Von: Joel Carlinsky
Datum: Mo 14, Feb 2005 3:38
KeelyNet Response to: "TOXIC DISINFORMATION: Joel Carlinsky's Bonfire of Insanity" by Jim Martin (editor, Flatland) and Kenn Thomas (editor, Steamshovel Press)
Response written for KeelyNet by Chuck Henderson
On March 15th 1997, I was informed that the above article had been posted on the InterNet at Thomas' site and that it contained references to KeelyNet.
I found this to be somewhat curious, as I had never had any contact with these individuals or their publications and, to the best of my knowledge, neither had Jerry.
After reading the article and doing some checking, I now understand that they are close associates of James DeMeo and have published several of his articles as well as hawking several of his private publications. Martin and Thomas' publications range from the ridiculous to the sublime in the arena of conspiracies.
Obviously, the article is a hit piece done either at DeMeo's request or out of sympathy for their friend. Who better to write the article than those who make a living selling conspiracies to the public? Individuals who are practiced at, as well as unconcerned about distorting the truth, quoting things out of context, or the use of convenient lies. This, in and of itself provides a rather strong indication of the character of the supposedly injured party in this piece.
The same party that they have chosen to elevate in their article to a position equal to the second-coming of Reich. I am certain that if Martin and Thomas' publications were sold at the newsstand, that they would hold a prominent place right next to the tabloids. We did not post Carlinsky's complete article as it first appeared on the OML (Orgonomy Mailing List - now defunct), but an edited version of it. It was posted primarily because it bolstered our stance against posting "how-to" plans on the construction of devices that could cause large scale damage and because it points out several areas of concern that must be considered by anyone contemplating the use of a cloudbuster.
DeMeo was given several opportunities to post any response that he wished to post at our site which he refused. Instead, we received private e-mail that was full of venom and veiled threats. He would not allow us to post his response to Carlinsky's article at our site and said he'd take legal action if we did. Then he was angered when we failed to link to his response at his web site.
Given the pathology witnessed by the content of the e-mails he has sent to us, we felt no obligation to do so. Now, let's take a look a some of what Martin & Thomas have to say in their article. The quotes are underlined. "Jerry Decker and Chuck Henderson reposted the article on their KeelyNet web site. This location is revealing, since KeelyNet was previously chosen by John Lear for an 'exclusive' on his confusionist UFO story."
The term "reposted" implies that something was removed and then replaced. This is not the case with the Carlinsky article. It was posted once and is still there. As to John Lear and UFOs, neither have anything to do with the subject of orgonomy or cloudbusting which should be the focus of the article.
"DeMeo has always made this material -- to KeelyNet,´Paranoia, the 'skeptics', or anyone with an interest in the truth (DeMeo's version*)-- available..."
As evidenced by Martin & Thomas' article, truth is relative to one's own perceptions and motivations. "The response deals vigorously with Carlinsky's exaggerated and false criticisms, making reprints of Carlinsky a redundant aggravation that DeMeo has also had to address. To date, none of DeMeo's critics - Ogg, Carlinsky, Battaglia, Joan D'Arc - have countered the substance of DeMeo's self-defense, though they have been mightily embarrased by it and have shamefacedly attempted to divert the issue to picayune hair-splitting."
Really?, I thought that Battaglia's March 31, 1996 posting to the OML addressed several points of DeMeo's response article rather well. One thing that DeMeo, Martin, and Thomas seem to forget is that in order to counter substance, first substance has to be presented. DeMeo's "Response" article is approximately 55% character assult on Carlinsky, 35% self-aggrandizement (including, but not limited to, presenting himself as Middle East Peacemaker), 6% advertising and 4% quotations from Reich. DeMeo, like Martin and Thomas, is a master of semantics.
Before leaving the reference to OML all together, I would like to bring up something rather puzzling. Why would DeMeo and his associates wish to practice the same thing that they damn the FDA for, namely, censorship? It was due to influence by DeMeo and his associates that the OML's archives were first sanitized to remove Carlinsky's article (1st posted 2/13/96) as well as the dialog that followed. Now, I find that the only OML archives available are from when the OML was started through January '96.
What happened to the missing eleven months of 1996? There is an individual that is currently trying to resurrect the OML. I hope that he is able to do a complete rebuild of the archives. As far as being embarrassed goes, I think that the embarrassment is DeMeo's, much like a child being caught with his hand in the cookie jar and then experiencing a similar anger when told he can't keep the cookie.
DeMeo and his associates claim that Carlinsky is a stalker, that he has threatened and harrassed him. They claim to have evidence of these actions. Then why haven't they filed charges? There are Federal as well as State Stalking Laws.
"Those who have embarrassed themselves in their dalliance with Carlinsky -- CSICOP, Paranoia, EIDOS, KeelyNet, Jamerling Ogg, Jim Keith, and John-Michael Battaglia -- could coalesce and become an identifiable axis of disinformation, or they might reconsider and make a clear statement against his behavior."
Again, I reiterate, the embarrassment is DeMeo's. While I have no use for CSICOP or EIDOS, and know next to nothing of either Paranoia or Jim Keith, I would have no problem "coalescing" with Jamerling Ogg, John-Michael Battaglia, and other like-minded individuals to form a group of Allies willing to openly look at all sides of the issues, not just one myopic viewpoint.
The conflict is between DeMeo and Carlinsky, not between the individuals and organizations that choose to look at both sides of an issue while hoping for a productive and informed dialog. Once more, the focus here should be exclusively one of taking responsibility and precautions when experimenting with cloudbusting, not personal attacks, infighting between factions of those versed in orgonomy or attempts to force censorship of material that expresses such environmental concerns.
zurück zur Hauptseite