The focus of her thread is interesting-- and the thread is interesting but for me-- the single most important element of the case is--
What right did CI have to hand over C81 to SA?"
In my view, both firms have LOST CREDIBILITY regardless of all the other issue being raised here-- over this single aspect-- the HANDOVER-- The implications are huge-- the increased risks to C81 were inherent and potentially unacceptable-- and the CI membership has to really wonder about the answer to the question I raised.
I have a feeling this question will be ignored but I'm notating it here in Frozen Files summer 2007 for future reference-- so that I clearly understand, later on when this case fades, what my concern was. Nobody outside of cryonics cares-- and I have to move on-- but to me-- the handover was uncalled for. C81 was NOT an SA client and should NOT have been handed over. C81 bought CI's services, was in the CI neighbourhood and deserved CI protocol-- which clearly was closer and more able to deal with the situation. If they were not, then local CI capabilities should be looked at more thoroughly.
SHarris comments on contracts in this CF thread-- [+] but its in regards to how CI, Alcor or SA endeavor to fulfil the contract-- nothing about the contract made with the particualr cryonics firm involved. In c81's case, he contracted with CI-- then his contract was abrograted-- nullified-- changed etc... without his consent-- by decree by his son and and a conspiracy of some sort. I disagree with that nullification of CI contract-- cancellation basically-- C81 did NOT put an SA contract into place-- Now why did his son over ride that-- and why did CI and SA go along with it. Why did the son, Ben Best and Saul Kent-- over-ride C81's CI contract? I don't believe they should have.
No comments:
Post a Comment