back to having confidence that legally elected people are running Alcor.

This discussion is not about specific individuals. It is about the possibility that a mistake has been made that needs to be fixed before any other things are done in Alcor's name.

I request a reply from the Directors on this matter on what they intend to do about this. I have already requested this from the Directors with no response, so I am now including the members in this request.

Respectfully submitted to the members and the Board.

David Pizer


Wednesday, March 5, 2008

POLL-- Shannon-- Alcor members vs. Alcor board should vote for board

[+] this poll by shannon got 22 responses.

POLL-- triper-- term limits


POLL-- Tripper-- Do you agree with Alcor's goals

[+] This poll is a failure because only 2 responded-- but for some reason, in March 2008, Tripper and DAve have dropped this project.

FD-- 03-- Good concluding commentary misses bylaw and polls

I think FD has a good overview of what's going on. [+]. I don't know why he she misses the idea of polling that I introduced-- maybe becaues it's cedes a point to me-- and she doesn't want to draw attention to that-- FD misses the bylaw situation-- which is independet of whether 800 members want it adhered to or not. And the MOST silent people right now are Pizer, CPlatt and Chamberlain-- who are at the core of this right now. We don't have a cryonics membership publication, really-- other than Cryonet.

GATEKEEPERS-- 05-- Alan Sinclair

[+] Alan Sinclair exposes himself as a syncophant here. It's amazing how people tend to do that. At least if you're silent on the issue, only your hairdresser knows for sure. Anyway, Alan makes some strange comments--

Every day for many weeks there has been unrelenting complaints about Alcor

My comment-- No, not quite right, there Alan. Can the reader spot the fallacy?

I am sure by now there has been plenty of time to know how many of
the 870 plus and growing members are dissatisfied, could Numbers and names
be listed because I think it may well be very few.

My comment-- Alan, we haven't even started to spread the word-- at least from my angle.

I am now very satisfied
the way the staff and the board are running things, its the best its been in
the 22 years I have been involved with cryonics, I hope I am the majority
that thank everyone at Alcor for there dedication.

My comment-- Oh say can we see? By dawn's early light... What so proudly we hair, la lal ala lal aa [+]

Alan just goes on and on-- missing the point. The whole debate goes right over his head-- as if he's... as if he's-- stupid? But he can't be THAT stupid can he? Or can he? Maybe he can-- I don't know the guy. Oh well... stupid is as stupid gets. Here are Alan's half dozen other messages to Cryonet in 30 years or so. [+][+]

Alan is in the UK and I can't tell if he's Alcor or CI. I though he was CI, but I might be wrong.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

GATEKEEPERS-- Joseph P. Morgan

Morgan wants me to stop using "silly" pseudonymns and be more postive. [+] Here's a picture of me being positive.... [+] [+]

Yeah well, there's Joe Morgan. Another gatekeeper. They just keep showing up don't they?

POLL-- Alcor-- Do you regard DPizer as leader of Alcor democracy push?


POLL-- Alcor-- Alcor bylawy discovery reaction


POLL-- Alcor-- Is Alcor board doing a good job?


POLL-- Alcor-- Should Alcor change their board election method to include membership votes?


FD-- 02-- Posts observation of silence to CryoNet

[+] FD asks if anyone has any suggestions in the face of silence. I have some but I'll just indicate what the next step would be, in my view... the Cryonics Industry Polling Association, CIPA. We get as many cryos as possible to participate in an ongoing series of polls. The polls would be topically organized-- alphabetically indexed as in this blog.

Saturday, March 1, 2008

COLD FILTER-- 03-- Slowdown continues.

I see FD appeared and made excusees for his non appearances on Cf-- which he hijakced and denied hijakcing-- which forum I inpired disppared cryo-non-cryo Hinek to create. Once again, in a boring sort of way, I'm right-- I was kicked out of CF by a conspiracy of hinek,-Cplatt-and FD-- and a motley crew of others-- sort of like the 10 Stooges-- for talking about zombies awhile back.

I know when things are not going well for a forum-- and right now-- they're not good on CF. Because I know how to keep things going in debate and conversations. Even with girls. Right now, I'm having a slow motion conversation with a 28 year old dental office worker who is not a candidate for me-- but who had the audacity to flirt with me-- in a friendly way-- and so I'm simply observing her longer term evoluation as it's convenient-- and she let me know that when she's engaged-- she'll let me know-- and even made the flirtatious remark of-- staying overnite-- when I said I'd come into visit the office even without an appointment. SHE took it the step further-- invoking the overnight idea. AMazing how woman's minds work. She's extremely pro-creative and 'dangerous" in this regard. Any male insect who steps onto her web-- is going to be wound tightly into her grip... but not me.. that's for sure. It's just fun to watch... I pity the poor sap who does. All girls want impregnation. They'll do ANYTHING to get that job done. ANYTHING. I've seen it all. It's a warzone out there. Men-- don your helmets.

DAVE PIZER-- 00-- Public disappearance.

Dave Pizer is an expert on matters of accumulating and protecting personal wealth-- but he's a novice in online communictions-- witness his abandoned blog at "reformalcor.org". [+]. After a whirlwind of leadership during Jan and Feb of 08, he has now disappeared into the infamous cryonics underground-- his last blog entry on his own blog/forum-maze-- created by his partner in this-- tripper-- was Feb. 2. [+]. I'm currently monitering all publicly available online and offline sources-- to watch for Dave-- to see where this is going. It's pretty serious, in my view. And in general, the cryonics writers-- be that as it may-- have all stopped publishing anything. I think they're scared. I think they should be, since Alcor's bylaws have been bypassed. That is not good for a 501c3 to do! It's correctable of course-- but if Alcor ever lost its 501c3 status-- THAT would be a big problem. So-- I 'll go into my HEURISTIC REASONING mode that led me to the conclusion that larouche is right, that 9/11 was an inside job-- and my own conlucions that the moon landings were hoax and that we're trapped inside the van allen belts-- and that Jesus was an ancient astronaut-- and simply watch cryonics as I have since 1978,.

Sidenote-- I pulled out Man into Superman-- I'm going through it again-- and will do a CRITICAL review on Ettinger very soon. Ettinger stole the title father of cryonics from Ev Cooper-- and refused to answer my question about who filed with the Library of Congress first. I'm also tracking the father of PRACTICAL CRYONICS who LIVES IN MY NEIGHBOURHOOD-- who has ORIGINAL ARCHIVE FILES that are falling apart-- Ted Kraver. Witness NO weealthy c ryo has visited him like I have to try to rescue the historigraphic infomration he has= and digitize it.... EVEN after Kraver gave introductory remarks at a recent cryonics conferecne..

Also note-- big mouth Regina Food-is-my=name-- Pancake-- has diappeared into the toilet of Alcor... where the shit disappears down a whirlpool hole in the ground. Ross Perot's giant sucking sound applies to cryonics as well as free trade. Regina had the balls to ask me-- what I mean by "cryonics is a front for cryonics".... well, maybe she's learning the answer as a result of the diappearance of CRYONICS itself from the internet-- in terms of news... And people tell me I'm a nutty "conspiracy theorist"... I don't think so... i'm quite sane-- more sane than all other cryos put together.... It's like if you combine 1000 of their IQ's and match it against mine-- I would STILL come out on top--

So what is their fundamental problem? Well-- there are many angles on it-- but one good way to look at it is that cryonicists have defaulted in a major way on considering MACROcryonics-- which is the context-- or the FUTURE into which cryonics "fits".... and THEY say it's a secular future-- and I say it's a Christian or classical one... it's that simple. To that end, I'm thinking about creating a Roman Catholic Cryonics Saints program-- more on that soon. I'm also looking at Mormons. A mainline religion is going to "adopt" the cryonics thesis-- in a major way.... and THAT will be MY safeguard to ferret me through the time tunnel into the far future. I would not trust the secular cryos-- but those guys are all I have to work with at this point in time.

In the meantime, I'm monitering all media for any appearances of the leader-who-claims-he's-not-a-leader of the Alcor reform movement-- Dave Pizer-- who only recently changed his persona-puppet to David-- for some reason-- evoking the memory of David and Goliath perhaps? Dunno... Nicknames are telltale signs in my book.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

TRIPPER MCCARTHY-- 03-- Alcor mysteries vs. bylaw

Tripper seems to be the technical support guy behind Pizer, but Tripper himself has much to say about Alcor. He's articutling concerns I've had. Tripper wonders why nobody has called Alcor on these problems. I know why. Because the media we use hasn't allowed it. Witness this periodical indexed blog. This is the way to write online so that lines of thoughts are not lost.

Tripper is a main guy-- with Dave-- behind the Alcor democracy idea-- and the main point there at this time-- involves the mystery of the original bylaw calling for a Director Electorate. Nobody has come right out and made that the centerpiece of collective research and comentary-- although I'm trying.

My feeling is that Tripper and DAve are in more private communication in an email group-- but not reporting to the outer world-- which is where I like to be-- in more ways than one-- I don't like to be privy to private emails-- I like to be out the OUTSIDE where I can see what pops up publicly so that I'm ALWAYS free to comment without hesitation or having to burden myself with what is confidential and what isn't.

I also have the feelign that the discovery of the Electorate was a surprise. And that it's very dangerous-- and that people are trying to backpeddle and hide that.... Tripper included. The truth is that the original bylaw needs to be publicly discussed-- and possibly adhereed to. Dave himself raised the posstibility that all boards since that bylaw was not followed have been illegal. That's strong language-- But DAve hasn't followed up on it... at least publicly.

Personally, I don't care if the board elects itself for the next 10 years-- but at the same time-- we should all participate in an ongoing investigation about the real history of the byalwa so that we can work toward it's implementation at a practical time in the future-- just as Fred said. Fred founded Alcor-- so he would agree with me on this. I don't need private email to confirm that-- just a good ability to reason.

Tripper needs an alphabetical blog llike this one. he's got lots to say, but it gets lost. His reform alcor forum is too "busy" and has not alphabetcial index like a book. Books were invetned a long time ago-- and many have indexes to help readers find stuff. Surely tripper hasn't tripped so much that he can't see that. Heres's his post at CF [+]

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

ED SWANK-- ACS-- 00-- suggestions

[+] Swank makes a brazen pitch to join ACS in the same post as analysing Alcor's problem. He also suggests alternatives-- that ignore the central feature of the Alcor problem-- that being the existence of the bylaw calling for a Director Electorate. Activity on Cryonet on this has been minimal and Cold Filter actitivy has dropped to nothing. ReformAlcor is simply too byzantine to follow. Dave Pizer doesn't update his blog there which would be the best way for him to update us on the situation.

ASCHWIN DEWOLF-- 00-- FD refers to in CF

[+] The reformalcor site will, in my view, go nowhere. Alcor will remain as a self-electing board. Here is some noise by DeWold, anyway.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

501c3 STATUS-- 01-- Merkle invokes potential 501c3 problem

The issue of Alcor Democracy first raised by Dave Pizer in January 2008 and which led to CPlatt's uncovering of the original Alcor bylaw calling for a Director Electorate has become, in my mind, such a hot potato, that we now face an existential question here. I just noticed that Ralph Merkle, a board member currently I believe, raised the issue of the 501c3 implications if the way the board was elected were changed.

MERKLE SAID: Significant modifications to the Alcor Bylaws might have an impact on Alcor's 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, as well as have other legal and operational ramifications. As a consequence, prior to making any significant change(s) in the Bylaws, it is necessary to discuss the nature and extent of changes with someone qualified specifically in non profit tax law so that we might anticipate any potentially adverse ruling by the IRS. Historically, changes to the Bylaws have been infrequent because of the care and expense required. This is not to say that they are either impossible or undesirable — but they need to be carefully and calmly evaluated. (delete)
Source [+]

My comment-- What Merkle thinks is true in the case where you change the bylaw could also be true in the LATEST NEW INFORMATION revealed by CPlatt that the ORIGINAL bylaw was ALREADY over-ridden-- and that the way to preserve 501c3 is to RETURN to the original bylaw. The 501c3 status is crucial to the existence of Alcor apparently-- I've never fully understood it-- but it's apparnetly true. This would explain the silence on this matter. We're dealing with something fundametnal to Alcor's very existence.

EMAIL GROUP-- 00-- I'll form my own email group here.

Everyone on this list has publicly put their email out there-- I haven't published any confidential emails.

Keith Henson hkhendson@rogers.com

I won't likely have time to actually do this-- but then again I might. Still the world finanical system is crashing and so it's rediculous to engage in this right now-- and I have house repairs and other things I have to do. I think what will REALLY happen is the board will continue to re-elect itself and pizer led democracy movmenet and bylaw research will go nowhere-- as it did twice in previous years-- because we're all suffering from the crazy ass shit going on in the world.

KEITH HENSON-- 04-- More history confusing.

I view Keith Henson as a poor writer. He has now decided to disappear. [+]. His attitude revolves around how people behave. if he reoriented himself to the truth-- and use an alphabetical blog like I do-- to convey his view, he would have traction and be happier. He has a huge history in cryonics. Rather than perish, I'd like to see him publish.

PETITION-- 00-- ReformAlcor guest book hidden

The Guestbook on the Reform Alcor site-- initiated by Dave Pizer-- with what appears to be technical support by Tripper McCarthy-- has a lot of signess-- that' I've only now just discovered. [+]

I think that the Reform Alcor site is a mess-- and so I'll simply track it from here-- where there is an alphatical index.

COLD FILTER-- 02-- Following Monday shows slowdown in posting.

I've watched Cold Filter for a long time-- I was instrumental in creating it-- and I've detected it's ups and downs-- in terms of usage. Suddenly with this revelation by CPlatt about the bylaw in Alcor's past, we see a very noticable slowdown in posting that has continued. I would imagine that people are a bit freaked out and scared. The higher profile Alcor members who DO make the effort to appear online publicly have tended to try to dismiss the bylaw or redirect attntion. Dave Pizer keeps bringing it back into the center, however... which is interesting.

CONTINUUM-- 00-- My blog tracking before this specialiized blog

Here are the posts in my general blog on this before I created this specialized blog...

CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 32-- Kidnapped story is radical writing (1)
CRYONICS-- ALCOR-- democracy-- Pizer-- 00 (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 001-- existential problem (1)
CRYONICS-- ALCOR-- democracy-- Pizer-- 01-- Cryonet archive (1)
CRYONICS-- ALCOR-- democracy-- PIZER-- 02-- FD has no rights (1)
CRYONICS-- ALCOR-- democracy-- PIZER-- 03-- VanSickle scared. (1)
CRYONICS-- ALCOR-- democracy-- Pizer-- 04-- CryoNet banning complaints (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 05-- Cold Filter-- NormalFell (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 06-- ColdFilter users (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 07-- Miss Crabapple (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 08-- Pizer banned (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 09-- FD supports Pizer (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 10-- Dave on Cold Filter (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 11-- refounding (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 12-- Alcor United thread (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 13-- Dave's Blog? (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 14-- refounding (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 15-- Merkle responds (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 16-- Maxim points out expertise paradox (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 17-- this is rediculous (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 18-- fair (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 19-- polling (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 20-- 50 people i (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 21-- New website? (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 22-- Tracking blog (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 23-- campaign continues chaotically (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 24-- CPlatt's recollection (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 25-- Henson on Platt's inside knowledge (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 26-- Bridge's overview 2-11-08 (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 27-- FD suggests archive (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 28-- FD pleads to Alcor board on (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 29-- court reference (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 30-- Seeming response on ReformAlcor site (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- Pizer-- 31-- Maxim weighs in (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- Dy-- 33-- CPlatt finds original democratic set up (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- Dy-- 34-- FD denies director electorate history (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- dy-- 35-- DPizer points to by-law change (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- dy-- 36-- CPlatt's line of though trumps Bridge-FD (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- dy-- 37-- Zeroing in on eliminating Director Electorate (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- dy-- 38-- We're not done with the history of this (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- dy-- 39-- Blog allows up to 100 authors (1)

[+] Go to my general blog and scroll down in the index.

PRIVATE EMAIL GROUP-- 01-- I asked to be deleted from the group

I was put on a private email group list to discuss Alcor reform but I asked to be removed because it got into some details that, as a very publicly vocal person, I didn't want to be privy to. I'm not good at differentiating private and public information. I'd rather be cut off from the internal email group and watch things develop from the outside where I catch only the public information. That way, I cannot possibly be accused of exposing private information. The email group is led by Dave Pizer. I don't know if it's still in operation.

TRIPPER MCCARTHY-- 02-- Back to the real issue post on CF

McCarther tries to refocus public readers on what he deems "the real issue"-- not realizing that the "real issue" has been trumped by "the bylaw issue"? [+].

The bylaw issue is so serious that someone said it could "rip Alcor apart". I don't think it would do that-- since the truth is always better than fiction-- and it's therefore likely to reorient Alcor on a more integrated foundation. Tripper McCathy doesn't want to rock the boat and attempts to create an alternative "review process" which gives me MEGO (my-eyes-glaze-over).

The problem in front of Alcor right now is a "review process"-- to be sure-- but a review of the bylaw. Immediately.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

STEVE BRIDGE-- 00-- Intense research on the matter of self-electing boards

[+] Steve Bridge, ex-Alcor president, has done some intense research on the matter of how boards are selected-- and the overall curvature of his input here-- is to imply that we're better off-- with a self-electing board-- even though he tries to couch his comment in a neutral tone and stance.

Steve, in my view, is very good at using his "civil tone" and his "friendly" angle-- to lead people down his path-- away from the PRIMARY contentious issue-- in this case-- the Alcor bylaw that calls for a Director electorate that was originally overridden purely for practical reasons-- at the very start of Alcor-- but which was then debated in 1986, and over-ridden by Mike Darwin at that time-- and then debated again in 1997-- and over-ridden yet again-- and is being debated again NOW-- and is tending to be over-ridden again. There are people who I think simply do NOT LIKE that original bylaw by ex-alcor president and ex-alcor meber, Alcro FOUNDER Fred Chamberlain.

STeve's entire approach to this is to lead the Cold Filter reader to believe that all of this has something to do with how common or how legitimate self-electing boards are-- but this is NOT the issue. That's interesting and only APPEARS relevent to the itinerant reader-- but the central issue-- the point of contention is the thorn in the side of the current situation-defenders-- which is the provision for the Director Electorate in the original byalws as instituted in the State of California. Steve makes no refernce to this-- and therefore his post should be considered as a sort of propaganda piece-- with the INTENTION to cover up the true-- and very awesome and potentially explosive reality.

I've been asked to write nice and talk nice-- but there is NO nice way to put these things. What we're seeing here is nothing LESS than a cover-up... But at least Steve made another post about this issue, leaving me to index it-- since his post would not be findable a year from now if I didn't. Writing nice and being nice-- at the expense of truth, the whole truth-- and nothing but the truth-- is superfluous. I'd much rather see rougher language if it were approximating the truth better. Social faux pas are nothing compared to the psychological manipulation that goes on when the whole truth about something, in context, is denied. Steve Bridge, if he is to be wholly truthful, must investigate NOT the percentage of self-electing boards, but rather the background of the original bylaw providing for the Director Electorate.

KEITH HENSON-- 03-- KH defends self-electing process based on DoraKent crisis

[+] KH argues that because only the Alcor self-elected board at the time knew what to do in the Dora Kent crises, and that a board elected otherwise-- presumably by the Bylaw-Enabled Director Electorate-- that therefore the self-elected board is still the way to work today and in the future. In other words, the idea of the self-elected board proved itself in that crisis. I would argue that a Director-Electorate board would have pre-empted that crisis in the first place-- so that it would not have occurred-- and that that would be the case today and in the future.

Keith asks straightfowardly- what board members should be replaced, pretending that the debate is about that-- that's its personal-- which it is not-- it's about the original alcor bylaw and membership partipication as built into the process by the founding fathers of Alcor, Fred and Linda Chamberlain. Despite that however, I'll name Saul Kent to be replaced-- since he's the one who caused the dicey Dora Kent incident-- and who facilitated the 1994 split-- and who today leads SA Inc into direct comptetition with Alcor for the services of Alcor's own members and therefore represents a conflict of interest with Alcor. But again, that's beside the point-- it's just that KH begged for it. So there's my answer.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

ALCOR-- volunteer opportunities-- Chapman should add Bylaw Research

Jennifer forgot to add-- bylaw research-- to her list of volunteer activities. [+]

SILENCE-- 03-- CryoNet under-utilized

Given the crisis sparked by the revelation of the Director Electroate in the original bylaws, the non-appearance of commentary on Cryonet is another example of silence. [=] My posts are the only ones that stand out and seem coherent on this point.

SILENCE-- 02-- Readers don't post

Dave Pizer's forum has a thread where there were over 100 reader/visitors-- and just 7 posts

The Legalities of Changing Alcor's Board Finance Department
7 105


This is an example of silence.

SILENCE-- 01-- Contined silence make internet obsolete

There are likely daily exchanges between some Alcor members on the matter of the history of the Director Electorate-- and daily discoveries by indepened researchers. And yet there is public silence on the "internets". (I like that misspeak by Bush-- it's so corny-- it displays a lack of understanding of what the internet is).

So here we have the greatest communications tool in history-- and what do cryonicists do? Go underground. Great. The idea that Alcor and cryonics in general needed to stay quiet or moderate the public exposure of internal debate was misguided. Somehow that idea got started several years ago-- maybe more than that-- and cryonics became far less interesting due to that. I would contend that by debating online, we would attract attention by smart people who would then get interested in cryonics.

A free society needs to be constantly worked at-- as they say, freedom isn't free. Use it or lose it. Right now, the increasing fascistic tendency in the USA is increasting-- as it does from time to time in the history of civilizations. Cryonicists really need to study history FAST- and see the upcoming election as a power grab by corporatist fascists like Schwarzenegger, Rohatyn, Schultz, Brzezinksi and OBAMA who is part of that crowd. Anyone, like Janet Napolitano, who goes along with Obama is either an agent or a dupe-- and the people lower on the political food chain-- will recognize this soon and their hero is exposed for the underground anti-patriot that he is.

The EXISTENCE of the USA and of the concept of a nation state who highest mission is the general welfare of the citizens-- as opposed to the power of an oligarchy-- which is what Napolitano is going along with (she's participating in PPP's-- public private partnerships-- which sell PUBLIC highways to private corporations -- basically theft-- GRAND theft-- a crime-- that will be reversed in Supreme Court-- with testimony provided by people from the Larouche organization which has deeper and more powerful roots in the world than people think)--

Cryonicists silence on the concerns of the world in which cryonics resides demonsttates FEAR and IGNORANCE-- as well as in some cases, COMPLICITY-- with Fascism. As well, there is a go along to get along mentality-- A lot of cryos think cryonics can survive a police state-- as long as you along wth it. These type of cryonicits represent a particular faction that I'm not part of... because I understand history. The ultimate goal of people like Prince charles and Al Gore is to REDUCE the population of the Earth to less than a billion.

For more on this, read all the back issues of EIR-- here---> [+] Espeically Mark Plus-- who is currently a buffoon when it comes to history-- who thought at one time that Americans were satiated with progress and that there is such a thing as progress fatique. This is false. What Mark fails to address is the British Empire-- which takes the form of the internatoinal financier oligarichy based in the City of London and the Cayman Islands.. where Huckabee mysteriously gave a speech recently.... Becaues the CAymen islands is where the hedge funds can operated unregulated... hedge funds are basically BETS-- huge billion dollar bets on national currencies...

Cryonicists silence on world affairs as well as on the issue of Alcor democracy-- indicates that cryonicists are effectively lobotimzed mentally ill patients in a psych ward who have NO IDEA how to get to the future-- which is what cryonics is SUPPOSED to be about.... to GET there, we need the new nuclear power plants-- see General Atomics in San Diego for an example of a good company... Most cryonicists reject FDR-- not KNOWING what FDR represented....

The MAINSTREAM of advanced civilizatoin ACTUALLY resides in the Lyndon LArouche organization which has deep roots both in the current world and in history. It represents the universe in a truthful way. The CHARLATANS and their SYNCOPHANTS are represented today by EVERYTHING you see on TV and a LOT of the papers, the RADIO and magazine-- These SEEM like varied sources but they ALL take marching orders from corporate controllers... EVEN bookstores like Barnes and Nobles take these marching orders-- We're already living in a George Orwell 1984 world in 2008-- and didn't realize it.

I'm publishing this on Blogger, owned by Google which the CIA has an apparent hand in. How long will this be allowed? Who owns Larouches' website? My outlook is that THEY --- the empire will STRIKE BACK and shut the net down-- like they did in IRAN and the middle east a few weeks ago-- UNDERRPORETED here-- they CUT undersea cables!!!!

The truth exists. The truth is out there. Let's all reorient oursevles to the truth-- and save civilziation and cryonics! Speak up. Invisibility is not equiivalent to inVINCIbility-- Dave Pizer said he's not "the leader" of the effort to democritize alcor-- so let CPlatt lead it then. if he doesn't, I will.

Friday, February 22, 2008

DIRECTOR ELECTORATE-- 05-- Alcor's search engine shows no hits

[+] Interestingly, no hits on Alcor's search engine for "electorate"-- and yet CPlatt found a document on the Alcor site that refers to it.

REFORM ALCOR.org-- 03-- Legalities of changing Alcor's board

Here's a good thread where Dave Pizer, FD and Kennita Watson are in coversation-- about changing Alcor's board. [+] I missed this one earlier because there are too many places on the ReformAlcor site to look. That thread is not being updated to accomodate the new discovery of the Director Electorate. This is typical of those types of forums. The only solution is an alphabetical blog, like this one. The online areas to check for this debate are.... in order of importance...

Dave's blog (see bottom of this page)
This blog (mine)
Dave's forums (look for the posts with lots of responses)
Cold Fitler
Alcor United.
Imminst.org (wowk hangs there)

FD-- 01-- Fails to contextualize properly

FD is not signed up with Alcor and consequently fails to contextualize the problem properly by noting the original bylaw. [+]

LEADERSHIP-- 01-- Dave denies leadership

I just found this on Dave Pizer's blog--

I am not *the* leader in this new political battle.
You can go to the website at www.reformalcor.org and
see the growing list of people who want reforms and
improvements at Alcor who have come out so far. Read
the blogs and forums and the area where people post
under "support." These are some of the people who
have been brave enough to take the first step for
themselves and for all of us.
Source [+]

My comment--

Human beings are still operating based on leaders and followers-- which is not neccessarily a bad thing. Dave thinks the "growing list" of people who want democracy at Alcor distributes his leadership on this. Not for me, it doesn't. Dave's the man. The point man-- in a dangerous new fight at Alcor.

Why are people afraid of controvesy and fights? There's nothing to fear when you're right. I know that more than most people because when I push a point, I ALWAYS make sure I'm right-- FIRST. If you're RIGHT, there's no reason to fear fights and leadership. It's a cosmological principle-- you're in fact CORRECTING the universe. What is to FEAR is allowing others to proceed in OPPOSITION to the TRUTH. Now THAT is scary.

In Alcor's case, we just had a breakthrough in discovery of the original bylaws-- and people who ought NOT fear appearing on forums in public right now-- like Fred and Mike Darwin and CPlatt-- and other board members-- have disappeared... out of fear?

Dave denies a leadership role in this. That's plain silly in my view. He started this round of -- shall we say "conversation"-- or "debate" and he was quite adamant about it-- I wasn't too interested at first because my thinking revolved aroudn the idea that Alcor has ALWAYS had a self-electing board...

THEN when CPlatt discovered Fred insitituted Alcor with a Director Electorate-- THAT changed EVERYTHING for me. Now-- Dave is on a bucking horse-- like rodeo rider... and he's a leader whether he likes it or not. As I said, there is a cosmological universal principle in human leadership. Dave walked into the "slot" or the "vacancy" in the universe on this-- one thing led to another-- and now-- there he is-- on top of this issue that has a history-- going back to Fred-- who ironicallly was dumped by Alcor for what was tantamount to management of funds at alcor regarding Cells4Life--

Fred was able to talk to CPlatt- who is not keeping us informed-- through a blog-- or on Cryonet right now-- but just becaues people aren't talking publicly doesn't mean they're not talking privately... I haven't heard anything new-- over the past day or two--

KEITH HENSON-- 02-- Incidents have nothing to do with original bylaw

FD goes to some lenght here to put Keith Henson's view into persepctive. [+]. I don't think this has anything to do with the issue. In fact, FD's raising it-- might be an intentional distraction. FD fails to mention the original bylaw-- but that could be due to poor integrated thinking on the issue-- and I already know FD has poor integratino skills, preferring to compartmentalize.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

DISAPPEARING CRYONICISTS-- 01-- Cold Filter virtually abandoned.

It's now Thursday-- Feb. 21-- and there have been only 3 postings to CF-- by Pizer, FD and George. Posting has stopped on Cryonet except for a few continuing inanities-- and my posts-- which speak to the heart of the issue occurring right now-- which might be frightening some high level cryonics insiders.

The next step here is to inform the entire broad base of all cryos about the bylaw issue. Dave's blog URL should be snail mailed or emailed to everyone who listted themselves in the Alcor book-- No cryonics publication including Alcor's publications can be trusted at this point-- other than the rogue ones, like mine and Pizers.

The tension is ratcheted up a notch for every day of relative silence. It's like there's an unexploded grenade in the middle of the cryonics collective online cyberroom-- an information grenade-- People are likely emailing in private email groups-- I'm waiting for the first indications of what's going on. CPlatt should be doing daily updates at this point-- on what he sees from where he sits.

The self-electing board turns out to have been a sham in a way. Now we're going to asking-- why was this sham defended? AT this time, investigative reporting skills, private investigation skills and internet skills come together. As well, immediate notification should go out to all Alcor members-- in any way we can muster a list-- about this tense situation. This is as big an organization crisis as I've ever seen in cryonics... since I began tracking it in 1978.



EARLIER NOTES-- Alcor democracy on Philossifur's Continuum

[+] Scroll down to ALCOR democracy for earlier notes.

REFORM ALCOR.org-- 02-- Members may already have right to vote

[+] Dave Pizers explanation of situation.

BYLAW CHANGE-- 05-- Mike Darwin claimed responsibilty

Mike Darwin appears briefly here and there from time to time-- now we're interested in his reappearance to ask him more about his claim of responsibilty for the bylaw change as described here-- [+]

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

GEORGE-- 00-- takes it too far--

George pretends that Alcor has acted illegally in self electing its board. [+] This is going too far because Fred already told CPlatt that the board elected itself in the early days due to Alcro being so small. The director electorate wasn't practical. So the tradition of a self-electing board was in place-- presumably until Alcor was big enough-- which seemed to be in 1985 and in 1994 when this issue was raised... although it hasn't been seen yet if the original bylaws were referred to in those debates in those years. What we'd be looking for NOW is a third major round of debate to look at the problem-- with DEFINITE referene to the original bylaw-- and consultation from Fred on this. I'd like see the Director Electorate instituted NOW-- given that it IS practical now. THAT's enough of a legal battle without getting into George's retro-battle... Is George even signed up with Alcor?

COLD FILTER-- FD-- 00-- once again, takes the wrong route

FD pretends that this can be done without a legal fight. [+]-- as though legal fights are bad. Legal fights are good. They clear the air. In this case, we are now faced with no choice in legal fighting. FD's idea that the board will give in and open up to democracy is nieve-- it confirms my suspicioun that this is a girl.

FD is wrong to think that this is going to proceed via a fresh start. This will not proceed by fresh start. This will proceed from the ByLaw that referred to the Director Electorate. It involves history. FD doesn't like history-- FD doens't even like American history-- Fd has shown indications of being treasonous in attitude-- I basically don't LIKE FD-- Hope I never meet him or her-- FD is not signed up... and I would even suggest everyone abandon CF-- because neither FD nor Hinek are signed up.

FD is misleading when she states that there might be a way through this with no legal fight-- and she's misleading when she suggests that we can start fresh. She's wrong on all counts.

ALCOR-- board meetings-- 01-- March meeting promises tension

The next board meeting in March-- I have to check the date-- will be VERY interesting because this entire situation is likely to be on the agenda. It was debated in 1985 and in 1997-- this represents the 3rd major round-- but this time-- there is that original bylaw reference to Director Electorate... which does not appear to have been raised before. It would be interesting if Fred Chamberlain were called in (flown in) to "testify". Dave Pizer has pointed out to Alcor's board that they ought to have an attourney present. I'm not sure if this means Dave will be there-- or what-- but the silence in the cryonics forums on this is indicative that people are in a state of some degree of deep concern. I myself will not attend. I'm too nervous. I'd have to wear a disguise if I did show up. [+]

FRED-- 01-- Waiting to hear more from Fred on this.

Fred Chamberlain appears to have spoken to CPlatt recently, as reported by CPlatt in Cold Filter. Fred told CPlatt that the Director Electorate was not practical in the first era of Alcor-- and I understand that explanation. However, it now behooves Fred to comment on the later eras-- with respect to the original intent.

It now appears, according to a post by SBridge in ColdFilter that there was a debate about this in 1985 that predates email/internet-- so we're going to have to get Mike Perry to dig up the archives of the minutes. Mike? Someone call Mike Perry on that.
The second round of debate about this seems to have occrred around 1997-- Bridge referred to that too. We can look at that in Cryonet.

It may very well be that CPlatt is in dicussion with Fred at this time-- since Platt prefers phone for interviews-- and only reports results once he has fact checked everything. He doesn't like posting without fact checking-- which is understandable. My style leans more toward open speculation on a blog. Like this.

In any case, I'll be waiting to hear from Fred through Charles very soon-- and you should be too.

NARRATIVE-- 10-- Silence

There is a defeaning silence out there in cyberspace-- from key people-- since the uncovering of the original bylaw specifying Director Electorate. I don't doubt that there is some fast and furious private emailing among various people right now--- but so far I haven't detected anything bubbling to the surface. Steve Bridge and Keith Henson, in particular, appear to have been either unaware of the original bylaws-- and actually "owe" readers of reformalcor and coldfilter updates on their views-- given the new find by CPlatt-- The rest of the Alcor members listed in the directory appear to be totally out of the loop. To gather the best overview of the situation, see my blog--

GATEKEEPERS-- Steve Bridge-- 01-- My analysis of his comments

I can only analyse my thoughts on what's going in cryonics from the point of view of one person-- me.

Steve Bridge was a favorite president at Alcor in the 1990s and early 2000s-- don't know his exact term but it was a popular run-- Steve Bridge acquired a reputation of being friendly to everyone. I myself have never found friendliness to be aligned with truth, however-- and so I'm always guarded around presumably friendly people. I don't trust them. I've had a few online run ins with Steve Bridge and I've put him on my radar screen in this democracy debate labelled as a "gatekeeper". (See my index under "gatekeeper"). It's instructive to study the idea of "trolls" as is pertains to online forums-- in general-- but it also pertains to media in general. It's a fascinating area of thought control and mind control.

Here, in a Cold Filter post that predates CPlatt's revelation of the original director electorate in the bylaws, SBridge writes--

But it is not useful to suggest (as some writers here have done) that Alcor Suspension members should go to court to "get their rights" or even to have a court take over Alcor's Board. People who suggest that are missing some basic legal understandings. Alcor's current setup for electing Directors is perfectly legal and common among non-profits.
Source [+]

My comment--

It may be true that Alcor's current setup for electing Directors is perfectly legal-- however to make this statement without the FULL CONTEXT-- is not the FULL TRUTH. In courts, we talk about telling the truth-- the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why do we specify it that way? Because the WHOLE truth is understood to include context. Steve appears to have failed to tell us the whole truth, at least in this post.

Steve even looked into it "a decade ago"-- 1997?

Also, some have suggested a compromise where some Directors are elected by the Board of Directors and some are elected by the qualified membership. When we looked into this more than a decade ago, while I was Alcor's President, we were told by non-profit attorneys that such a compromise was not possible. The law just allowed one method or the other. I do not claim that judgment is infallible; we didn't take such a plan to state authorities or to court. But I am not aware of any non-profit that has overcome it and become a combination of both methods.

My comment--

This is a NON-issue. The idea of a combination of self-electing board AND elected board-- is a FALSE CANARD. The only question is-- is Steve INTENTIONALLY muddying the water with FALSE CANARDS-- or is he actually in that mode unwittingly? The KEY FEATURE of this post by him is when we looked into this more than a decade ago. IF THAT IS TRUE-- then how is it possible he missed the original bylaw? And continued to miss it TODAY?

He OWES ColdFilter readers an update of his views on the original bylaws-- by virtue of continuity of thought expressed in one forum where there are regular readers. He's not "allowed" in civilized discourse to "disappear" now-- as has everyone on CF over the past few days.

Steve Bridge goes on to digress-- (distract?)-- readers with his view of what arguing and cooperation mean... IN his world view there are no losers. Ha ha. Please, someone get me a towel--- I can't stop laughing. Here's steve.....

It is also important to be aware that discussions of a potential change quickly turned into a political argument. That is, there are now two sides in the discussion, which will result in a winner and a loser. This is very like the national political debates we see going on now. Instead of sincere discussions about what might be good for the citizens of America, we see the need to score political points -- because one side must win and one side must lose. That means that neither side can acknowledge the good points of the other side. To do so would give credit to the other side and might result in your side losing. Each side seeks to demonize the other. Compromise and serious discussion of alternate points of view becomes impossible.
Source... [+]

God, please help me. Steve makes the mistake that a lot people of politically correct people make these days-- they can't sepearte the argument from the person. It's not about winners and losers. It's about a winning argument and losing argument. A person can lose an argument and still be respected and NOT be a "loser". The frame the idea of an argument as anti-win-lose-- is to destroy our ability to establish a winning position. This is a form of mind control. Steve worries too much about insults, framing the debate as win/lose etc because he bought into the politically correct jazz-- which approach turns my stomach-- literally. I'd rather respect a person for being a human being-- and then insult the hell out of him for his position-- with DUE respect as a human being... then once I WIN the debate-- re-establish normalcy. I think Steve is twisted somehow-- he's learned to use "friendliness" as a weapon. Very clever-- but not clever enough-- as Maxwell Smart would say.

Steve offers me (us?) a new clue

My own position in the debate is, as I have stated many times on Cold Filter and CryoNet, is that --given the two choices Alcor has -- I believe the long-term stability of Alcor is better served by the system which uses the self-elected board. Finance Department has unfairly characterized my position when he said "However, permit me to remind the readers that Steve once believed Alcor's board should be elected by the members. Then he got some power, and you all know what that does."

I only believed that the Members should elect the Board for a short while, a matter of months, around 1985 or so, when the debate over this issue first heated up. (We had to use the mail then because only a few of us had e-mail.) I changed my mind during that discussion, as I grew to understand the long-term considerations better. I was not on the Board of Directors and Alcor had no formal Advisors then. I joined the Board of Directors in 1992.
Source [+]

My comment--

The debate heated up in 1985?? Why? Let's hear more about that. Again, Steve makes no reference to the original bylaw. Steve makes no reference to the Founding Father and Mother of Alcor-- Fred and Linda-- and their intent. To the extent he does NOT refer to the foundation of Alcor is the extent to which, combined with his distractions, represents a possible cover-up-- which is the job of a gatekeeper.

COLD FILTER-- Alcor board of directors discussion-- thread by Steve Bridge


COLD FILTER-- Original Alcor bylaws-- thread by CPlatt


COLD FILTER--Let's all work together-- thread by Dave


COLD FILTER-- Kidnapped-- thread by Dave


REFORM ALCOR.org-- 01-- Dave lists more than just the democracy debate

[+] You can find Dave Pizer online video on this ReformAlcor page as well as intereting listings of the debate. This is a more sophisticated website than I thought-- but it still doesn't have an index-- so I'll track if from here.

KEITH HENSON-- 01-- Henson didn't know about original bylaw

Here's an excerpt from the blog at reformalcor.org--

On a more general note, what's going on here is an
attempt to change the political structure of Alcor
rather than trying to fix the problems.

DAVID'S REPLY: There is no way to fix the problems
until we change the political structure. The Board
runs Alcor and they are responsible for the few good
things and the problems. The Board runs Alcor and
they are accountable to no one. All other things
being equal, a company that holds the managers
accountable will do a much better job then a company
where the managers account to no one.
Source [+]

My comment--

Keith Henson has been around cryonics and Alcor for a long time-- and referred to "changing the political structure of Alcor" as what Dave was trying to do. Now, since the discovery of the Director Electorate in the original bylaws, it appears that what happened was that there was a change made AWAY from the original bylaw-- which needs to be fully investigated. Keith was 100% wrong-- and has not yet re-appeared to acknowledge that he was 100% wrong.

He owes Dave an updated answer. It could as simple as "wow! I did not know that".

REFORM ALCOR.org-- Dave Pizer's forum about democracy at Alcor


BYLAW CHANGE-- 04-- Alcor articles of incorporation

[+] Somehere in this is the specificaiton of the Director Electorate!

David Pizer (Login davidpizer)
Veteran Member
To Alcor Board
Copy to Advisers
Copy to Cryonet
Copy to Cold Filter


I don't know how accurate the following info is since
the Board members now refuse to discuss or debate the
topic of changing the way Directors are elected at
Alcor with me. Below is what I think the situation is
and I welcome anyone who has any corrections to make.
I am not an authority on the history of Alcor, just a
concerned members who wants the very best for Alcor
just as all the rest of you also want.
By: David Pizer

It may be the case that Alcor members now have (and
always have had but didn't know it) the authority to
elect the Directors at Alcor, and the Directors do NOT
have the authority to elect the Directors. Read below
what members have found out (some of this has been
posted once already) and then what that might mean for
you as an Alcor member

Charles Platt said:

“Inspection of Alcor's original bylaws, filed with an
application for tax-exempt status in February 1972,
shows that the bylaws gave voting power to suitably
qualified members of the organization. The relevant
document is on Alcor's web site at

Article III states that there shall be 3 classes of
Alcor members:

--General Members, who have gone through the
application process and are paying their dues.

--Working Members, a subset of General Members, who
have requested and have received training in case
work, and have been approved in this role.

--Members of the Director Electorate, a subset of
Working Members, who acquire voting privileges when
they are nominated by existing Members of the Director
Electorate and receive a 2/3 majority vote during an
annual meeting (or by mail, if the Directors so wish).

So far as I can tell, these provisions endured for
more than a decade.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

GATEKEEPERS-- 02-- Wowk-VanSickle do NOT respond to Pizer on AU

[+] Watch Wowk and VanSickle NOT respond to Dave's substantial post-- and then respond to somewhat shallow posts from newbies. This is better than Lewis Black. I'm sure you've seen Conrad Black-- here he is talking about Creationism. [+]

"These people are crazy... stone cold fucking nuts.... evolution is a thread in larger thread I call... REALITY!!!!."

So, with that quote-- I think that, I, as an Alcor member-- can LEGITIMATELY politely request that Wowk and VanSickle respond to Dave's post in AU-- THIS WEEK-- BOTH of them are board members... BOTH of them use AU-- as what I regard as a thought-control area.... in cooperation with Conaway-- who ATTENDS every board meeting and who lives in the area-- without telling his AU readers that--

There's no way to be polite about this... as Lewis Black says.

DIRECTOR ELECTORATE-- 04-- New line of reasoning by ME

Here's my latest line of thought-- which may or may not actually be valid-- but I suffer from many illusions-- that seem perfectly real to me-- as many cryos know. And I'm being sarcastic by the way-- because in TRUTH-- my idiot-logical positions DO hold water-- and weight-- despite having leaks.

Ok-- Here it is.

CPlatt's discovery of the original by law is earth shattering. Dave Pizer's taking it up as a "weaponized" configuration of his sudden (?) decision to make Alcor democracy a cause celebre has just occurred-- with his advice that Alcor have an attourney on hand at the next board meeting. This is the equivalent of Dave reading the Miranda rights to the existing board of directors at Alcor.

Ravin Jain, M.D.
Saul Kent
Ralph Merkle, Ph.D.
Carlos Mondragon
Michael Riskin, Ph.D., CPA, Chairman
Michael Seidl, Ph.D., JD
Stephen Van Sickle
Brian Wowk, Ph.D.

Source [+]

Wowk hangs out at the Conaway Alcor United forum-- mainly as a gatekeeper-- certainly not as an initiator of discussions. Van Sickle hangs there too. Riskin stopped posting anywhere a long time ago-- is the longest sitting board member-- and is Chairman of the Board. Carlos is an ex-president-- very astute guy-- quite amazing to watch him in action-- last time I saw him perform in board meetings was a few years ago during the Stump crisis-- Merkle-- indteresting guy because he's the guy who publicly asked-- at an Alcor conference-- who wants democracy?-- why would he ask that if he wasn't leaning in favor of it?-- Kent-- the Howard Hughes of cryonics-- dead silence there. And Ravin-- never met the guy.

Alcor was instituted with a Director Electorate-- Fred and Linda instituted Alcor-- Fred says there were not enough people in Alcor to make Director Electorate feasble-- leading to the idea that AT THE POINT WHERE IT DID BECOME FEASIBLE-- it SHOULD have been made to happen. INSTEAD-- we were led to believe that Alcor was INSITUTED as a self-electing board.

It's as if Fred and Linda-- who were kicked out of Alcor-- astonishingly to me-- have "come back to haunt" the current board. They live on-- IN THAT BYLAW-- IN the boardroom. Their control comes BACK TO LIVE!!! Like a monster-- to the current board.

It's kind of ironic, and funny.

It's like a trap door in the back of a computer program.

NOBODY including DAVE-- and especially Bridge and FD-- see it like I do-- they all SEE the original bylaw-- but they all call for a NEW view... as though this day-- in 2008-- needs to start fresh. This is UN-- true... or NON-true-- or..... "false" reasoning... "fraudulent" reasoning??? ... a LIE-- dare we say? It's tantamount to historiographial IGNORANCE-- a lack of depth of consiousness....

MY NEW LINE OF REASONING-- is that there has been a COVER UP-- a MAJOR default-- in the presidential line of leadership at ALCOR!!-- which snares everyone. The size of the conspiracy is so monstrous as to appear absolutely rediculous-- and yet... there it IS-- in PLAIN VIEW!!!!

Fred said Alcor was too small to make Director Electorate bylaw practical-- which LEADS to the idea that ONCE ALCOR REACHED A CRITICAL SIZE-- that that bylaw shoulld have been PRACTICAL at some point-- and when it WAS PRACTICAL-- it should have been GRANDFATHERED in-- or ACTIVATED-- or kicked into gear.

And here we are, assembled in time and space-- where the ORIGINAL intent of Alcor's operation-- is practical and HAS been practical for some years-- and it's TIME to KICK that provision into gear... we're only instituting what can NOW-- occur.

The 1980's situation where Mike refers to the biggest mistake he ever made-- which was deleting that bylaw-- or inactivating it-- was-- as Dave points out-- illegal-- that at that time-- that bylaw BECAME practical-- so it's incumbent upon us now to look at who the board members were at that time--

Alcor's site doesn't have a history of board members. It should. I can look it up in an old Alcor newsletter-- the small format ones-- Mike likely has a complete set in his archive.

Fred himself has said the ONLY REASON the DE was not activated fully was practicality implying that once it WAS practical-- that it SHOULD be instituted--

In the early 80's, it might have become practical on some level-- and Mike appears to have suppressed it along with the existing board at the time-- over-turning the original intended design.

My theory is that all we need to do is return to the original design. To do THAT, we need to nail down the PRECISE history-- exactly WHO was at the board meeting where the original bylaw was dumped? History is very interesting-- because with a properly functioning cognitive forebrain-- a cerebral cortex where we might grow new neurons still-- you can join together parts of history and make them simultanous in your minds eye. History becomes very close-up that way-- 20 years ago in 1988-- can appear as close as 5 minutes ago. I love to do that.... it's like TIME TRAVEL....

The people on Cold Filter who are resisting time travel-- are going against our own philosophy as cryonicists. Dredging up the past-- is like dredging a canal. You get this crap coming out-- like big gluey masses of algae, hidden under dark water. It's time to do some scuba diving...

GATEKEEPERS-- 01-- Keith Henson's view tended to avoid the original bylaw

I can't help it-- I see problems in how people are presenting themselves-- and I simply can't avoid pinning them on it. For example, Henson got involved in a Cold Filter thread-- on voting at Alcor-- which predates CPlatt's disocvery of the original Bylaw-- that provided for a Director Electorate-- and Henson has been around awhile- yet Henson did NOT point to the original bylaw-- and instead referred to "change" of bylaws-- in a critical way. As it turns out, there is no change needed-- there is simply a situation here where Alcor has been BIG enough for a long time-- so that we can now RE-ACTIVATE the original intended method of Director Electorate!

BYLAW CHANGE-- 03-- CPlatt's original post to CF on discovery of original bylaw

[+] I'd like to know how CPlatt came across this--

COLD FILTER-- 01-- No update Monday.

Dave posted this on Monday-- and nobody updated it all day. [+]. It remains the latest post on CF on Tues. The problem of the conflicting story lines about when the bylaws were changed remains. It has to be solved. The best PLACE to solve it is NOT Dave Pizer's forum-- which is rediculous in its format. (I can't help be be opnionated here in this blog-- sorry Dave-- but I have way more experience than you in forums and blogs). What Dave should do is use CF EXCLUSIVELY at this point. Reference to key points can be made in CryoNet-- but Cryonet is not the WORKPLACE where we can get these problems solved.

Monday, February 18, 2008

BYLAW CHANGE-- 02-- conflicting narrative from FChamberlain and other info

At one point, we see that Mike regrets a decision to turn Alcor into a self electing board-- and then we also see CPlatt interview Fred-- who says the self-electing board started in 77. [+] The two story lines conflict in my mind.

In the above link we see Bridge trying to reduce the melodrama-- ignoring these two conflicting story lines-- and wanting to "start fresh". I disagree. I'd like the conflicting story lines to be resolved.

DIRECTOR ELECTORATE-- 03-- google search


BYLAW CHANGE-- 01-- change may have been illegal

But if the Board did change the Bylaws so that
Directors now elected Directors, (instead of members
electing Directors as is required in the original
Bylaws), those new amended Bylaws, and the method
therefore the system of Directors now electing
Directors, may not be legal. We need more info.
Source-- [+]

California Corporation Code 5150 seems to say that if
the Directors of a corporation change the bylaws and
that has an effect/affect on the voting rights of the
members, then the members also have to approve those
amended Bylaws. It appears that was never done. It
appears the members never approved the change taking
the vote away from them and giving it to the

It may be the case that once this type of info becomes
available to a board of a corporation they no longer
have the legal right to make decisions for that
company until the matter is resolved. If so, then
time is of the essence in this matter.

The only thing now will be for the Board to work with
some members' representatives and an attorney to find
out what the legal matter is and how to correct the
problem. I hope the Board will NOT have any meetings
with any attorneys without several representatives of
the members also present. This is a matter which
involves potential members' rights and I don't think
the Board should be discussing this without members'
representatives involved also.

David Pizer

ASTONISHING HYPOTHESIS-- 00-- Pizer points to new ground

Since the discovery of the Director electorate in Alcor's history, I've recognized the significance of that. Apparently Dave Pizer does too-- and he's taken the Alcor democracy debate to a new level-- this week-- And now-- this enters a territory where the continued silence of the board of Alcor is going to be very very problematic... I'm sure glad I'm not the guy leading this-- Here's Dave's theory--

It may be the case that Alcor members now have (and
always have had but didn't know it) the authority to
elect the Directors at Alcor, and the Directors do NOT
have the authority to elect the Directors
Source-- [+]

Wow. Now-- this blog is established not for ME alone-- I'll be adding authors as I go along. So if you want to join in writing the "book" about this-- you HAVE to learn to INDEX your ideas-- and to list your ideas in a discrete fashion.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

BYLAW CHANGE-- 00-- FD points out it was not a fair change

[+] FD points out that the last bylaw change was unfair.

Other cryonicists say the last by-law changes, which permanently installed a self-electing board, were not free and fair.

DIRECTOR ELECTORATE-- 02-- FD's approximation method

FD points out that re-instituting the Director Electorate would be a step in the right direction. [+]. I would argue that it would be the ONLY step-- that the safeguard built into a multiple layered selection system is better than DIRECT democracy--

FD refers to buddies, as if that's incestuous-- however I think the buddy system of multi-layered democracy is a GOOD thing-- it's protection against mob rule.... check into the history of direct democracy.

DIRECTOR ELECTORATE-- 01-- history of this option

I'd like to know more about the history of the Director Electorate at Alcor-- it appears to have been formalized for a period of time-- at one time in the 80s' or 90s-- until Mike Darwin revoked it-- which he later regretted. Who formulated that Director Electorate system?

Thursday, January 24, 2008

TANYA-- 00-- elect advisors

Tanya wrote

The Advisors as candidates for Board membership is a system that has worked pretty well for us in the past, and the directors seems unlikely to change the self-perpetuating nature of the Board itself. I'm not sure Dave's arguments are convincing me that a member-elected Board will do any better than the one we have at managing Alcor's strategic vision, so I'm reluctant to advocate one way or the other on that debate. Having the members more involved is, however, something I wish to see.

So why can't we revise the system into something that involves having the members alone elect the Alcor Advisors, and from that pool alone, the Board selects new members. It will allow the members to have a voice in the Board, and it will give the Board an opportunity to evaluate the guidance given.


MY COMMENT-- (philossifur's comment)-- WOW. This is an excellent suggestion-- ELECT the advisors!!! That would be a great first step!...

SURVEY-- Shannon Vyff's Poll-- 3 to 1 favor democracy

[+] This link will take you to Alcor United forum by James Conaway. James lives in Phoenix-- and attends EVERY Alcor board meeting. He calls his forum Alcor United to give the impression that Alcor members are united-- however this is a bit misleading-- because although members ARE united in common cause in terms of the mission of cryonics, they are NOT united in many important areas too. This forum tends to edit out the views that are not compatible with Conaways, and Brian Wowk's. Wowk is a frequent commentator on AU-- ALL of that aside-- Shannon Vyff has created a POLL to survey the response to Dave Pizer's call for democracy... 21 people responded with 75% in favor of democracy.

MAXIM-- 01-- Self Electing Boards--

[+] This link will take you to where Maxim has posted to Cold Filter on the topic of self electing boards. Here is a copy of her post...

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Go back
Self-electing Boards
January 20 2008 at 9:57 PM Melody Maxim (Login melmax)
Veteran Member
This post isn't directed at anyone, or meant to be confrontational. I was just looking up information on self-electing boards for non-profits, and thought I would share the information I found:

Most commonly, for instance, governing boards are elected by members of the organization or are comprised of self-electing directors. http://www.hurwitassociates.com/l_qa_nonprofitgovernance.html

So, we see both are common methods.

"A nonprofit firm with a self-electing board of directors," Hansmann observes (1996, 238), "represents the ultimate in separation of management and control; the management is under no effective supervision by anyone with an interest in residual earnings”, that is, with an interest in the efficiency of service provision by any transparent measure. To be sure, boards of directors are expected to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to monitor the financial and programmatic performance of the agency. Indeed, the board could be held personally liable, under some circumstances, for financial mismanagement and organizational insolvency. But these situations are rare. More typically, board members receive and review financial reports casually because they have no material stake in them.

Non-profit corporations often have self-nominating and self-electing boards. That is because they have no shareholders. Their beneficiaries are the members of the public, too transient and impossible to identify. Further, members of the public may not have a sufficient stake in the objectives of the corporation to choose its appropriate leadership. http://www.markle.org/downloadable_assets/icann_fin1_9.pdf

I suppose the Alcor members are not altogether "impossible to identify," though I've read on this forum that they are somewhat transient. They most certainly have a "sufficient stake in the objectives of the corporation." However, I do have some concerns with member-elected boards, as I'm not sure how many Alcor members are knowledgeable enough about the medical aspects of cryonics, to judge whether Alcor is making progress, or not, in improving patient care. I'm concerned that members with little understanding of the procedures, especially newcomers, may be easily influenced by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons. I'm not saying I'm for, or against, a member-elected board, just that I'm concerned.

Respond to this message
Author Reply
(Login George1st)
Registered User
Alcor and Members’ Rights
January 20 2008, 10:57 PM

Melody: “Non-profit corporations often have self-nominating and self-electing boards. That is because they have no shareholders. Their beneficiaries are the members of the public, too transient and impossible to identify. Further, members of the public may not have a sufficient stake in the objectives of the corporation to choose its appropriate leadership.”

Comment: That might be the case with such organizations as for example The Red Cross, but I do not think to be the case with Alcor. Alcor has only one group of beneficiaries, which is their dues paying members. As for them being right, or wrong, I would not underestimate them. But I would submit that it is their organization, so if they happen to make a wrong decision, it is their right to do so. But that did not happen. So far it was only the self-appointed Board of Directors, who has been making the wrong decisions.

Respond to this message
Current Topic - Self-electing Boards
<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Go back

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

MERKLE-- vs. Pizer


Go back
Member debates Director
January 19 2008 at 6:27 PM davidpizer (no login)
Or, PIZER VS MERKLE a debate?

Director Ralph Merkle recently posted a position paper on Alcor site. Someone sent me a copy of it. I have some comments about it. I believe you can read Dr. Merkle’s whole paper on Alcor’s website.

MERKLE SAID: Alcor is governed by a "self perpetuating Board." In such a Board, new Board members are elected to that position by existing Board members. This is the most common way of electing Board members in non profit organizations. (delete)

PIZER’S COMMENTS: In a recent post by Charles Platt, Charles looked this up and came to the conclusion this was not the case. You can see Charles’ post in this forum somewhere.

MERKLE SAID: A fundamental rationale for selecting the self perpetuating Board structure was its ability to provide continuity of purpose over a long period of time.

PIZER’S COMMENTS: The numbers and indicators, (as discussed in the past week or so in this forum) show otherwise. The evidence seems to show that Alcor is going downhill fast. Merkle doesn’t deny this.

MERKLE SAID: Existing Board members select those new Board members who they believe are best able to preserve Alcor's core values and carry out its mission. (delete)

PIZER’S COMMENTS: The board members may “believe” the people they elect, and when they re-elect themselves over and over, are best able to preserve Alcor’s core values but we want to see arguments that support that back by evidence of good performance. The numbers on performance, growth rate and indicators of future growth are very bad. The record of business mistakes as reported recently in this forum shows that for the last several years Alcor has been doing badly. The board now seems to meet a lot in secret, by email to only themselves. Then need a full time attorney involved because of all the problems. It seems to me that the board now spends more time covering up mistakes then preventing them. I would like to see Merkle talk about this.

MERKLE CONTINUES: One of the responsibilities of the Board is to insure that our current practices continue to be effective in achieving our fundamental goals as given in the Mission Statement.

PIZER’S COMMENTS: Isn’t Alcor supposed to be a public company? Where does it say anything about secret meetings in the Mission Statement?

MERKLE SAID: One such practice is our use of a self perpetuating Board. The primary alternative to the self perpetuating Board is the member elected Board. In a member elected Board, individual members vote for the Board members that they believe are best able to effectively lead Alcor. Is the original rationale for choosing the self perpetuating Board still as persuasive today as it was when Alcor was founded?

PIZER’S RESPONSE: This is just plain not true. The person who is responsible for the self perpetuating Board, (aka dictatorship) retired president Mike Darwin, recently has said it was one of his biggest mistakes.
MERKLE CONTINUES: Are there other reasons for preferring the self perpetuating Board that were perhaps not clearly recognized earlier? (delete)

PIZER’S COMMENTS: I believe the question that we members want answered is “Are there reasons for NOT preferring the self perpetuating Board that are NOW recognized?” See my earlier posts with a long list of the many many costly mistakes the dictatorship style of board has caused.

Basically we need to just ask these 2 basic fundamental questions:

1. Are Directors who are not held accountable to anyone more likely to do a better job then Directors who have to stand for re-election every year by the membership?

2. Are Members who belong to a nonprofit organization, (who perhaps like the native Africans of South Africa), are told they are not qualified to vote, more likely to feel a part of that organization, and therefore contribute more money, time, energy and ideas to that organization, then if they were allowed to vote for their leaders. Or put in another way, do citizens feel more a part of a country that is run by a dictatorship or in a democracy.

MERKLE CONTINUES: One of the original rationales for Alcor's self perpetuating Board was to prevent a takeover of Alcor. Because the Patient Care Trust Fund has significant assets, and is growing, the incentive for such a takeover continues to be present today. This argument seems most effective against a member elected Board if all members — even recent members or members whose motives might be viewed as suspect by the majority of established cryonicists — are allowed to vote. Various limitations might be imposed which would significantly reduce this risk. It is clear, though, that this issue would need to be thoroughly explored before making any significant change in Alcor's structure. It is essential that the risk of a takeover — a catastrophic failure mode — be held to a minimum.

PIZER’S COMMENTS: This argument defies the law of numbers. It is much easier to take over a smaller group then a larger group all other things being equal - we can make things equal in either system. To take over the present Alcor Board of Directors it only takes 5 people, or less if the board is smaller at time of takeover. The maximum amount of Directors allowed is 9. Every time one Directors is elected, if the Board is at capacity, another Director has to leave. So 5 people could begin to seek seats on the Board, and take it over. This does not seem to hard to do. The Board has already appointed two people to Board positions that they fired or forced out of office as Alcor Presidents claiming they were not qualified to run a business like Alcor. But that is what the Directors do, the run Alcor. A Directors has more power then a president of Alcor.

If there are at present 800 Alcor members, it would take an additional 801 new people to take over Alcor if the membership had the vote instead of the way it is now. The saying, “There is safety in numbers.” is true.

Whatever precautions that can be built into contributing to safety in the present system can be built into the new system of letting the members do the electing.

For instance, in a member-electing system, we can require that people be members for 3 years before they can vote. We can have two systems of leaders: Elected Directors and elected advisors. We can require that a candidate for a board position be an advisor for at least 2 years. We can require advisors take straw votes on issues that come up before the board and their votes are recorded and presented to the membership in our magazine. Even though the advisors votes don’t count there will be a two year record made public to the members on how the did vote before they can run for office.

What I am saying is that every argument Merkle can give for some system of safety in the dictatorship system can be put in the democratic system. We can make the two systems identical in safety and then we have the benefit of greater number of members and the benefit of new and increased morale of the membership the day this passes.

MERKLE SAID: A number of other issues are of concern, even though they do not have a direct bearing on the relative effectiveness of a self perpetuating Board versus an elected Board. For example, Alcor's patients now in cryopreservation cannot participate in an election — meaning they are disenfranchised. While the PCTB (Patient Care Trust Board) is responsible for insuring that the funds in the PCT (Patient Care Trust) are used for the benefit of the patients the members of the PCTB are normally chosen by the Alcor Board. While the five PCTB members have staggered five year terms, the Alcor Board would eventually be able to select all five. Other decisions besides direct payment of patient care costs that might affect the patients are also in the hands of the Alcor Board. How do we best represent the interests of the patients? A member elected Board does not offer any obvious advantage in this regard, as patients can't vote. When you are cryopreserved, which would you prefer?

PIZER’S RESPONSE: If the members could know all the secrets some Board members have kept hidden from the membership, most of us would prefer the member elected system for the following reason as regards to the safety of patients. The present dictatorship is causing the growth of Alcor to stagnate. Mistakes are up, because of lack of accountability, donations and volunteerism, and other benefits are down because the feeling of alienation by the membership. This leads to a decline in the growth rate of the membership. Some board members may not feel like membership growth is important but I think it is the number one protection to the patients.

Let me repeat that. The number one protection for the patients is a large and strong membership base. Living people realize they will be going into those tanks someday - so this larger stronger group will want to protect the rights of the patients, since they will become one someday.

There is another reason as important. Relatives of the patients are the strongest supporters of the patients. There are a lot more relatives in the pool of 800 members then in the pool of 9 board members.

MERKLE SAID: Significant modifications to the Alcor Bylaws might have an impact on Alcor's 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, as well as have other legal and operational ramifications. As a consequence, prior to making any significant change(s) in the Bylaws, it is necessary to discuss the nature and extent of changes with someone qualified specifically in non profit tax law so that we might anticipate any potentially adverse ruling by the IRS. Historically, changes to the Bylaws have been infrequent because of the care and expense required. This is not to say that they are either impossible or undesirable — but they need to be carefully and calmly evaluated. (delete)

PIZER: This is a good thing. We need to have our 501c3 status reviewed by the government often. We need an audit trail. Someday in the far future we are going to need the money in the Patient Care Trust to reanimate the patients. We don’t want to wait until that day to find out that the government has determined that we don’t qualify, and so to assign income taxes, and penalties to all that money. Or worse, try to take it away. We need to know now if there are problems so we can fix them now. We need to document that we have been reviewed every so many years so that if they do find something later on we are grandfathered in having followed prevailing laws at the time.

MERKLE SAID: And finally, it is worth noting that when the attendees at the 2007 Alcor conference were asked whether they preferred the present self perpetuating Board structure to a member elected Board, the great majority, by show of hands, preferred the self perpetuating Board.

PIZER’S RESPONSE: Picture this. Here are these Alcor members many of them on the paid staff that is controlled by the Directors, or advisors of group leaders or committee people all appointed by the Directors. The Board standing there says all you people who want it to continue the way we Directors like it raise your hand. Then, those who don’t like our way raise your hand.

Could you picture your favorite dictator at a government function saying all you guys who don’t like how we are doing it raise you hands.

MERKLE’S CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the present review supports the idea that the self perpetuating Board is better suited to Alcor's mission than a member elected Board. This is not to say that everyone is fully satisfied with all aspects of existing Board operations or member relations, but that an undue emphasis on the issue of an elected versus a self perpetuating Board does not seem to offer significant opportunities for enhancing Alcor's ability to carry out its mission. This opinion is shared by a majority of Board members at this time.

PIZER’S COMMENTS: Of course the majority of the Board members share this opinion. Some of them may not want to stand for re-election on their previous records. I take my hat off to those courageous minority of Board members who do not share the majority opinion. When we get the vote, I am going to vote for them.

Respond to this message

QUESTIONS by DAVE-- answers by Philossifur

Questions: what is a blog?

A BLOG is short for WEB LOG-- we blog BLOG-- and was originally used my internet people to accumulate interesting web page visits. it's evolved into a diary of not just webpages but accounts or storylines of all types. It's more powerful than a discussion forum or newsgroup because the blogger has total control over headlines. All the bigtime journalists now have blogs. Blogs were recognized by Newsweek when Dan Rather got into trouble a few years ago. Suddenly, the mainstream media "decided" that "bloggers" were a formidable "force". As ANYONE these days if they have or read a blog and you're surely going to get a answer rather than a confused look.

What is an alphabetical blog?

I clicked on the site above and it opened up something
that looks like a webpage. I tried to sign in using a
pseudonym as you said to do and made up a password.
The screen said it was the wrong password. That's as
far as I got.

If you want lots of people to see this, why does it
say "invited guests only?"

I've now opened the blog to anyone... so now you can see it. An ALPHABETICAL blog uses an alphabetical INDEX of important words, just like in a book... any non-fiction book. Its far better than a SEARCH ENGINE because the reader can SCAN the index to find topics of interest to them at the moment-- INSTEAD of having to dream up keywords on his own-- OR-- having to chase you around the internet looking for your latest posts. In a sense it's like WRITING A BOOK-- an indexed book. Don't worry, Melody Maxim didn't "get it" either at first-- but start with looking through an INDEX of any book... then lok at the INDEX at the bottom of this blog. Here's an excerpt

CRYONET-- David Pizer messages (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- dictatorship model (1)
DEBATE-- invitation-- Alcor board (1)
DICTATORSHIP MODEL-- cream of crop argument (1)
DIRECTORS-- Let's clear the air (1)
QUESTIONS by DAVE-- answers by Philossifur (1)
TANYA-- vs. Dave's responses (1)

> I'm so convinced that this will help you in your
> mission-- DESPITE the fact that you have support
> now--
> anyway without it-- that I'm willing to start a
> separate ledger account today where I'll credit
> myself
> $10 a day to help maintain and build your Alcor
> Democracy page.

what does credit myself $10 a day mean?

It's a joke. In my estimation, I'm GIVING you a powerful tool for free. We can PRETEND you're being charged $10 a day for it's building and maintenance. I don't care if you pay me or not-- what I'm doing is DEMONSTRATING what I think YOU ought to do-- HOW you ought to present your case. You can't learn this overnight-- but over time-- I'm confident you will understand what a BLOG (web log) is and how powerful it can be. Eventually when you understand it better, you might be so thankful that you'll cover that $10 a day in arrears-- just because it will have been LIKE a service you would NORMALLY pay for up front... but since I'm such a nice guy-- I'm doing it pro bono. (I think that's the right term).

TO CIRCULATE THIS BLOG you can post a link to it on Cryonet, or Cold Filter or Alcor United. The people who moderate those forums really like us bloggers to do that sort of thing (ha ha). And when you use the word "cryonics" here-- espeically on the subject line, Google blogsearch will pick it up and many other readers will SEE your blog. The Cryonics Anti-defamation Committee that constantly attacks me will espeically enjoy that part of it. Little wave to them.... Basically Dave, wecome to Cyberspace-- Nice tv ads-- I just viewed them yesterday

DIRECTORS-- Let's clear the air

X-Message-Number: 30266
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:20:58 -0800 (PST)
From: david pizer
Subject: Director's response to " Let's clear the air."

I took a couple of hours out of my Sunday to carefully
write what I thought were some very serious problems
in Alcor. I gave reasons why I felt that way. I was
careful not to specifically make any person insults.
I had hoped that the directors would read this and
respectfully consider them. They might think: Maybe
Pizer is right? Maybe there are some serious problems
at Alcor. Pizer offers some suggestions on how we can
fix things. He did save Alcor bacon when he moved us
to Arizona and got us the building we are in now. He
was right on a lot of other matters when we were
wrong. Should we consider these suggestions at the
next board meeting. Should we ask our other members
what they think. No. Director Mondragon did not do
any of these things, here is what he writes:

MONDRAGON'S REPLY to "Let's clear the air."
> While scanning this thread, the following statement
> caught my attention: "Alcor now has a serious
> competitor in CI...".
> Wow. Whoever wrote that should consider the
> magnificent career opportunities made temporarily
> available by the SWG strike as well as the national
> campaigns.
> Seriously though, I just don't understand why, if
> the lack of suffrage is truly at the heart of so
> much unhappiness, those Alcor members that feel that
> way don't just go sign up with CI and cast ballots
> to their heart's content.
> CM

In other words, Director Mondragon is telling every
Alcor suspension not to bring your complaints or
suggestions to the board. If you don't like the way
the directors are running Alcor, go join CI.

He couldn't talk to us like that if we had the power
to boot replace him at the next election. It is only
because they feel unaccountable to the membership,
that the directors can treat us like this.

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30266

MY COMMENT (Philossifur-- who else eh?)
Note that Dave doesn't like Mondragon's response here-- and yet Dave was Mondragon's defender back before Saul Kent's "its time for a change". This current campaign by dave is "its time for change-- part II".

Most recent posts

Alphabetical index of keywords -- sub-keywords

Useful Links

[+] Dave Pizer's blog on this issue of democray at Alcor.

[+] Mark Plus Blog.

Authors of this site--
Current-- Philossifur@yahoo.com