From owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Wed Dec 4 23:59:42 1996 Return-Path: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Received: from jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU [128.143.200.11]) by emin01.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA14377; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 23:59:41 -0500
Subj: Re: A Disservice to Reich and Orgonomy Date: 96-12-05 00:00:28 EST From: Yorgone@aol.com Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Reply-to: orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU CC: demeo@mind.net

Dear Dr. James DeMeo,

I find it a shame that you must even respond as you have done with the misrepresented attributes to others ie. ACCUSATIONS. This the same thing that you accuse others of doing to you. You make many or should I say most of these accusations about Ogg in particular with no subtantive proof for your allegations.

Yes, everyone wants specific examples. I will give some examples but I also have a lot of questions that I would appreciate your answers to. I should probably not even bother with this as I will get slammed and roasted like everyone else on the OML, who dare speak with any criticism.

When you see " > " , the words that follow are yours (DeMeo's) as quoted from your recent letters that were on OML.

>Ogg continues to make big misrepresentations
>about my work, and his own conduct.

What are the continued big misrepresentation about your work?? What are the continued big misrepresentations of Ogg's own conduct??

DeMeo you followed these accusations with a story about Carlinsky in Boston but what did you counter about what Ogg said about this. Threats may have been made but did they disrupt the conference as you earlier said. Ogg said he was there and the conference went fine and that Carlinsky was out of the country.

Was Carlinsky out of the country? Did Carlinsky actually disrupt the conference? Did Ogg tell a lie by what he stated? We all like to see proof when accusations are made on individuals. You accused some one of disrupting a conference but your proof is what you heard

>from somebody who you chose not to quote nor were you willing to name your source.

Is this presenting proof or hear' say? The facts please!

In the second item James DeMeo, you say, about the

>forthcoming conference on "Planetary Violence in Human History"
>I was informed this group had also been harassed by
>Carlinsky, and that, should I decide to come to their conference, I was
>assured that for their own reasons he would be banned from attending.

In the letter to Ogg that you previously wrote you stated:

>I am also informed by Dr. David Talbott of
>the pro-Velikovsky group in Portland, Oregon, which is preparing a major
>conference only a few months away, that Carlinsky has been threatening them
>as well, and has been forbidden to attend any more of their events.

I can only ask what is the truth and where is the proof?

In the first you state Carlinsky has been forbidden to attend any more events. But in you reply to Ogg after he stated that Carlinsky was not forbidden to attend the conference, you now say "should I decide to come to their conference, I was assured that for their own reasons he would be banned from attending." Are you admitting that Ogg was correct in that Carlinsky was not forbidden to the conference yet? You say your memory is clear on the conversation you had but you have a conflicting report of the event in two different letters.

DeMeo, why is Ogg so deserving of all this attention from you?

As I have seen it since last February when I joined this list, Ogg never published the article at PORE. You threatened to sue him if he did publish it. Later he posted a link to the article at some other web site with a link to your response as well. All this uproar about this article has brought it more attention than it probably deserves. If it is posted with your responses then I would think that would suffice a balanced situation. But then in that recent letter to Ogg you bring up the article again. What has been posted by link at PORE has been there since mid summer 1996 and a look at it recently shows that it hasn't been changed at all since September 1996.

>Incredibly, this same poisonous disinformation smear article is today wilfully and
>prominently displayed at Mr. Jammerling Ogg's PORE website, portrayed as
>"serious material" alongside text from Wilhelm Reich's books and other materials
>taken from the Wilhelm Reich Museum. Surely, this constitutes a "first" for
>Carlinsky, whose anti-orgonomy articles previously had only been published in
>"Skeptic", and in the totally-sleazy pornographic magazine "Edios". Let's all wish
>Mr. Ogg a speedy recovery of his lost senses!

I checked out what Ogg said and where he said he placed it at PORE. I have to agree with Ogg that it is not prominently displayed. In fact I had to go to the main page, then to the orgone topic page, then to a cloudbusting page, then to cloudbusting and the environment, and then.... If on the other hand, I wanted to go to see articles posted at PORE, all I had to do is go to the main page and then only go to the article page to see a list of all the articles.

You did say prominent didn't you, DeMeo? What do you mean by prominent?

Before I go further with this response let me make it very clear. I AM NOT ATTEMPTING TO DEFEND ANY OF CALINSKY'S ACTIONS. In fact many of his letters to DeMeo as posted are deranged. The deranged statements that always seem the worst are always the ones we only hear about are one that you, Dr. DeMeo refer to . And these are from letters that only you Dr. DeMeo have admitted to receiving.

Do you relish bringing all these out to the public? Are they positive for Orgonomy to air them all? Does Carlinsky have a love/hate affinity to you? Where did this all begin?

Why are you attacking Ogg in the process? Has Ogg attacked you personally? Has Ogg misrepresented your work or criticized your work in any other way with the exception of his criticism of your cloudbusting in relation to the Carlinsky article?

Your work covers many facets of Orgonomy of which cloudbusting is but only one area. You stated above that Ogg continues to misrepresent your work.

How has Ogg continued to misrepresent your work? Has Ogg written some new article that we are all unaware of? Please give us the proof for this accusation.

Ogg's web site is an admirable web site which has given many, a place to share their work. New research studies on the Accumulator, the Orgone Motor, Eva Reich and Bill Moise discussion have appeared there by direct articles or shared links to other web sites. Pore announced many new conferences, therapists, orgonomy groups, the OML, new web sites, messages from the public, requests from the public, parts of the Wilhelm Reich trial, bibliography of works by Reich, Wilhelm Reich Museum and Bookstore Information, Reich last testament, and the list goes on..... The Pore site even has set up an interactive guest page that allows individuals to instantly post requests and messages. I have seen no other web site in Orgonomy cover such wide topics and sharing of information. PORE hasn't attempted to sell anything but its journal for a nominal fee. PORE post vast amounts of information for free. It freely posts the Wilhelm Riech Museum's bookstore catalogue for free to help others find information. PORE receives nothing in return and makes states flatly that it is not affiliated or tied to the WRM. This certainly is a nice guesture on PORE's part for the public. The site encourages sharing of information. Ogg has apparently also donated his time to help another German web site appear by helping write there web pages. I wrote to Ogg before this writing and he informed me that past PORE's Journals will be posted free to the public at no charge three years after the publication. He said there purpose is to provide information as freely as possible provide some income to defray the costs of operating the PORE web site.

Now why do you think I just listed all of that?

I listed that to show how much work Ogg has done in Orgonomy by way of the internet. Ogg has contributed to orgonomy. He tells us on the page "More about PORE, Orgonomy and Wilhelm Reich" that he has been involved in Orgonomy since 1975. I quote from his web page :

"The PORE web pages were created in May 1995 and have improved with age. It is owned and edited by Jamerling Ogg - (Jogg): teacher, parent, and concerned world citizen who taught a course on Wilhelm Reich at the University of Maine Portland-Gorham in the spring of 1975. Participants in the course met with several people who were involved with Reich during the course including Bill Moise and Eva Reich. This same group college students also participated in a conference held Orgonon which is Reich's estate. Mary Boyd Higgins and Chester Raphael were very kind to have arranged this conference in the fall of 1975 which was the first held there since Reich died in 1957. Pore is my way of helping the world by helping others have a way of sharing information with others in Orgonomy. I was on the board of directors of a group called "Students for Orgonomy" (SFO) from 1975-1976. This group folded due to many reasons within the group and tended to have some participants wanting to have quick and increased exposure while others preferred to move at a slower pace. It never the less was a rewarding experience From 1975-1978 I had seen several of Reich's experiments work. I dreamed and created Pore in 1978. I nurtured the idea over the years, went to a couple of conferences and participated fully in Reichian therapy."

Yet DeMeo, you have the nerve to attack him again and complain.

>Mr. Ogg still has not addressed my "Response" to the Carlinsky "Orgonomy
>Peddlers" article, just as he has not read most of my writing on Orgone biophysics
>and cloudbusting.

>Incredibly, this same
>poisonous disinformation smear article is today wilfully and prominently
>displayed at Mr. Jammerling Ogg's PORE website, portrayed as "serious
>material" alongside text from Wilhelm Reich's books and other materials
>taken from the Wilhelm Reich Museum.

Why should he respond to your response to a Carlinsky article? Your response was for Carlinsky. Ogg was just a side comment near the end of your three part response. Why should Ogg read "most of your writing on Orgone biophysics and cloudbusting."?

Obviously Ogg has read a good part of Reich's work about Cloudbusting and gives it a cautious look. He has learned from one of Reich's best Cloudbuster operators who was Bill Moise. In the article of the PORE Journal number 1a "Student discussion with Eva Reich and Bill Moise" by Jamerling Ogg; some of the dangers of the cloudbuster are made clear by Reich's own operator and even in that article Carlinsky's name as well as Trevor Constable's name is mentioned in a negative light by Bill Moise and some of the students. Ogg apparently was the teacher of the students and was also one involved in the discussion..

Is your work, DeMeo, supposed to be better to read than Reich's? Have you read and studied most of what Ogg has published or written?

You then refer to this Carlinsky article "poisonous disinformation smear article is today wilfully and prominently displayed." I have addressed this earlier. It was not prominently displayed.

You add another attack that he has "text from Wilhelm Reich's books and other materials taken from the Wilhelm Reich Museum."

He didn't take it from the museum. He quoted and gave reference and also states on each page that there is no tie between Pore and the Museum but that it is provided as a public service. It is nice that Mr Ogg has done what no other group in Orgonomy has done and that is give support to Orgonomy by giving support to Reich's Museum by offering to all a chance to see what is offered at the WRM and to mention them.

DeMeo, Do you have any mention of the Wilhelm Reich Museum on your web Page? Does the American College of Orgonomy support the Museum? Does your friend Jim Martin support the Wilhelm Reich Museum? Do you or your close friend make accusations about the Museum and it Trustee?

Do you remember that Reich devised and directed the creation of the WRM to represent his work as his last wish in his will.? By the lack of support for WRM and making accusations help or hinder Orgonomy?

>Let's all wish Mr. Ogg a speedy recovery of his lost senses! .

Again an accusation on Ogg's character by you DeMeo.

Where is the proof he lost his senses or is this just your opinion? Ogg seems to have a clear sense of Orgonomy and the site supports the same as did Reich. Pore supports the museum and supports the sharing of information on research in Orgonomy.

>And certainly, those "responsibility" statements were a first for Carlinsky, who, in
>several of his prior unsolicited confessional letters to me, bragged about
>purposefully creating very serious weather disasters by destructive cloudbusting.
>Copies of that letter and similar ones, plus various Carlinsky smear articles were
>sent to Mr. Ogg, who ignored it all.

Did Ogg ignore them or did he post them for the public to read ?

Yes, One article is critical towards cloudbusting with quite an editorial that also exposes Carlinsky for the threats that you have said that you sent Ogg and that he ignored. But if you read the remarks by Ogg that are included in that area of his site where the Carlinsky article is linked, he quotes some of those threats Carlinsky had made in regards to destructive cloudbusting. It is clear by this that Ogg has attempted to portray a realistic view of the pestilence that Carlinsky can evoke. Ogg does not come out proclaiming Carlinsky to be any exulted environmentalist and tempers the view some may have of Carlinsky by sharing what he knew about the negative side of Carlinsky.

DeMeo, you again make accusations about Ogg in the following:

>He is surely ignorant about my work, and also on environmental issues.

Where is the proof for this accusation? If Ogg is ignorant on environmental issues, then will you please spell it out for us all? What are the points on environmental issues that he is so ignorant? WHERE IS THE PROOF Isn't this exactly what you ask others to provide about criticisms and accusations of your work and character?

LETS BE FAIR. Lets give proof for accusations. If there are none then stop doing the same thing that you bemoan others for. Don't lower yourself to the level of an accuser without PROOF.

DeMeo, below you are accusing again in your statement when speaking about Ogg.

>He has become the quintessential little man, an "information bureaucrat" who does
>no serious orgonomic work himself, but uses his web site as a weapon against
>those who do.

What do you mean by serious orgonomic work? Are you deciding what is serious and what is not? Are you the expert? Do you have a natural science background? Do you have a Medical degree? Do you have a physical or life science degree? Do you critical of other medical doctors ie. aids? Would you tell us what degrees one must have to be an orgonomist? Did Reich decide what was serious orgonomic work by his co-workers?

Ogg doesn't boast his degrees but he let us know that he teaches science in a high school. A job I may add that many individuals would give up on in one day as overwhelming. As I live in Maine as well as Ogg does, I know that means he has to retain a degree in life science or physical science to be certified to teach in the State of Maine. He may have both life and physical science backgrounds.

Would you, DeMeo consider that a 10 year old could possibly contribute to serious orgonomic work. Even Peter Reich's operation of the cloudbuster resulted in some unique revelations for Orgonomy. That is about how old Peter Reich was while he wanted to play with his YoYo and also found a way to disable Ea in the sky. Ogg's Pore site welcomes articles and insights from all of the public. I personally do not know of the Orgonomic work of Ogg except for what he has done on his web pages. That in it self is serious orgonomic work. It takes time to do what he has done and Ogg has done it without proclaiming his own name as a center piece. Because Ogg doesn't proclaim that he has done research in Orgonomy, does that mean he hasn't done any.

DeMeo have you personally asked Ogg if he has done any experimental work in Orgonomy? Would Ogg bother to answer you after the accusations you have made of his character with out proof or documentation and after your threat to sue him?

DeMeo, What do you mean by "information bureaucrat."

Information is Orgonomic work. It was part of Reich's work All the journals with many articles from people of all walks of life contributing to the Journals. Reich even included an article by a high school student. The information is shared. The PORE web site has done this and it seems to continue you to do this in an open manner. Is it all pure Orgonomy? I think the public can decide and contribute as it has done. Reich included dowsing in his journal. Yes he attempted to relate it to Orgonomy but today’s dowsers use totally different tools that do not align along the bodies orgonontic field.

Yes the below response is good to read to have a more balance view. As Ogg has encouraged this as well at his site. He also had the article to view for those who wanted to know what the response was to.

>As I do not wish to waste time going over the same territory, I encourage
>you and anyone on the OML who has questions about this episode, or about
>Carlinsky's history, to review my "Response" article. It is important for
>those with a genuine interest in orgonomy to discriminate between friends
>and enemies of Reich's work.

Are you accusing Ogg of being an enemy of Reich or has he become your enemy?

You continue to accuse by inference in this statement.

Who is an enemy of Reich's work?

Who supports sale of accumulators that also sell angel accumulators? Do you DeMeo have a link to the email of F. Becker and J Fischer? Do F. Becker and J Fischer sell these angel accumulators?

Does F. Becker have your article alongside of articles that proclaim in German that Reich has spoken beyond the grave and is directing the creation of the angel accumulator?

Isn't this really the disservice to Orgonomy? Are you becoming a part of this disservice? Do you support distortion by allowing your article and your link to these sales? Does your a brief disclaimer with continued support via email link suffice?

The email I refer to is at: -- jfj@swamp.hb.north.de Some of the web addresses are below that all have this email on them. http://id.mind.net/community/orgonelab/xbjdemeo.htm http://www.hb.north.de/hosts/swamp http://deceased.hb.north.de/hosts/swamp/willyone.htm http://deceased.hb.north.de/hosts/swamp/willytwo.htm http://www.doit.de/orgon/

I learned more about these sites because PORE left a page with an editorial and email posts concerning these sites at http://www.ime.net/~pore/oil.htm

Now DeMeo at the end of your letter you give one last accusation about Ogg. Again you do it with NO PROOF.

>The subscribers to the OML, people who have been genuinely and deeply
>touched in their lives by Reich's writings and discoveries, and all the
>people who openly contribute things to the PORE web site deserve some
>clarity here. Is Mr. Ogg on the side of Reich, and of fact, truth, life,
>and love? Or on the side of the pestilent characters of this world, allied
>with CSICOP and the New Inquisition? Because he has so badly blurred the
>line I really can't tell.

This accusation is just a bogus statement with out the proof. Where is the alliance between PORE and CSICOP ? Where is the alliance between PORE and the New Inquisition ?

I have looked through the PORE site since I learned of it last February and I have found no alliances or allies with these groups on the web pages. You ask if Ogg is on the side of truth and love or on the side of pestilent characters of the world.

Is this your way of insinuating that Ogg is on the side of pestilent characters? Do you have proof that he may be?

If you think he is , then I suppose the WRM is a pestilent character in your opinion. In your opinion with this inference, then maybe all the links at PORE are pestilent in nature. I hope you do not mean this because you site is included in the list of orgonomy web sites as well.

On the contrary, the PORE site actually exposes Calinsky's pestilent side, airs a public newsgroup search to show that there is distortion about Reich's work on the web. Shame on you, DeMeo, to stoop so low in accusations against Mr. Ogg and his work to allow the public a chance to share Orgonomy around the world with each other. At the same time you spend all this energy against a positive site in Orgonomy you turn and link to a person for accumulator sales who supports J. Fischer and his medial conversations with Reich beyond the grave and the sale of angel accumulators. Carlinsky may be a pest. The Carlinsky article has distortions of your character and makes false accusations about you but it does not distort anything about Reich or Orgonomy. It does point out some grave concerns of possible devastating ecological effects that even Reich was aware of. Your indirect support of J. Fischer with the sale of angel accumulators and his belief that Reich has picked him to speak to from the grave is the real distortion of Reich's work. Certainly Ogg has not come this close to distorting Reich's work. Have you any comment about these above german web sites with jfj@swamp.hb.north.de who is the only email receipient listed.

Who is a disservice to Orgonomy?

Sincerely Bill Harper. yorgone@aol.com

P.S. DeMeo , I think Mr. Ogg name is Jamerling and not Jammerling Mr. Phillips I think you should edit your work, your spelling of DeMeo has also been spelled as demeyo and Carlinsky you have continued to spell Carlinskie among tremendous amounts of misspellings.

--- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---

.