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--

QUOTE
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.
UNQUOTE
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?

QUOTE
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.....


QUOTE
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.
UNQUOTE
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

QUOTE
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.
UNQUOTE
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.