Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Financial Data · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by
bravenet.com
|
|
OML Archives-
Subject: Re: Accountability - Mon, 11 Mar 1996 23:25:01 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 23:25:01 -0500
Message-Id: <199603120413.XAA10080@relay1.shore.net>
From: orgone@shore.net (true paranoia..reads)
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: Accountability
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Dear John-Michael,
You and I have been reading the same posts here over the last few weeks and
it appears, from reading your post, that we disagree in our comprehension of
what we've read.
Jogg pointed out and was supported by Carlinsky himself that Joel had been
involved in some activities that to my mind are reprehensible. Putting
radioactive material in an accumulator in Boston to poison the city with an
Oranur Effect, maliciously conducting cloudbusting operations with the
express intent of causing mayhem, attempting to bribe a member of the
Orgonomy community to keep Joel from doing it again. There was more. To me
this kind of behavior is flawed and remember, much of this is from
Carlinsky's own words. When DeMeo, Martin, Jogg and Kenn Thomas all relate
that this type of behavior on J.C.'s part has a long history, I'm inclined
to believe them. I'm inclined to question Carlinsky when he attacks DeMeo.
They have demonstrated differing opinions on the uses of cloudbusting and I
like DeMeo's approach better. I've read that DeMeo had an unexpected
development that he may or may not have been responsible for. Carlinsky
tried to raise hell.
You speak somewhat disparagingly of Dr. DeMeo. I wonder if you would
elaborate more. Do you have personal knowledge of improper behavior on the
part of Dr. DeMeo? Are you basing your feelings on Carlinsky's accusations
or do you have other information. If you do, I'd like to read it.
You say that you sent away for Carlinsky's follow up material. Please post
it. I have a rule against allowing someone like what I perceive Joel to be
to ever know my phone number or my address. If he is a provocator of some
kind then that will be part of his job. Identifying the orgonomic community.
Since he already has your address please be kind enough to share with us
what you have. There has been no decision to limit the information posted here.
Also, I disagree that I am attempting to kill the messenger as you put it. I
don't believe the message. I have serious concerns about the messenger.
Yes, you are right, Carlinsky has shown solid knowledge of cloudbusting by
his statements and his actions. The use to which he has put that knowledge
makes a decent case for burying orgonomy. In my opinion he has not shown
solid knowledge of ecological factors. He did not back up his statements
with citations and footnotes.
It was unfortunate that some members of the list got livid when Carlinsky
posted his message. I tried to point out to them that for someone who didn't
know what was going on that this made them look bad, but I haven't been
dealing with Carlinsky for however long he's been around either. Maybe they
showed a lot of restraint. I agree with Chris that sometimes tempers flare
and people get emotional. Good. That's more fun than watching a church
service. It's more honest too.
I do not belong to anyone's "camp". I read the posts like everyone else and
made up my own mind all by myself. You arrived at a different conclusion.
Such is diversity.
- dave huisken
>Dave Huisken wrote:
>
><<My feeling is that before all this Carlinsky stuff came up
><<I wouldn't have known him from Adam.
><<Now that I've heard about him
><<I am forwarned [sic] in case I ever run into him....
>
><<I for one am glad that this issue was aired
><<because I had the oppourtunity [sic] to hear a plague attack
><< (a good one too) and because Carlinsky
><<will probably never be able to work his mischief on me....
>
><<It's to [sic] bad that this had to happen at Jim DeMeo's expense
><<but I think this list and Orgonomy benefitted in the end
><<because we've all been given an impression of Carlinsky.>>
>=============================================================
>These comments, which unfortunately can fall only in the category of the
>character assassination type, seem to indicate a confirmed attitude which
>some people have that stubbornly refuses to be altered by facts.
>
>There is an implication here, and in many of posts during these past four
>weeks since Carlinsky's triggering post, entitled "Orgonomy," that a man who
>has dared criticize one of the darlings of the neo-orgonomy movement is --due
>to imperfections of the critic's character-- not to be listened to.
>
>Why is it that, when people don't like the message someone brings, they must
>resort to killing the messenger? Is it not obvious that those who have
>rushed
>to the defense of the currently reigning authority in cloud-busting have
>resorted to the exact same assassination tactics which the authorities of
>Reich's day used to censor and eliminate him -- all because they could not,
>or would not, listen to what a man who was not a card-carrying member of the
>status quo had to say?
>
>I find it extremely ironic to have observed how hatchet man have rushed in
>over this past month to squash the critic for having pointed that the emperor
>may indeed have no clothes. Rather than examine the issues raised in
>Carlinsky's post, or send for the documentation which he freely offered to
>all, assassins followed a knee-jerk strategy of undermining the character of
>the critic; or they sought to distract the rest of us by introducing
>tangential topics, like tring to get us to debate whether the right of free
>speech includes the right to criticize an authority figure; or they
>attempted to cast aspersions on the psychological health and character of
>observers, like myself, who tried to maintain an open mind and keep the
>discussion focused on the issues raised by a most stimulating post.
>
>Considering how far we seem to have gotten off track, Mr. Huisken's recent
>comments sent me back to re-read the original post by Carlinsky. I decided
>to return to the source of all this in-fighting. Is Carlinsky really as evil
>or pestilent as his detractors would have me believe?
>
>When examined in the context of all the subsequent messages, I think it is
>quite remarkable how matter-of-fact so much significant information is
>presented in Carlinsky's singular posting last month. While I can understand
>that certain people may be unhappy by the very publication of certain
>hitherto unknown facts about DeMeo's activities, or Carlinsky's provocative
>insights in the ecological impact of cloudbusting, I did not then, and I do
>not now, find Carlinsky's message vitriolic or scathing in its criticism of
>certain allegedly irresponsible practitioners of orgonomic cloud-busting.
>
>If there was any incidence of a "plague" reaction, then any subsequent
>analysis would most likely reveal that it was fueled primarily by the instant
>negative reactions towards Carlinsky's post and the deep resistance among
>those in what must be considered the "DeMeo camp" not only to consider the
>validity of Carlinsky's allegations, but also to deny him (and others) the
>right to air views that are not part of their promulgated new dogma.
> Apparently they feel that the only way to boost DeMeo's stature is by
>simultaneously demolishing Carlinsky's?
>
>It is somewhat fascinating to note that Carlinsky, no doubt due to the fact
>that he does not have access to the Internet except through some local friend
>whom he must impose upon, has only posted ONE message --the one which
>triggered this whole discussion. Though Carlinsky was critical of the
>cloudbusting activities of a group of people he considers inept and
>irresponsible, I think any objective reader would have to conclude that he
>kept strictly to the issues, and he indicated a solid knowledge both of the
>techniques of cloudbusting, as well as ecological factors that he says must
>be considered by anyone daring to engage in such globally impactive work.
>
>Unless one uses a very narrow definition of what it means to make a "personal
>attack" on someone, Carlinsky did not personally attack DeMeo or any of his
>colleagues in his public service alert to the rest of us. He did, however,
>correctly predict that people unable to tolerate his critique would attempt
>to undermine his assertions, not by dealing with the issues, but by launching
>a punitive attack --not only his person and character, but by indirection,
>upon everyone else who would even consider his viewpoint.
>
>It is a shame that so many of us who have studied Reich's life have not yet
>learned the lesson of what happens when intolerance rules the day!
>
>Those who are so quick to disparage others by insinuation or by innuendo
>--simply because they themselves may be unable to tolerate any breakthrough
>insights which threaten to shatter their preconceived illusion of how things
>are-- should endeavor to distinguish whether the toxicity they are displaying
>in their posts is truly coming from outside their Selves, as posts like Mr.
>Huisken's would have us believe, or if it is merely a projection of their
>own, unaccepted character flaws which they too easily toss out onto a screen
>called Carlinsky.
>
>Going forward in this discussion does not mean getting the last word on who
>is, or is not, a pestilent character; it may mean doing something more like
>supporting the establishment of the orgonomic equivalent of an environment
>impact study before any and all such cloudbusting is performed. If Carlinsky
>can somehow transcend his animosity toward DeMeo and Company for what he
>considers their disregard for the ecological impact of their work, perhaps
>he, and others, can contribute their knowledge in a positive way toward the
>development of the criteria for such environmental impact studies.
>
>John-Michael Battaglia
><<Galileo II@aol.com>>
>
>
>
> --- 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
bravenet.com