Von: Joel Carlinsky
Datum: Dienstag, 15. März 2005 23:30


I never said anything about DeMeo in connection with lightning. That, if you read what I wrote, was said of two of his associates, Dr. Stephen Nagy, and John Schlining. I do not claim to know what DeMeo may or may not have done regarding lightning. I did say that much of the work DeMeo has done has had harmfull side-effects on the environment, including numerous deaths. That can be verified by checking the news reports about the weather for dates when he was cloudbusting. It is either true or not true, regardless of any so-called psyciatric diagnosis of my alleged motives. As a lomg-time environmental activist, it is not my responsibility to help anyone with their emotiional problems. I am trying to stop the misuse of cloudbusting that is causing harm to the environment and killing innocent bystanders. People will just have to solve their own emotional problems without my help. I can't do everything. The turning of a sincere effort to help solve a real problem into a ''proof'' of the psychiatric illness of the activist is exactly what the ACO did durring the Viet Nam war. They called anti-war protesters ''psychopaths'' and spent endless pages analyizing their supposed motives, instead of realizing that the war was the problem and the protesters against it were right.

DeMeo is NOT doing real science, at least where cloudbusting is concerned, because to be considered a scientific report, a published report MUST include enough information to allow independent replication. DeMeo refuses to include that data, for reasons of trying to prevent anyone else from engaging in cloudbusting. Therefore his reports on cloudbusting are not scientific reports. There is no way around this. If a report does not include sufficient information to allow replication, it is not a scientific report. If he were a scientist he would know this, instead of just shouting about predjudice when scientists understandably don't take his claims seriously. If you had enough training in science you would not be so impressed with his shoddy work. And, incidently, repeating something someone else did years ago is not research. It is politicing.

Alll DeMeo does is repeat stuff Reich did. He shows no createivity whatsoever. This is not how science should be done. Credit in science goes for doing something original, not endlessly doing something over and over again that someone else did first. And not trying to prove to anyone that that someone else was right. DeMeo does not do science. As for his crusade against Islam, he can say whatever he likes against Moslems, Jews, Christians, and Buddists, but the simple fact is that he has no more influence in the big world outside orgonomy than you or I have, and nothing he or you or I can say will influence the course of human history one bit. I wish, though, that he would write his anti-Moslem speaches under some other name, so orgonomy in general would not end up taking the blame for his apologetics for the Bush tyrany. It is only in the last few years that orgonomy has started to recover from the anti-communist image inflicted on it by Ellsworth Baker and company. It does not need another generation of association with the far right and the American governments' policies. Now, I have a question. Can you actually rebut anything I said in any of my posts without resorting to ad hominums and imputing motives to me that you could not possibly know if you were a psychiatrist unless you had examined me?


zurück zur Hauptseite