Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 00:58:25 -0500
(fwd) From: John-Michael Battaglia <galileo2@buffnet.net>
From: pore@mainelink.net
Subject: (fwd) Carlinsky's challenge; deMeo's retreat
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu



<---- Begin Forwarded Message ---->
Received: from buffnet1.buffnet.net (mmdf@buffnet1.buffnet.net  
Message-ID: <3122C30F.B7E@buffnet.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 00:22:23 -0500
From: John-Michael Battaglia <galileo2@buffnet.net>
Reply-To: GalileoII@aol.com
Organization: Galileo II Productions
 
Subject: Carlinsky's challenge; deMeo's retreat
 

It is regrettable that James de Meo's threats to sue the 
PORE web site for libel for being willing to serve as a 
conduit for the free exchange of ideas on the subject of 
orgonomy will deprive those of us interested in the work 
of Reich from observing what could be a very significant 
"point and counterpoint" discussion between Joel Carlinsky 
and the deMeo group of allegedly irresponsible 
cloudbusters. 

I side with neither camp, but I find it rather bizarre 
that deMeo and James Martin now wish to "unpublish" their 
articles from the PORE web site, as if to say they do not 
want to be contaminated by appearing on your pages. 
DeMeo's righteousness and his holier-than-thou stance is 
beginning to make me wonder about his integrity.   

Of course, at issue is whether Joel Carlinsky's assertions 
are true or not.   However, considering the vehemency of 
deMeo's reaction to any hint of criticism, together with 
his unwillingness to have his work subjected to public 
scrutiny, I'm beginning to think that there actually might 
be considerable substance to Carlinsky's allegations and 
that deMeo, afraid of being exposed for fraud or perhaps 
for criminal negligence, is engaged in a strategic 
retreat.  For all we know, deMeo may have come to identify 
himself as Reich's successor so strongly that he perceives 
Carlinsky as a modern day Mildred Brady opening up the 
flood gates against him.  

Anyway, while it's unfortunate that you, as the editor of 
PORE, may have to take the safe road and accede to deMeo's 
threats and demands in order to protect yourself and your 
work, it is an understandable course of action under the 
circumstances. Of couse, you'd be wise to consult an 
attorney to get an opinion as to whether or Carlinsky's 
article would actually expose you to libel, and if it 
would, well, naturally back off rather than commit such a 
crime. 

>From what I recall, however, truth IS the best defense 
against a libel suit, so I'd rather see this matter 
between deMeo and Carlinsky resolved once and for all, 
instead of having us all be so pushed and pulled about by 
both advocates and their conscious or unconscsious 
attempts to control the agenda of the orgonomy movement 
--as well as what you can and cannot publish!

Like it not, deMeo cannot stick his head in the sand and 
ignore Carlinsky's allegations, however contentious 
Carlinsky may be.  And if Carlinsky is nothing but an 
agent provocateur with a diabolical mission to undermine, 
splinter, and otherwise destroy orgonomy, then he will not 
consent to be swept under the carpet, either.  

Unfortunately, the evil of censorship continues to rear 
its ugly head and spit in the face of Wilhelm Reich.  The  
question now is: who is doing the spitting?  Carlinsky, or 
deMeo, or both?  While a fascinating side-show, the 
obvious hostility between the two antagonists does little 
to promote the development of orgonomy, other than to 
reveal to us all the land mines that lurk along the 
journey.


<----  End Forwarded Message  ---->

 

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 · Free Talking Character · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by bravenet.com