|
|
|
|
OML Archives-
Subject: Accountability - Sun, 10 Mar 1996 02:47:28 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 02:47:28 -0500
From: "Jim Martin" <flatland@mail.mcn.org>
Message-Id: <199603100739.XAA17556@mail.mcn.org>
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Accountability
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Jammerling Ogg wrote:
> I began my last post with
>
> "The below I have included to demonstrate to the dangers of cloudbusting as
discussed during the below Student Discussion with Eva Reich and Bill Moise
(15FEB1975)."
>
>>>>I apologize for the use of the word demonstrate. When I used the word
demonstrate, I had no intention to purport that what I shared though posting the
discussion extract was in any way proof that cloudbusting is dangerous. <<<<<<
But that's what you said! Warning, Jogg, warning! Your comments are being taken
very seriously. Understand the meaning of the words you choose to employ. It's
all we have to go on, short of divination. I am not tossing this post off in a
frenzy or a rage, I have spent much of the day trying to make every word count.
Given the fact that most of the recent posts have advocated wide-open airing of
disagreements, and you yourself have said that critique is not always a
manifestation of the emotional plague, let's examine what you've said:
>>>>>>If there is no proof accepted that they even work then I can not prove
that they are dangerous.<<<<<<
Then why did you criticize DeMeo's operations at all, without some evidence that
the cloudbuster works?
>>>>>>>>>>I posted the student discussion because we were writing on oml about
dangers of cloudbuster work by itself. During the past few days some of the
discussion was getting away from personal attacks on each other.<<<<<<
Which personal attacks? Did you take my patience as a sign that I was going to
ignore your public statements about me and others? Did you think you would not
be held personally accountable for what you've said and done? How have I accused
you? Does accountability equal "personal attacks"? After two weeks of my
enduring your public commentary, while awaiting a private response to my
criticism, do you feel immune from public accountability? When criticized here,
unfairly, DeMeo wrote a 20-page response, trying to account for himself. Whether
he succeeded or not is up to each individual, but meanwhile I take a dim view of
those who criticize others without much ability to handle it themselves. While
everyone has the right to refuse to respond to baseless accusations and ravings,
that's not at issue here.
In fact, what I have done, for the most part, is ask you questions that you seem
unwilling or unable to answer directly.
>>>>>>>>>> I thought that what Eva Reich and Bill Moise had said in that part of
the discussion might be helpful in continuing a discussion about dangers
involved with cloudbusting. I still hope it did.<<<<<<<<<
Maybe so, but it didn't answer the questions asked of you. Once again: you have
publicly maligned a noted, serious scientist, saying DeMeo has caused damage in
his operations. This is a matter of public record, not an "accusation" requiring
any additional substantiation. What I haven't addressed so far is the fact that
not only did you know about Carlinksy's record of stalking DeMeo and others, you
understood that his article had no factual basis, and you knew full well that
DeMeo did not want to have to answer these false charges and that he would not
participate in any forum that would tolerate Carlinsky's dirty tricks. Yet you
informed DeMeo that you planned to post it anyway, along with your own editorial
that added new, baseless *accusations* (i.e., calling DeMeo's operations "primal
scream therapy" on the atmosphere, without ever having observed his operations).
To use a business metaphor, it is you who have run up some outstanding charges,
while I am just a bookkeeper trying to track down the accounts receivable.
In a fragile situation, where on the one hand we have a growing -if muddled -
interest in orgonomy, and at the same time we are all aware of the public
hostility to much of what many of us hold to be true and dear, you have confused
legitimate concern about cloudbusting work with the calculated machinations of
the emotional plague, by which I am referring to Carlinksy's smear tactics. It
is now your obligation to produce the goods, meaning provide the OML with the
evidence by which you arrived at your position, or else retract what you've said
in a very public way. In the real world, we meet our obligations or lose credit.
> >>>Jim Martin I thank you for your response and views. I may not agree with
them all but I did read them and reflect on them.<<<<<
Which views don't you agree with? Reflect some more. Reflect a lot more. I took
two weeks to respond to your public commentary about me; can you tolerate any
criticism at all without responding within hours? If you can find the time to
post so frequently, I'm sure you can take time to ponder and reflect on these
issues, not take them as personal attacks, and respond coherently.
>>>>>> You are correct that I didn't mention the cloud seeding going on during
DeMeo's OROP Israel. <<<<<<<
I know I was correct in pointing this out. However, I asked you WHY you didn't
mention this? Laziness? Spite? Illiteracy? I really have no idea, that's why I
ask.
>>>>>>>>He does state in Pulse of the Planet 4 pg 96 "....However, I do not wish
to paint a completely rosy face on these weather changes. In other areas, such
Egypt, Turkey, and Lebanon, greater difficulties were experienced from the
winter storms. There was additionally, a complicating factor in the analysis of
these strong storms: a very ambitious Israeli government cloudseeding program,
employing seeding aircraft...dozen ground based seeding generators, was
constantly underway during every single storm cycle, even during the heaviest of
downpours and flooding.......ended in late February........While the
cloudseeding was not a factor in bring about an end to the draught in the Middle
East (they were seeding also during drought years), it did appear to contribute
to the flooding problems, once the the cloudbusting had eliminated the energetic
barrier to the Mediterranean storms. ..." <<<<<<
This is important information in assessing culpability for any subsequent
damages. I ask again, how could you have ignored this? One of the definitions of
the word "censor" in the dictionary gives a meaning offered by Freud: *Zensur*.
Can you elaborate on this meaning and tell me if it relates to your omission of
these facts?
>>>> I agree that we can't prove which operation did what. One can not prove
that either seeding or cloudbusting helped make the floods etc. It appears that
the cb opened the storm barrier and that the seeding may have squeezed more rain
out of the clouds. <<<<<<<
According to a meteorologist I spoke with a Tucson's Institute of Atmospheric
Physics, the only thing cloudseeding does is squeeze more rain out of
pre-existing storms. Cloudseeding works like this: see clouds, add chemicals.
Sound familiar?
> The concern here as in any cb work is that; all these operations need to be
> considered when conducting cb work. Any person working with a cloudbuster
> may have other factors affecting the operation that may amplify their work
> unknown to them. There could be another cb operator nearby unknown to the
> other conducting an cb operation that could amplify in a positive or
> negative way the other cb operation or vise versa. Cloudseeding could
> affect a cb operation as well. The dangers and responsibilities become very
> high and impossible to control due to other unknown factors such as these
> mentioned.
So, tell the Israelis to stop cloudseeding. You'd better get your facts straight
before doing so.
> In the student discussion I posted it was mentioned by Eva or Bill that a
> cloudbuster can affect an area over 800 miles away. How many cloudbuster
> operators are working within the 800 miles or more that are unknown to each
other and are affecting each other cb operation when they may per chance be
operating during the same days or week.
Very early in the history of cloudseeding, it was noted that silver iodide had
far-reaching effects. What does DOR-removal have to do with this? What does Bill
Moise's irresponsible cb operation, which by his own admission was followed by
50 deaths in the Midwest, have to do with DeMeo's operations? Bill was an
artist, and a fine one. He had a great sensitivity to life energy functions, but
he was not a scientist.
> When I say use a mini DOR buster for study I do not mean to try it on
> weather or people. I meant pure research.
What is "pure research"? Something that has no effect on anything, no results?
Can we study life energy on some Cray computer using statistical models alone?
> For example one could build
> orgone field meters to measures changes that may be detected by changing
> lengths of the extended pipes.
How would these meters measure cloudbuster effects? You are really blowing smoke
here. What you are trying to do is extract yourself from your own conflicting
statements, that no one should experiment with cloudbusters, at the same time
saying more experiments need to be done with cloudbusters to measure long-range
effects. Your statements are even more contorted than that: you called into
question DeMeo's scientific integrity, asking him upon what authority does he go
about his work, while setting up a section on your web page, encouraging people
to post the protocols of their cloudbusting operations! This is nonsense,
evasion of the essential, pure and simple.
> Test changes in field while changing to
> different water sources. Test magnetic, static, electroscope etc.
What were your results in the experiments you performed? What were your
protocols? Are you sure these types of experiments will have no ecological
effects? Have you ever operated a cloudbuster yourself? What were the results?
Speaking personally, I have operated cloudbuster, very irresponsibly I might
add. I did that years ago, with as much contempt for the device as curiosity to
see if it really worked. It does, I now realize, and regret having treated it
like a joke. This is a far cry from what DeMeo is doing. Later, and after
getting myself some therapy, I participated in operations coordinated by the
CORE network, I very carefully followed the instructions of people in the
network who knew more than I did. Still, I did not feel comfortable just
following instructions and felt responsible for any damages I might cause. So I
no longer do *any* cloudbusting, and would not do so ever again unless the
atmospheric situation, and my own organismic viability, absolutely demanded it.
Now, I realize I'm taking a chance here by admitting to my own mistakes. Mark my
words, someone's going to get a hold of this and blow what I've said out of
proportion. Can I trust that a few folks out there will remember the context in
which I say this, to demonstrate that I personally do not live in a glass house,
to admit to my own failings in an attempt to encourage others to do so?
Use many
> other instruments other variables that come to mind while testing the mini
> dorbuster. Test the dor buster under as many under different conditions as
> are practible. This could be done under controlled lab type setting. But of
> course be aware that electricity may have adverse affects if it is done in
> an electrically wired building. It is this type of investigating with the
> mini dor buster that I am encouraging rather than cloudbusting which has so
> many uncontrolled factors.
Jogg: the reality is that, although I'm sure you're a well-intentioned person,
it's evident that you haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about. I
regret having to call you to task publicly, but I remind you that I first tried
it privately. You turned your back.
> I for one do not want to be part of an elite mailing list
> for only those that are allowed to be members.
Who suggested this? I suggested limiting participation to responsible people,
not some imaginary elite. For example: I have never liked the use of pseudonyms
on the net. If people aren't willing to identify themselves, how can they be
responsible for what they say? I don't want to take up a lot of OML bandwidth on
this matter. I can only point out that this newsgroup is already moderated by
Shawn Wilbur, and in fact you yourself, Jogg, were the first one to suggest
limits to what can be posted on the OML when you warned people against posting
the copyrighted works of Wilhelm Reich here. This is a restriction of "absolute
freedom and openness", isn't it? While I have problems with the WR Museum, and
in fact I have a lot of sympathy for those who have objected to the notion of
"intellectual property" - from Benjamin Franklin on down to the Situationist
International - the reality is if someone were to "freely" post those
copyrighted works, Shawn would be forced to shut the OML down right quick by
Mary Boyd Higgins. So we might as well face reality, and give up our respective
ideologies. At least we can talk about it, otherwise we just pass the
responsibility on to others.
> I always felt there was a void that needed filling.
Oh brother, I'm not going to touch that one. Reich talked about that feeling of
emptiness starting on page 45, last paragraph of *Listen Little Man*.
The void
> was a place for all who were interested to have a place they could share
> their own knowledge without being required to have a phd. or an md. to be
> allowed to express there ideas, concerns, and research in orgonomy.
There never was such a void. No one has ever suggested that a Ph.D. or M.D. be
required to express opinions, here or anywhere else. However, we have created a
situation that *effectively* prevents the participation of many people who do
hold such degrees. While you might expect long-time researchers in orgonomy to
share their knowledge while defending themselves from every kind of mindless
attack, I cannot. Sounds to me people might want an orgonomy-free, Wilhelm Reich
fan club.
In the
> 70's when I first learned of orgonomy it seemed that only highly educated
> persons with degrees were allowed to share there knowledge in orgonomy in
> journals and such.
People with knowledge, generally, are well-educated. You can educate yourself,
or you can find teachers who know the knowledge you seek. You are a teacher
yourself. In your classroom, do you simply allow your students to "share their
knowledge" without correcting their mistakes, or giving them feedback? And if
you have no authority or knowledge in the field, what are you doing in the
classroom? There is a very deep conflict in what you are saying and what you are
doing.
> Those journals have there place and they have published
> great articles but where could all have a place to share with each other
> equally.
Are all *ideas* equal? While equality for all human beings under the law is a
inalienable right, where does this concept lead us when we extend it to a public
forum of ideas and information? Does misinformation = information? War = Peace?
I believe right down to my toes that this kind of thinking leads to
totalitarianism. I have not suggested that we turn the OML into a peer-reviewed
journal. I respect the wishes of those who feel comfortable with any type of
"information sharing" here. Maybe if some of them had been called ignorant
murderers they might feel differently. All I know is that inevitably this kind
of disrespect will limit serious discussion, as it already has. I won't be a
party to it much longer if it continues.
I know, I've directed some strong words at you, Jogg. I described your refusal
to continue our private exchange, while making public statements about me, as
alienated behavior. This is the kind of sharp disagreement I *do not* want to
limit. I did not say: "Jogg is completely alienated and a disgusting human being
who can never be trusted," nor do I believe that. I just called a spade a spade,
described the behavior as I saw it.
I, like C.T., have enjoyed the discussions on oml regardless of
> whatever personal stuff that happens. I look forward to more sharing,
> learning, discussing, and debating of orgonomy topics here at OML.
Then you should enjoy the criticism I've offered here, and enter into a real
dialog about the issues I've raised, rather than hurrying to cover it all up,
describing what I've said as "personal attacks" and "name-calling". I take
criticism, when it's direct and respectful, as the highest gift one can receive.
While I have pointed to behavior, examined statements critically, I ask anyone
to point to one example of "name-calling". If I did, I will apologize and take
it back.
As
> someone recently said on OML at least here you do not get accused of being
> an idiot for accepting that orgone energy does exist.
I think anyone who accepts that orgone energy exists without conducting their
own experimentation, or at least carefully examining the studies of serious
published work, is indeed an *idiot* (but I wouldn't want to call anyone names!)
So let's start there. Has anyone else, besides myself, tried the TO-T
experiment, which measures the temperature differential between the ORAC, a
control box, and the surrounding atmosphere? Have you done any of these
experiments, Jogg, or is acceptance of orgone an article of faith? Is so, what
we have here is a cult. I'll try to find my "protocols", such as they were. If
there is just ONE other person who has done a similar, amateur study, and can
produce their results, I'll *share* my own results here for criticism and
analysis - however I do not have a basketful of gifts up for the *taking*. I
definitely made some mistakes in this experiment, as I have since learned.
However, the results I got convinced me that the basic phenomena Reich observed
were verifiable. We're at a disadvantage here on the OML, lacking the
participation of those scientists who have studied it, but perhaps we can muddle
along. We need to be able to talk openly about our mistakes, and learn from
them.
With all *due* respect,
-Jim Martin
********************************************************************
http://www.mcn.org/cbc/Bussect/Flatland/flatland.html
Flatland: POB 2420, Ft. Bragg, CA 95437
--- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get your own Free Home Page
bravenet.com