Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 14:11:25 -0500
From: Christopher G Caruso <ccaruso@sas.upenn.edu>
Subject: Kenn Thomas [was: "Re: Psychopathia Carlinskialis"]
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu

Thanks, Kenn Thomas.  You really raise this list to a new level.

You have given us a tirade of complete irrelevancy, beginning 
with a little mental health oppression, "Psychopathia Carlinskialis," 
and going on to such crucial matters as Carlinsky's handwriting 
and spelling, and then to name-calling (gems like "creep" and 
"boob"), and, of course, the requisite unsubstantiated conspiracy 
theory ("I have my suspicions that he's been assigned and is 
payed [sic] for this role he plays").

What a shining example of the kind of mature, rational discussion
we are aiming for here on the OML.

Bravo, Kenn.

Nice job.


--
Chris Caruso
ccaruso@sas.upenn.edu
Philadelphia, PA  USA           Check out: http://www.mcs.com/~jdav/league.html



Kenn Thomas wrote:
> 
> >who is Shawn Wilbur to decide such matters?! 
> 
> Shawn is entitled to his opinion and I for one agree with him 100%
> 
> >Isn't that one of central problems that has surfaced since Reich's death:
> > that there are individuals among the competing factions who are declaring
> >themselves to be the arbiter of Reich's will, or the rightful heir to the
> >throne, and they arrogantly take it upon themselves to decide what is true,
> >what is false, and what is blasphemous.
> 
> Which is, of course, perfectly fine with you when Carlinsky does it.
> 
> >Blind allegiance to unexamined authority (including Reich) just won't make it; neither will
> >controlling the expression of views considered not sufficiently reverential,
> > or "negative," or "critical" --even when such views are sincerely expressed
> >and grounded in a search for the truth.
> 
> Carlinsky has been slandering people--including Reich--for years while 
> they have been seriously going about their business using orgonomy to 
> explore a more truthful picture of nature than is available from 
> mechanistic science. These people are not ignorant or unmindful of 
> constructive criticism, but they are rightly pissed off that Carlinsky 
> passes his remarks off as such. 
> 
> Read what he says: James DeMeo is murderer. Is that constructive scientific 
> criticism? That is libel, and DeMeo should sue. As carefully as the OML has 
> tread around issues like the copyright of Contact With Space and 
> the court records, not daring to challenge the museum's claim on them, and 
> it can post this kind of vicious accusation about an admirable 
> orgonomic scientific worker without a pause?
> 
> Even Carlinsky's "criticism" of DeMeo's scientific work: has Carlinsky 
> published any countervailing scientific data? Or is this just Carlinsky's 
> ego parade, his own distorted view of Reich? He idly writes these things in 
> long-hand on yellow legal sheets with the spelling skills of Oswald and the 
> rest of us are supposed to respond to it as if it were studied, scientific 
> work? It is shameful and disgusting that he has taken advantage of 
> someone's naivete in getting them to type his bullshit and post it here. 
> You should be ashamed of yourself for coming to its defense.
> 
> Have you read Carlinsky's attacks on Reich in the so-called skeptics press? 
> Do you call that constructive criticism? Carlinsky has done more harm to 
> the public image of orgonomy than anyone. I have my suspicions 
> that he's been assigned and is payed for this role he plays, but I think 
> that gives him too much credit for competence. Then again, Oswald was made 
> to look like an illiterate boob.
> 
> >Let's get some perspective, people.
> 
> You need the perspective, bucko. I've gone through months of Carlinsky's 
> whiny voice calling me up at all hours to demean Jim Martin, James DeMeo, 
> et. al. They have been enduring his barbs for years and years. Carlinsky 
> has told me that he has spied on them, intercepted their mail, threatened 
> to do them violence; he's been arrested for robbing the museum, and he's 
> proud of that. As much criticism as we have had of the museum, would any of 
> us do that? Is that constructive orgonomic activity?
> 
> >the few of us who have dared to travel down the path Reich traveled, some unfortunately with a ferocity not unlike
> >vultures swooping in on a kill.
> 
> It's just outrageous that you could cast anyone that Carlinsky attacks in 
> this role. It is precisely what Carlinsky has done to many young 
> people with a fledgling interest in Reich and what he has now done with the 
> OML.
> 
> >Just because someone does not agree with Reich's discoveries does not
> >necessarily mean that they are deficient, or that they're sick, or that a
> >supposed true believer is justified in neutralizing an opposing point of view
> 
> The opposition to Reich is bountiful. Carlinsky casts himself 
> as a proponent of the orgonomic view, and yet has all this vitriole and 
> hatred of Reich. You don't have to call it emotional plague to see that it 
> is sick.
> 
> >For instance, I find it amusing and ironic that, in accusing Carlinsky of
> >personally attacking De Meo --a charge which, on the face of the article
> >itself, I do not find Carlinsky guilty of
> 
> So what was that remark about DeMeo being responsible for the deaths of 
> people in the middle east?
> 
> >Shawn Wilbur himself engaged in a very judgemental, somewhat vitirolic attack on Carlinsky's character, on his
> >ideas, on his style, on the person who provided the computer access for
> >Carlinsky's views to be aired in the forum, and on just about anything else
> >Mr. Wilbur apparently doesn't agree with and doesn't want to examine.
> >Not to key in on Mr. Wilbur so much, for I do not wish to invoke his or
> >anyone else's wrath for my current remarks, but don't people like Mr. Wilbur
> >understand the concept of psychological perception?  It would appear, on the
> >basis on his letter, that Mr. Wilbur, a human being, may have been projecting
> >qualities of himself that he is unable or unwilling to accept onto someone he
> >finds "disgusting."  Is it not obvious to an astute reader that Mr. Wilbur is
> >accusing Carlinsky of doing something which the very style and content of
> >Wilbur's own letter makes HIM guilty of.  There is no psychological
> >difference in the make-up of authoritarian, government officials who
> >suppressed the publication of Reich's books because the ideas expressed in
> >them didn't match up with their particular view of the world, and Mr.
> >Wilbur's attempt to censor, denigrate, or otherwise attempt to restrict
> >attempts by someone like Carlinsky (whose views he obviously finds too
> >challenging to consider) to find an audience for his views.
> 
> None of this makes any sense. You don't want to single out Wilbur, then 
> you single him out. You give some half-assed concept of "psychological 
> perception" and try to say that Wilbur's honest outrage about Carlinsky 
> turns him into Carlinsky, but Carlinsky's not such a bad guy after all.
> 
> >In substance, in tone, and in style, I think what Carlinsky did was 
> essentially no different than a book reviewer writing about a book, or a 
> film reviewer discussing a movie.  
> 
> It's one thing to say Oliver Stone made a bad movie; it's quite another to 
> say that he personally killed JFK.
> 
> >Mr. Wilbur, however, ought to watch out.  He, and others who follow in his 
> tone, may be crossing the line.
> 
> I say bravo to Shawn Wilbur. If I didn't want to discuss real issues of 
> concern to people interested in Reich and orgonomy, I would say that I hope 
> there are others on the list who understand that bold scientific work
> and good people have been needlessly slandered. 
> 
> >Words to the wise.
> 
> ...from the foolish. I do not say that because of the reknown lack of
> manners on the Internet, either. I would like a forum for adults to
> discuss orgonomy-related issues, not petulant, inane defenses of that creep 
> Carlinsky. He will not define the issues in orgonomy and you are a fool to 
> try to let him.
> 
> >Eliminate the name-calling and the persecution.  Deal with the issues.
> 
> Robert Anton Wilson once told me that LBJ used to accuse his political 
> opponents of being swinophiliacs. When asked what that was, he responded 
> that he didn't know--but at least he could get people to deny it. This is 
> what we have here, some sad loser trying to get us all to chase 
> our tails over nothing. Apologies are in order to Jim DeMeo, Jim Martin 
> and everyone else Carlinski has attacked and defamed.
> 
> kt
> 
> 
>      --- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 


     --- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get your own Free Home Page

Web Hosting · Blog · Guestbooks · Message Forums · Mailing Lists
Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Financial Data · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by bravenet.com