|Home||About||Helping Us||Your Order||Contact||Mailing List|
The following archive is a selection from the public archives of the OML list. The reason why the authors have decided to reprint these messages here is that, to this day, gratuitous and falsifying attacks on the authors' work from Ogg, Marett and their accolytes have not ceased, despite the repeated challenges (legal and scientific) these authors have addressed to this clique of pestilent individuals ensconced in what is left of the OML. The latest challenge was put to them last summer by Dr. M. Askanas, and to this day neither Ogg nor Marett have had the courage to take it up.
1. Colin Quinney, agent of disinformation (see the Vortex-l archives) and Marett co-conspirator, forwards Marett's first attack - in which Marett repeatedly appropriates our own findings (from the patents he read) as if they were his own observations - to the Vortex-l list; from which Ogg proceeds to forward it to the OML list.
From: J. Ogg To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 21:43:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Marrett-- orgone motor - Correa-nov14 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:22:32 -0500 To: email@example.com From: C. Quinney Subject: Re: Correas Reactor..a Reichian background? Here is the letter that Doug Meritt sent to me that he had unsuccessfully posted to Vortex ... C.Q. Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 10:02:48 -0500 To: C. Quinney From: D. M. Marett Subject: Correa Reactor Nov. 14th, 1996 I would like to address the comments of Mike Carrell below, which refer toan article on my web site called "The Orgone Motor Mystery Solved". My web site is at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2514 . I saw the PAGD effect first in 1992-1993 and recognized it as the same phenomenon as that seen in Reich's VACOR tube video from 1950, which is regularily shown at the Wilhelm Reich museum. In April, 1994, when Correas PCT applications were first laid open, and I began replicating his [sic!] experiments, it became clear that what he was calling PAGD was identical to the pulse phenomenon seen in the Reich video. And I must stress identical - any observer performing Correas experiment and then examining the Reich's film would clearly see this. I am not attempting to claim that I saw the PAGD before Reich or Correa; its obvious that I saw it last. However, what I am merely pointing out is that the phenomenon are identical. I do not need to speculate whether Paulo and Alex got the idea from Reich - I was there, I helped with some of the initial experiments [Pure lie!], and most importantly, Paulo told me that this was the case. I am not attempting to belittle the Correas work - I think that it may very well be an excellent piece of scientific work. The point of my article was really to spell out that the Correas discovered these things while attempting to replicate Reich's experiments, and although they have certainly gone well beyond Reich, Reich deserves a written mention, at least somewhere. Paulo and I had several conversations in the past about people deriving inventions from the work of Reich and not giving him credit, and how bad that was. That is why this situation is so ironic. I invite anyone interested to look at the similarities between the article by Wilhelm Reich, entitled "The Orgone Charged Vacuum Tubes(1948) " in The Oranur Experiment, available from the Wilhelm Reich Museum, P.O. Box 687, Rangeley,Maine, 04970, and the Correa patents. To list a few similarities, please see below: 1) In the Correas U.S. Patent # 5,502,354, Fig.3 and 4 are virtually identical to Fig. 7 from the above mentioned Reich article. 2) Also from U.S. patent #5,502,354, the Correas use curved electrodes in Fig. 5B This is identical to the electrode construction of tubes on display at the museum. 3) Reich felt that log2 numbers were very important, such as for pendulum lengths, etc., and incorporated this into his tube design, using plates which were 4 x 16 cm in size (64 cm2 and in one case 4 x32cm, or 128 cm2). A 64cm2 tube is shown in figure 7 of the Reich article.The Correas have taken these exact plate dimensions and reproduced them in their experiments- see table 2, U.S. patent 5,502,354. 4) The Processing of vacua protocol on page 9 of U.S. patent #5,502,354 is very similar to the protocol used by Reich, P.251 in "The Orgone Charged Vacuum Tubes". 5) The claims of U.S. Patent #5,502,354 read on the prior art as found in Reich's article. The only difference is that the Correas have added a scientific explanation in the claims. The end result is the same, since both Reich's tubes and those of Correas sustain PAGD emissions. However, patent law does not oblige the inventor to disclose references which could be of this nature [An ignorant lie]. It is up to the examiner or a complainant to raise the issue, and once raised, if legitimate, can be grounds for re-examination of the patent. Thus from a legal standpoint, it is entirely in the Correa's interest to keep quite [sic!] about Reich, hoping that this reference would not surface. [Marett wished we had done just that...] [Mike Carrell wrote:] >Marett built a tube similar in configuration to ones used by Reich and Correa >and observed discharges, including the conical discahrge columns, similar to >those seen in the Correa reactors. Marett says "However, it is not known >whether circuits using this unique tube design would generate excess >energy". >The circuit Marett shows as his Fig 6 has a capacitor connected >***directly*** across the tube, making it a classic glow-discharge >relaxation oscillator. Readers of my articles on the Correa invention in IE >should be aware that a) it does not operate as a relaxation oscillator and b) >a shunt capacitor or energy collection circuit is not necessary to obtain the >energy bursts. In my experiments with replicating Reich's VACOR work, I found that it was possible to see the so called "PAGD" type pulses without the use of any deliberate addition of a parallel capacitor to the tube. However, with most of my experiments, I did not have rechargable battery packs and thus had to used H.V. supplies which always have some form of regulating capacitor in parallel. However, if this capacitance is low enough and the impedance of the supply is low enough, a glow discharge tube will not oscillate as you describe. In several experiments (videotaped) I deliberately used parallel capacitors of high value to produce pulsations in glow discharge tubes, and the running of motors as control experiments. This was done with arc discharges, vacuum arc discharges and glow discharges. However, in the higher vacuum range, it becomes increasingly more difficult to produce glow discharges by these means, ie in the 1E-1 to 1E-2 range. If relaxation oscillations occur in this region, they become very weak and indiscenable from the glow. Correa's PAGD phenomenon allegedly can operate without a parallel capacitance. However, if and when this occurs, the pulses are very rapid and of low joule energy per pulse. In my experiments with small or no parallel capacitors in Correa's device, the efficiency is very poor and of little consequence. If you examine Correa's patent application # 5,449,989, fig. 8, you will see that he has in fact C3,C4 and C5 in parallel with the tube. Also, in figure 11, the motor run circuit has C3,C4 and C5 in parallel with the tube. In fact, this circuit is very similar to the one of mine which you have mentioned, except my tube is in series. In either case, transient current flow only passes through the motor when capacitors C3-C5 discharge through the tube. This is somewhat similar to Correa's Fig.9. He uses very large capacitors, C3 and C5, which must charge before and pulse can occur. The high joule energy of C3 and C5 pass through the tube, and the output is rectified.This discharges C3 and C5, and the next pulse will not occur until these capacitors have recharged and the voltage across the tube again reaches the threshold voltage. This can be demonstrated easily by having voltage meters in the circuit, which I regularly did. The utility of this is that very high joule energy is allowed to pass across the tube, and the recovered energy is logarithmically related to the amount of this current flow. Thus you can't explain my experiments, about which you know very little, as a relaxation oscillator, without applying the same arguement to Correa's [sic!]. In reality, the key element is the tube, its vacuum level, gas filling, and architecture, which determine whether the pulses will be self-extinguishing. Also, in my experiment, I used a tube of unusual architecture and gas filling, which I feel was creating its own self-extinguishing pulses. This tube design was considerably different from Correa's. I really put this in the article only to show that it is possible to arrive at these kinds of experimental arrangements by replicating the work of Reich. >Marett goes on to say that he began replicating the Correa's work the week >after the application was laid open, and says he saw discharge forms similar >to those seen in pictures in the Reich museum. I have seen them also in a >discharge chamber built by Jeff Fink, but they do not produce excess energy. >It is only after Marett saw the Correa application that he introduced the >"low impedance" source. He blurs this; it is essential to have a driving >source which is internally rugged and stable, ***and*** the correct current >limiter, which my be only a few hundred ohms with the rather large >electrode >areas. Marett claims to have produced excess energy in the manner of the >Correas, ***after*** reading their application. [Hear! Hear!] The above paragraph is somewhat incoherent, but I will attempt to address it below. Reich would have had to have a relatively low impedance power supply, otherwise he would not have seen PAGD pulses, especially at the high vacuums [sic] he was operating at. Reich either was unaware of the importance of this, or just didn't mention it. Now that I have performed the Correa experiments, I can tell you that it is not that important to have a low impedance supply, since the capacitors C3 andC5 will charge just the same. However, the pulse rate will depend on the current supply, and thus if you want fast pulsing, you need a high current, low impedance supply. Otherwise, it will pulse maybe once a minute. However, that pulse could still produce free energy. What is important is how many joules are stored on C3 and C5 prior to firing. Secondly, I never claimed to have produced free energy before the Correa's experiment was performed. You are merely repeating what I said. >In conversation with me, Correa has referred to the existence of Reich's >work. It may be true that Marett brought Reich's work to Correa's attention. >It may be true that there are similar configurations in structure. None of >these are of the essence of the Correa's discovery, which is an ***operating >mode*** which evokes the very powerful energy bursts. There is no >evidence >that Reich saw *these*, or Marett, before he saw the Correa patent >applications. I never brought Reich's work to the existance [sic] of Correa. Correa and I were both interested in the work on Reich when we first met, and continued to be so during our entire relationship of 14 years. The Correa's have most certainly gone far beyond the work of Reich, and havedeveloped a unique device based on what appears to have been a monumental research effort. Reich never claimed to have discovered free energy in PAGD type pulses, and neither have I. I think that there is shame on the Correas only because Reich was a major inspiration to there work, and yet has received no written mention. The Correa's have been quite complimentary to other inpirations, such as the work of Aspden. Obviously, the work of several individuals helped the Correa's along the way, most of whom have been referenced in their patents. These include even minor influences, such as Tanberg and Pappas. However, Reich is conspicuously absent. This was a deliberate omission on the part of the Correas, considering their history of replicating Reich's work, and thus the reason for my comments. Doug Marett M.Sc.
2. Mike Carrell's publishes a defence of the Correas, based on an 11 page letter sent by these authors to Carrell to satisfy the latter's questions.
From: J. Ogg To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 21:46:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Marett-- orgone motor - Correa-- nov18 From: R.M.Carrell Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:19:38 -0500 To: email@example.com Subject: Correas, Reich, and Marett Doug Marett has posted some information about his relationships with the Correas, and the work of Wilhem Reich. I have forwarded this to Correa and have at hand an 11 page open letter in reply, which I received by fax this morning. It contains details of the Correa's relationships with Marett and the evolution of the PAGD discoveries of the Correas. I will summarize the letter, with specific quotes as appropriate. The Correas met David and Douglas Marett in 1980, when they were 16, and have remained on good terms with David, but ceased being on speaking terms with Douglas in 1992. The Correas had helped Prof. E. Mann of York University to organize a conference of Reich's work in 1979, and had written essays on Reich's work, and built an Orgone accumulator. Mann requested that the Correas befriend the Maretts and help them with their interest in Reich's work, which at that time had been derived from popular magazines and not Reich's actual texts. Correa's interest in Reich began in his youth in Portugal. In 1979 they (Paulo and Alexandra) read Reich's communications about the "Orgone Motor", whch was referenced in their paper "Excess Energy (XS NRG (tm)) Conversion System Utilizing Autogenous Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGD) published in the Proceedings of the Third Symposium on New Energy, and delivered at the same symposium. "In the paper we wrote 'Reich claimed to have discovered a spontaneous pulsatory activity in cold cathode diode sealed at high vacuum, and to have achieved oscillatory frequencies that reached >30Kc' ". NOTE: this a a refutation of Marett's charge that the Correas have not given credit to Reich's work. By early 1980, the Correas were building Vacor tubes and searching for the phenomena Reich described. By 1987 they succeeded in exceeding the pulsation rates Reich reported, attaining 120 Kcps in high vacuum tubes, corresponding to a regime which "...has nothing whatsoever to do with the PAGD regime...the discharge has neither the same waveform, nor does it utilize autoelectronic field emission, or employ abnormal glow discharge. The PAGD regime is a plasma regime that operates at low gas pressures, whereas the high-speed pulsations observed by Reich, and also by us, require a very high vacuum indeed." "Reich clearly stated that to 'start and operate' the 'Orgone motor' a 'factor Y' (which he never divulged) was required... All of the witnesses to Reich's 'Orgone motor'....reported that Reich did not drive his motor with Vacor tubes...it was driven from an accumulator". Marett's homepage shows a low power motor counter being driven by a "Vacor-type" tube. The Correas, on the other hand, achieve o/u energy without a motor, "Factor Y", and the "measurements with motors in our electromechanical patents show only entropic behavior". "The PAGD discovery is not Reich's work." Reich purposefully avoided production of X-rays, but the Correas in 1987 became interested in X-ray production for purposes of cleaning electrode assemblies used in their chemistry work. They "discovered that so-called Aurora tubes, with large area electrodes gave very good results indeed....In the process Alexandra and I ended up learning how to sustain indefinite X-ray production and achieve very clean vacua without ordinary electron bombardment...***It was during the course of this experimentation with X-ray production that we first dicovered the emission discontinuities characteristic of the PAGD regime***". Thus the discovery of the PAGD regime was not an outgrowth of duplication of Reich's work, but was in the course of another line of work altogether. The Correas went on to sudy all aspects of the PAGD regime and adopted three designs; coaxial (similar to a GM tube), planar (similar to the Vacor, but also analogus to many others), and a third with a point anode and large aluminum cathode. The Correa patents are not on the tube electrode configuration, nor on the metals used (which include aluminum in a list of many others), but "on the cold-cathode utilization of such devices for purposes of sustaining an autogenous pulsation in the abnormal glow discharge region by utilizing autoelectronic emissions." It is thus clear that a) the Correas helped the Maretts understand the work of Reich, b) have publicly referred to Reich's work, c) duplicated part of Reich's work and obtained performance greater than Reich's in certain areas, d) made independant discoveries in the course of work not related to Reich's, e) identified and characterized a plasma discharge regime which yields substantial o/u energy, and obtained several patents thereon. The similarities to Reich's devices cited by Marett are coincidences of structure, not of function, and are superficial. Marett has acknowledged: "I am not attempting to belittle the Correas work - I think that it may very well be an excellent piece of scientific work." In all scientific work, particularly in the matters of priority and inspiration, it is necessary to see from the viepoint of the actual inventor, for others may not see the actual sequence of events, and can draw wrong conclusions. IMHO there is room here for everyone to be right. And it seems that the work of Reich will be found to contain many interesting discoveries when seen from a present perepective. Mike Carrell
3. Marett comes back to the attack with more misappropriations of our work, referring to all sorts of findings we reported as if they had been his own. Infantile delusions of grandeur...
From: J. Ogg To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:28:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Correa Reactor Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:45:16 -0500 To: email@example.com From: D. M. Marett Subject: Correa Reactor I am glad that the Correa's have made some admissions with regard to the connection between their work and that of Reich. I am unaware of any other laboratory at this time that has attempted to replicate the PAGD experiments of Correa, besides Dave Marett and my own. I would be curious to know if any one else has tried it, since I have encountered a series of technical problems which were addressed only vaguely in the patents. 1) Firstly, is the destruction of the tube by the PAGD process. Tubes made of Pyrex with opposing H34 aluminum plates were found to sputter large amounts of aluminum onto the sides of the glass envelope. In some cases, tubes have become heavily mirrored with only one hours operation, often leading to arcing along the sputtered conduction path. In order to eliminate this problem, I have resorted to tube designs resembling a geiger-muller tube, with an internal aluminum cathode and a metal anode sheath forming the outer vacuum enclosure. This has solved the sputtering problem, as the sputter only lands on metal surfaces, but has increased the complexity of construction considerably. 2) The second problem is the electrical cleanup of the gas inside the tube. Generally, the PAGD operates most effectively when the tube and its metal components have been thoroughly out-gassed by well-known heating and evacuation techniques, and then a controlled input of a new gas, such as air or argon, is introduced into the tube at the correct pressure. I have found that as the tube is allowed to pulse, the pulse rate rapidly declines and then stops altogether. Correa addresses this problem in his PCT application #WO 94/09560, page 31, saying that the decline is due to the intrinsic capacitance of the charge pack, or the output load. Since I have not yet attempted a frequency count with a charge pack connected, I have not yet been able to verify this. However, I have also noticed during pulse count experiments that the vacuum level inside the tube begins to increase as the pulses occur, with the vacuum often rising by an order of magnitude, leading to the extinction of the pulse effect above about 5E-2 Torr. I am under the impression that this process is caused by the electrical cleanup of gas inside the tube. In such a process, the highly accelerated gas ions are literally driven into the metal of the opposing plates, and can only be recovered by deliberate outgassing. Under such circumstances, I have had to continuously add more and more argon into the tube to sustain the pulsation, which eventually reverts to a glow discharge. This process is reversed by outgassing the aluminum plates as before with heat and evacuation. Because of these problems, I have found it difficult to construct a Correa Reactor which can sustain pulsations without continuous maintenance. If anyone else has attempted these experiments, or can see some error in protocol which I might be able to correct, please let me know. Thanks, Doug Marett
4. The ignorant J.Ogg tries to provide some 'validation' for Marett'd bogus research on the effects of sunspot activity upon the overvolting of GM tubes...We debunked this mystification in our "Reich-Correa affair".
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 17:22:41 -0500 From: J. Ogg To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: re sunspot cycles and orgone Hi Lawrence, I do not know of anyone who has directly reseasrched [sic!] the effects of sunspot cycles to variations in orgone strength. Sunspot cycles are in two parts a smaller cycle of 11 years and a larger cycle every 22 years. This would be a very long range study in that it would take a very long time commitment. The easier approach would be to follow the rotational period of the sun which is about 25-27 days. The variance is due to the sun not being a solid. The The [sic] equatorial area of the sun rotates faster than the poles. Doug Marett has included in his 1992 study of orac T-To [sic!] research the effect of the solr [sic] flux. The solar flux is a variation of output on the sun due to sunspots and flares located more on on side than another. The placement of sunspots varies but the different distribution of sunspot is like a lighthouse light during the rotational period of the sun. Marett did find a significant correlation with the solar flux as well as a variation due to the rotation of the earth ie, day and night. Doug Marett's article may be foud at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2514/orgpaper.html and another article concerning orgone flow on the earth at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2514/orgflow.html .............best regards Jogg (pore) Lawrence Pendred wrote: > * Does anybody know of any connection between sunspot cycles and orgone > variations.
Meanwhile, the DeMeo-Carlinsky war (not documented here) erupts into the
midst of the OML, in addition to the Correas-Marett war. Shawn Wilbur, the
great Guevarist who looks like Jesus, decides to terminate the class-struggle and
announces an imminent closing of the list...
In the wake of his vendetta against the Correas, Marett wants to ride the red carpet
of the latters' work by setting up a competing group that would, amongst others,
come up with the correct values of the org... Five years would pass before we would
publish our decoding of the org (AS2-07) in the seventh monograph of Volume I of
Experimental Aetherometry. We had worked out the answer in 1995. But in all
these years, all these crypto-Reichian communities were unable to respond to
Marett's challenge, and Marett himself was incapable of doing so. He needed
groups, committees, conferences, organizations... Ah, and the perfect orgone energy
detector, one that would not require any skill and patience to operate..This alone
speaks mounds as to who it is that advances Reich's orgonomic work, and who it is
that is reduced to antiproduction...
In the wake of his vendetta against the Correas, Marett wants to ride the red carpet of the latters' work by setting up a competing group that would, amongst others, come up with the correct values of the org... Five years would pass before we would publish our decoding of the org (AS2-07) in the seventh monograph of Volume I of Experimental Aetherometry. We had worked out the answer in 1995. But in all these years, all these crypto-Reichian communities were unable to respond to Marett's challenge, and Marett himself was incapable of doing so. He needed groups, committees, conferences, organizations... Ah, and the perfect orgone energy detector, one that would not require any skill and patience to operate..This alone speaks mounds as to who it is that advances Reich's orgonomic work, and who it is that is reduced to antiproduction...
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:00:51 -0500 (EST) From: D. M. Marett To: email@example.com Subject: open letter to orgonomists I think the problem with orgonomy today is that it lacks the focus and organization of Reich's time. Reich was obviously a man with no peer... he single-handedly created a new scientific discipline and funded it as well. He also conducted all of his own research. I would be impossible for a single individual to now step into his shoes and re-galvanize a field. However, as has often occured in the past, it is up to those who come after to pick up the pieces of a new-born science and forge it into a coherent whole, collectively. Although a lot has been performed by various individuals since Reich's death, the movement has failed to really jump forward. I think a lot of this has been caused by Reich himself- he failed to explain adequately a lot of the experimental protocols which he used. It has taken me years to decifer Reich's technological work from the late 40's sufficiently to conduct controlled experiments. However, I believe that with the modern innovations of the 20th century, we now have the tools to really make orgonomy a science. I believe the single biggest impediment to orgonomy is its lack of a true orgone detector. The assay methods of Reich were effective, but tedious and cumbersome, requiring considerable skill and patience. Like electricity in the 19th century, we need tools to make the orgone tangible, to be able to measure it in real time, to establish definitions of units, and the laws of its behaviour. * This technology exists right now*. The key issue is the motivation of the group. The internet is the place where orgonomy is going to thrive. This is the perfect forum for us to exchange research results, observations, establish committees, conferences etc. We have to create a proper organization for the implementation of the technology already at hand - orgonomy needs a real goal- or a series of goals- so that when we reach them and be proud, and have the incentive to move forward. I think one * goal * that is worthy of orgonomy and long overdue in this orgone meter. I have performed orgone measurements with at least 9 or 10 different methods, and I know what the characteristics of a real orgone detector are. I could, with sufficient resources, put together such a device in a month or two. However, I have no gauge as to what the interest of the rest of the community is. Does anybody want this? And I can not impose on the orgone community a system of units. It is up to the collective to define what an "org" is. It is unfortunate that this list is shortly going to come to an end, when what we really need is more communication. We all have something to offer creatively to orgonomy, whether it is scientific, organizational, financial etc. I have stated what I have to offer - technology. I hope that others will speak up as well so that we can get this ball rolling.
6. The poverty of the response to Marett's exertions is so evident as to be laughable:
Date: 09 Dec 96 19:15:55 EST From: N. Totton To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: open letter to orgonomists Message text written by Douglas M. Marett >I believe the single biggest impediment to orgonomy is its lack of a true orgone detector.< Dear Douglas, we have a true orgone detector. Our own bodymind. I think the biggest problem in orgonomy is *the failure to recognise this*, which in turn derives largely from the split between orgone tech and Reichian therapy. I've always felt there was a shortage of the latter on this listt: hey, now we're closing down, are there *any* other therapists reading this???
7. Just then Trettin butts in and declares "orgonomy" a freedom movement:
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 12:45:54 -0500 From: J. Trettin To: email@example.com Subject: To Shawn Wilbur and the members of the OML To Shawn Wilbur and the readers of the OML Dear Shawn Wilbur, we have read your message that you will shutdown the OML list. We are very sorry about this. At first we will say to you thank you very much for your work, you have done and we are sad about your decision. Specially we understand very well the intention to do a work of identification. For us, that`s the only reason what we can accept to shutdown the OML if you have lost this, except your free will of course. But an information service must be like a mirror what reflect all the good and the bad, the critic and the non critic. For example every journalist, which profession it is to inform the world, wouldn`t stop his work, only because there is break out a war. We know orgonomy is no healthy space and specially Reich had pointed out, that if you go more to the core, you will meet all the troubles and you must find a way to go through. A major problem, what appears is the tendency to create a dictatorship to oppress the battle for freedom. Orgonomy is no exception here and more predestinate for this as all other freedom movements. I have the impression, that you don`t see the greatness of your work, because every authoritarian tendency run away from the public and will postulate his own dictate. The best safe against this is a free information, that means that there is a free exchange. That`s the base for democracy and will bring a fruit in the future to put down all dictatorships. The openness is the space for the development of a later qualify critic. Also the democracy must learn then that new dictators will come as "friends of the Freedom" . Also here it is the open exchange what helps to overcome this. Because of this, it is wrong to conclude the public because of irrelevant things. This things will come and go. We hope it`s your decision to shutdown the list by yourself and that nobody is pushing you with wrong informations. If this will be the reason, please check this yourself and don`t go into such a trap. But if this will not convince you and the work did you burn out, we want to say that this was a great begin from you and we hope that other people will pick up your idea. Because of your work, I have learned from you, how powerful is a free exchange and we need that. The trench wars are going on, so or so. But to lose the public is a step back. We hope that all who read that, understand our democratic mind in the hope to go on with such a list, if you will do that what you have announced. We don`t know what is necessary for doing such a list, however we want say that we want be helpful if a new project like such will start in future. But we hope we have give to you, Shawn Wilbur, so much positive response, that you will change you decision.
8. Simply undescribable, the garbage that flows from some people's fingers...Battaglia casts his vote for Marett.
From: J-M. Battalia Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 23:25:54 -0500 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: open letter to orgonomists When it came to my attention a few weeks ago that someone had apparently taken Reich's orgone motor to the next stage, I was very happy to learn that some technical wizard somewhere had picked up that ball where Reich left off and carried it further downfield. It seemed like a step into the right direction, a step toward a greater understanding and wider public acceptance of the interlinking logic and concepts which form the basis of Reich's pioneering work. It didn't matter to me that some engineer analyzed the diagrams and the circuitry and pronounced that this current incarnation of the Reich motor would never have the power, say, to run space vehicles to distant planets. I intuited Doug Marrett's achievement as a much needed "orgone meter" that could go a long way toward proving the existence of an energy that most of the rest of the world has great difficulty believing in. If a Geiger counter can detect radioative energy, then what orgonomy needs is a meter that can detect orgone energy. If we can have such a meter, such an orgone "detector," then we may have a tool we can use to get others, both in the scientific mainstream and ultimately in the general public, to stand up and take notice. So I will stand up and applaud the Doug Marretts of the world, and I urge him in particular to continue his work on an orgone detector. If I were in a financial position to do so, I would support such a venture. This being a scientific, technological age, those of us who want to see orgonomy developed will need such a device to help convince others of the reality of Reich's theories and claims. On the other hand, Nick Totton [sic] makes an excellent point, too, that there were too few OML subscribers who admitted to a therapeutic background, and that the over-emphasis on the OML seemed to be on orgone technology. As I see it, there are many paths to approach Reich; a large part of his greatness is the universality of the many paths which lead to him. Which is why I feel that, if orgonomy is ever to be integrated into society, it will do so, not because people follow any single path or discovery, but because of the accumulation of the many truths about Reich's discoveries which will reveal themself, one by one, not as disconnected fragments, but, like a hologram, with each one carrying the image of the whole within itself. However, while the body, indeed, may be the ultimate orgone detector (and we will always need a therapist to point that out to us!), our society and the techno-scientific elite which runs it, perceives the world of nature through a very narrow filter, and it is called Empiricism. For something to exist in nature, it must must have a physical basis, and, if it has a physical basis, its nature ought to be measurable in some way, shape, or form. Orgonomists are people who believe, either intuitively or empirically, in the existence of this thing Reich called orgone energy. At core, believing in orgone energy is what separates us from the non-believers, the non-acceptors. (Anyone who's taken the time to read my posts this year know that I do not use the term "believers" in any cultish or religious sense whatsoever; I use it only in the sense that we are people who are willing to accept that most of what Reich taught us is probably true, and we proceed from there. Non-believers, or skeptics, on the other hand, are unable to believe, or accept, what Reich said as valid, so their value system compels them to proceed from the other end of the spectrum.) A major problem (if not the major problem) in orgonomy is its lack of acceptance by the professional, as well as the general, public. I get headaches when I try to contemplate why there is so much resistance to Reich --especially when I think about what can be done to overcome this resistance. As a communications person, I try to figure out how we can best get the word out. I try to come up with creative ways --within the context of the existing culture-- to communicate the essence of what Reich brought us, so that there is an ever-increasing pool of people who are open to supporting the positive aspects of Reich's work. (It's like a good movie: the better the word of mouth, the better chance of getting a hit.) The only way I know to bridge the gap between those who do not accept something and those who do is to find the common ground which unites them. You can't shove a new language, or a new science, down someone's throat; you can't call them names that are buzz words or by-products of the new science (like Emotional Plague victims or pestilent characters); and you certainly cannot expect them to abandon all the values that have allowed them to survive this far with the vague promise that things will be better if they will just come aboard the orgonomy train. People's energy is all bound up in holding their fragile ego structures together; they will resist seeing another perspective as strongly as they will resist a knife being thrust into their chest. (Just look at how difficult it is for us on this list to accept views which challenge deeply held perceptions of ourselves and others; it unfortunately is resulting in the death of this list itself, and we should know better.) The significance of a device like an orgone detector can be instrumental in opening up new ground for orgonomy and in preparing the way for an greater acceptance of Reich's work. It is a crucial key which we need if we are to have something real, something tangible, something palpable to show to those who have difficulty accepting a new scientific paradigm. And, whether you choose to label such people "skeptics" or not, it must be admitted that the burden of proof is on orgonomy to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt. As difficult as it is for some of us to admit, the plain fact is: we have not yet been able to do that. When I reflect on Reich's life from the perspective of how could one possibly overcome the resistance of someone who cannot accept the validity of Reich's work, it has always comes down to one issue: does orgone energy exist or not? If only there were some incontrovertible way to prove to even the most stubborn skeptic that orgone energy exists, then, and only then, could a meaningful dialogue begin. Only when the value in Reich's work is perceived by an appreciative public will the purses open up to support the development of the science which Reich founded. It will take an evolution in consciousness among scientists, politics, economic market forces, and the general level of consciousness of the public before Reich is fully accepted, if ever. All this being so, the question then becomes: How do we prove that orgone energy exists? The therapist might say (and does!): we can feel it streaming through our bodies. If you but get involved in Reichian therapy, that will lead you to appreciate the existence of orgone energy. But too few people enter therapy, and its efficacy is never a sure thing. The cloudbuster might say: I will prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt that orgone energy exists by doing something extremely dramatic and attention-getting, like making it rain in the desert, or by ending a drought. But the danger of this approach is that, since the unbelievers do not accept the premises upon which the weather modifier bases his work, they will come up with ways to explain away the results as caused by natural events or coincindental circumstances which were influenced by nor under the cloudbuster's control. Unfortunately, frustrated by a lack of acceptance, the natural, human tendency of the cloudbuster is to perform ever more powerful experiments until the effects of his work can not be denied, even though the well-intentioned work may result in peripheral damage to the ecosystems that are being manipulated outside of nature's normal functioning. Or, the experimental laboratory scientist might create a measuring stick, or motor, which is mysteriously energized by some apparently hitherto undiscovered force. Of course, there will always be skeptics who will be able to explain away the results; that is part and parcel of the scientific process, is it not? To be accepted, the new science must find a way to compellingly address and overcome all resistance to its acceptance by presenting a more forceful, more convincing argument. And, if the explanations denying the existence of orgone energy are yet more forceful that those which appear to prove its existence, will we condemn those who are unable to believe and label them scoundrels and sick people, or will we say, "Thank you for your feedback" and go back to the drawing board to build an even more convincing argument as we inch further along toward the path of acceptance? That's when real character is measured --when it encounters resistance and either overcomes it, or perhaps even surrenders to it, in a more integrated harmony. So, I salute Doug Marrett for his advances on Reich's orgone motor, and I sincerely hope that his "orgone meter" will be a key that will unlock the door to a broader acceptance of Reich's pioneering work. John-Michael Battaglia P.S. I, too, would like to thank Shawn Wilbur for the time and effort he has put into making this list a community where students of Reich can congregate. I regret that he has elected to close it down, but I respect his choice to do so. I trust that another venue will open up soon--if not on another web site devoted to orgonomy, perhaps we should approach America Online and request them to set up a forum for us. That will certainly get Reich and orgonomy out onto the mainstream! When you think about it, though, all we really need is an old-fashioned electronic bulletin board where we can dial in to see who's posted a message, not necessary a full blown mailing list in which messages get automatically delivered to our mailboxes. (How lazy did we get?!) Failing either one of those options materializing soon, we can always keep in touch with each other through private e-mails broadcasted to each interested member's email address.
9. Marett, now propelled to the podium as the band leader, takes on the orchestral tone of an organization-man. They rolled up their sleeves and six years later...still nothing?? Still no orgone meter, still no orgone motor, still no definition of the org??? Science by committee...
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:12:15 -0500 (EST) To: email@example.com.Virginia.EDU From: D. M. Marett Subject: New article on VACOR Just thought I'd mention that I have posted a new article on VACOR tubes and lumination phenomena on my site at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2514 I know some people have been asking for more info on VACOR, so I have put in some reasonable photographs of different lumination effects, and a detailed discussion of the plasma threshold voltage assay method, and its relation to To-T. This throws some more data out on the measurement of the orgone, which is a continuation of the thread I tried to start the other day. I would like to get a discussion going on a re-definition of the "org" unit. I don't know how familiar people are with this, or whether anyone else has copies of the letters between Reich and William Washington on the matter. Thanks to everyone who responded to my last post! Doug Marett
10. These authors then challenge the mentecapts of OML - and Marett in particular - to demonstrate the Orgone Motor on the basis of the PAGD patents!! To this day, the challenge has not been taken up. Et pour cause - since Marett's bluff was called off.
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 23:33:28 -0500 From: Correa&Correa To: firstname.lastname@example.org.Virginia.EDU Subject: Correa/Reich Affair Dear email@example.com.Virginia.EDU/Spoon Collective- Re. the matter of the Correa/Reich Affair and the sensationalist and confusionist allegations of one Douglas Marett. Instead of being led down the rose garden path of premature identification of E. Manuel's discovery of a pulsed abnormal glow discharge, with the Correa's discovery of an autoelectronically triggered (autogenous) pulsed abnormal glow discharge, with Reich's VACOR pulsation and the Orgone motor (!)- the interested parties would do well to get informed from the horse's mouth at: http://www.globalserve.net/~lambdac Douglas Marett has managed a rare stew, having succeeded in carbonizing Vacor tubes with the Correa autogenous PAGD, or some facsimile! Let us see if he can drive a Correa inverter circuit from the orgone energy of a living being! Paulo Correa, M.Sc., Ph.D. Alexandra Correa, HBA
11. Battaglia returns to once again salute Marett, shamelessly strutting the baseness of thought and desire characteristic of the Ogg chapel. He faults us with lack of simplicism...
From: J-M. Battaglia Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:48:45 -0500 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Correa/Reich Affair Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about?! Not being an engineer, I found the initial, highly telegraphed message from the Correa's regarding some sort of misunderstanding perpetrated by Doug Marett intriguing, but indecipherable. The Correa's message had all the qualities of a "My dog is bigger than your dog!" put down, but I could not follow what the highly condensed references to the technical developments were all about, so all that came through was heat, but no light. Such is the nature of communication from engineer to engineer, I suppose, but it makes little sense to a lay person observing from the sidelines. This OML list will probably not survive long enough to clear up the apparent misunderstandings happening regarding this matter, but if any attempts are made to air the matter publicly elsewhere, I suggest that, if either party cares to communicate the essence of their work to others who are not steeped in the technical minutia which the engineers deal with on a daily basis, they should keep in mind that good technical communications do not assume that everyone knows what the hell you're talking about unless you make an effort to explain what you too readily assume others already understand. On the other hand, if the nature of your work is so technical that you cannot, or do not wish to, take the time to simplify your language so that non-engineers can appreciate it, then maybe you need to take the conversation elsewhere and keep it private. For, if you keep things public while not simplifying matters for non-engineers, don't be surprised if you cannot garner the emotional (or financial support) from those of us who are not conversant with your jargon and thus find the matter impenetrable. John-Michael Battaglia
2. Todd Phillips responds to Battaglia: a lonely sign of intelligence in a list devoted to distortions of Reich's Orgonomy.
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 02:17:22 -0800 To: email@example.com.Virginia.EDU From: T. Phillips Subject: Re: Correa/Reich Affair At 12:48 AM 12/16/96 -0500, you wrote: >Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about?! > >Not being an engineer, I found the initial, highly telegraphed message from >the Correa's regarding some sort of misunderstanding perpetrated by Doug >Marett intriguing, but indecipherable. The Correa's message had all the >qualities of a "My dog is bigger than your dog!" put down, but I could not >follow what the highly condensed references to the technical developments >were all about, so all that came through was heat, but no light. > >Such is the nature of communication from engineer to engineer, I suppose, but >it makes little sense to a lay person observing from the sidelines. This OML >list will probably not survive long enough to clear up the apparent >misunderstandings happening regarding this matter, but if any attempts are >made to air the matter publicly elsewhere, I suggest that, if either party >cares to communicate the essence of their work to others who are not steeped >in the technical minutia which the engineers deal with on a daily basis, they >should keep in mind that good technical communications do not assume that >everyone knows what the hell you're talking about unless you make an effort >to explain what you too readily assume others already understand. > >On the other hand, if the nature of your work is so technical that you >cannot, or do not wish to, take the time to simplify your language so that >non-engineers can appreciate it, then maybe you need to take the conversation >elsewhere and keep it private. For, if you keep things public while not >simplifying matters for non-engineers, don't be surprised if you cannot >garner the emotional (or financial support) from those of us who are not >conversant with your jargon and thus find the matter impenetrable. Funny, I thought people could share their data here. Wether or not you wish to take the time to educate yourself on technical matters is up to the individual, not to those who have expended a huge amount of time and energy researching the phenomena. It is not their responsibility to " take the time to simplify your language so that non-engineers can appreciate it", Especially when the terminology being used is notparticularly obtruse or complicated. -T. Phillips
13. We openly expose the bankruptcy of what passes for Orgonomy - on the OML, and among the likes of Ogg and Marett.
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:54:05 -0500 From: Correa&Correa To: firstname.lastname@example.org.Virginia.EDU Subject: Re. Correa/Reich Affair & Anorgonomy To those who can think for themselves- Just so what is meant is said, here are a few excerpts from our e-mail transmission to Jogg at PORE, dotting the ii's with respect to the poverty of what passes by the name of "orgonomy": "We would like you to note that we are well aware that after being trampled by psychoanalysts, fascists, leftists, the KKK, governments and courts, the penal system, situs, new agers, punks, self-styled orgonomists, cyberidiots and other species of canaille, Reich's bones have become relics for swindlers and peddlers of belief in orgonomy. When one hears uninhibited claptrap like "Orgonomists are people who believe, either intuitively or empirically, in the existence of this thing Reich called orgone energy. At core, believing in orgone energy is what separates us from the non-believers, the non-acceptors." one has heard all there is to hear about the parody of Reich's work erected by self-elected followers. Everywhere these "believers" look, they find Reich, the despotic Signifier of their oedipal utterances, no matter how many rider clauses they append. If orgonomy was going to remain and become anything like what Reich intended, it could never have been so easily reduced to mystical leaps of faith and little chapels, as it would have stood for the experimental investigation of the aether of space and the singular energy functions of the living (microfunctionalism). Instead, it has now become the neuroticized psychobabble anyone with eyes can see, as if Reich's contention that on matters of natural research there are no authorities was but a passport for every moron to spout mysticism and sully Reich's work in Reich's very name! The sapping begun by those who persecuted Reich has been achieved, free of charge, by those who have so gingerly appropriated his work without the slightest idea of the Physics or the Biology implicated therein, let alone a sense of critique even on matters psychiatric and social. Yet, this is nothing new, as many other scientists, thinkers and writers have deserved the same dubious distinction over the millennia. At bottom, followers or disciples are those whose very being is threatened by the thought that confronts them, and their characterological response of appropriating that which threatens them and which they do not understand, is what makes them appear to hold a claim to that thought. Ananda or Saul of Tarsus would have served as examples here. Now, to put it clearly, Reich's theory of orgone energy either is a testable scientific hypothesis, or it is nothing but religion. As all we see as far as the eye stretches, are false replications and facile understanding of Reich's work, we shall have to conclude that Reich's orgonomy is dead, but the "anorgonomy" of the followers is alive and well - it has become a cottage industry. It has come of age. Orgonomy has in fact become hollowed out as it is so well exemplified in the pompous "Open letter to orgonomists" written by the same Douglas Marett. It is at bottom nothing but a plea for investors, but there is one illustrative passage, a non-sequitur in fact, that deserves mention as it encapsulates the supreme ease with which Marett moves in matters of Reich's work. Marett writes: "I could, with sufficient resources, put together such a device [an orgone meter] in a month or two. However, I have no gauge as to what the interest of the rest of the community is. Does anybody want this? And I can not impose on the orgone community a system of units. It is up to the collective to define what an "org" is." Reich would be happy to know that his own experimental definition of the org as "a unit of orgone energy" is up for redefinition by the collective (what collective??? the Spoon Collective ???), courtesy of the direct democratic tolerance of Mr. Marett who cannot impose a system of units... You, Jogg, should pause and ponder long and hard on this one: here is a fellow that purports to have replicated the ORAC experiments of Reich but is not aware of what the "org" is, yet he is liberal enough to accept what others will decide for him and for Reich. For ourselves we could not care less about this noxious development that goes by the name "orgonomy". We are well aware that ignorance engenders betise and that, in a world inherited by the poor of mind, betise has become the intellectual commodity par excellence. We could never see ourselves as heroes of culture, to borrow Nietzsche's words, waging war on every insignificant plague-carrier that raises its ugly head. However Marett has the rare distinction and misfortune of claiming false personal knowledge of our work and lives, so his challenge, and the views of others who so easily chose to support him, no matter how absurd and brainless, cannot but be addressed. Let others then make up their minds." The anorgonomic mysticism, make no mistakes, is here to stay, for as long as it will be fashionable. All we can do is debunk it, chase it pitilessly, just as one chases its twin companion of mechanicism and molar functionalism. If knowledge is good for anything, it must be noxious to the powers that be, no matter how grupuscular. "Orgonomy" has become, like the poet says, "one more substitute I won't be trying, one more piece of the rock that I am not buying". Paulo Correa, M.Sc., Ph.D. Alexandra Correa, HBA PS- We note that Jogg at PORE has now posted a link to our "The Correa/Reich Affair" which is not functional. For those who wish to pursue the matter, the URL for our site is: http://www.globalserve.net/~lambdac
14. Marett puts forth his lame excuses for his retraction. The cowardice speaks for itself. Unforgivable that these authors ever took such a critter as a friend. Live and learn then. Also, we know what became of the optimism-inspiring orgonomic work by committee...ZERO.
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:42:14 -0500 (EST) To: email@example.com.Virginia.EDU From: D. M. Marett Subject: Correa/Reich affair This is a note to say that I have just viewed what the Correa's have to say about me and my research at their site. I have been defending my position on motor article for some time and it now appears that the Correa's want me to shut up or they are going to sue me. Thus, I have decided to withdraw any articles which mention the Correa's from my web site. This is regretable, but I think "my money" is better spent doing research work than fighting with others. As for the mountain of ill will which they have posted on my work at their site, I can only say that it would probably take me a month to respond to all of it, much of which is bordering on the ridiculous, and anyway this would only escalate the personal attacks. As for the work on orgonomy which has been discussed on this site which I feel very optimistic about, I hope this will continue unabated. Doug Marett
15. The authors remind Marett of their prediction, now realized, of his immediate retraction:
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 16:18:15 -0500 From: Correa&Correa To: firstname.lastname@example.org.Virginia.EDU Subject: Re. Correa/Reich Affair Re. Revisionism and the Correa/Reich Affair We told you, did we not? Read in our "The Correa/Reich Affair", where we suggest readers check the Douglas Marett site on their own as soon as possible: "But do it quickly, for we are sure he will be furiously modifying his text in light of what we are about to say"!! Well, faster than the decomposition of the bureaucratic international, our man has pulled down not just his TOMMS article (The orgone motor mystery solved!"), but also the postings on the teratohybrid VACOR/PAGD that had come on board just last thursday, 12.12.96. Hence, all the links from PORE to "another orgone research laboratory" are now ineffective. That is, until revisionism returns. Paulo Correa, M.Sc., Ph.D. Alexandra Correa, HBA
16. We make public our challenge to Ogg - who responds by removing the perished link.
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 16:39:04 -0500 From: Correa&Correa To: email@example.com.Virginia.EDU Subject: Re. Correa/Reich Affair So that it be clear that this is a good war, we excerpt further from our e-mail to Jogg, of last night: "This being said, we now note that, unlike others, our choice is to fight our wars openly with the force of facts and ideas, rather than invoke the judicial muzzle and hide behind anybody's skirts, be those even of Reich. Hence, we will not at this time request that you remove Marett's feature in question, unless, of course, you refuse our own request to post an identical link to our Home Page, AT THE EDGE OF SPACE, and specifically, to our lengthy response entitled "The Correa/Reich Affair" to the sensationalist misrepresentations and fabrications of Douglas Marett, as they relate both to our work and to the work of Dr. Reich." Douglas Marett now invokes fear of legal prosecution, after having made wild and sensational claims about our work and patents, to withdraw from the battlefield. Is he not responsible for his own reactions? We have challenged him to walk the walk, now that he has talked the talk. Paulo Correa, M.Sc., Ph.D. Alexandra Correa, HBA
17. The foggy jogger presents his lame excuses, while fully revealing his face.
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 19:42:07 -0500 From: J. Ogg To: The Correas CC: firstname.lastname@example.org.Virginia.EDU Subject: Re: The Correa/Reich Affair Dear Correas, I have now had time to read your initial email to me directly. Before I reply to it , I should like to note that you are too quick to send to the OML this afternoon that the link to your Correa/Reich Affair is not functioning. Since late last night or early this morning 96dec16 at 2am that link has been functioning just fine. You posted to OML at about 1:30pm 96dec16 that it was not functioning. It is and still is. Maybe the problem is at your end. Now for the reply to your email. I do not know how familiar you are to the internet. It seems that you may not understand the difference between posting or publishing an article at a web site verses having a link to an article at another web site operated by another person or organization. You wrote the below comment concerning whether we follow our own policy or not. We (I) do adhere to this policy but it is specifically in reference to whether or not PORE publishes an article at our site. It has nothing to do with what others may publish at other sites that we may have made a link to. If you check out the web you will find many links from one web site to other web sites. A link from PORE's web pages to another web site has nothing to do with publishing an article at PORE's web site. The two things are totally different. Making links from one site to another is a freedom of speech and expression but does not mean what is written at the other site is the responsibility of the web site that linked to it. Correa wrote to Jogg/Pore 96dec16 1:21am est > It has come to our attention that you have not followed your own rules > publicly posted at the PORE site, regarding the recent posting of a > feature written by one Douglas Marett, entitled "The Orgone Motor > Mystery Solved!", which, to borrow your own language is "an article > [that] makes derogatory accusations against somebody", and "an article > [that] alleges (..) illegal, or irresponsible, actions by another" > person or persons, in this instance, us. We quote from your own site > what your stated policy is: > > "If the author of an article makes derogatory accusations against > somebody, or if an article alleges any illegal, or irresponsible, > actions by another, then such accusations or allegations need to be > well documented and with references for PORE to consider them for > publication. PORE will send this type of article to all concerned > person(s) or parties to give comment prior to PORE making any decision > on whether to publish it or not." > > As neither of us has been contacted by you or anyone at PORE "to give > comment" regarding the libelous and fabricated allegations made by Mr. > Douglas Marett in said feature, you are clearly in contravention of > your principles. You have not taken the proper route to verify the > accuracy of Marett's statements, yet the ostensive implication to your > reading public is that, by having posted Marett's feature, you have > previously checked the accusations and allegations and found them to > be acceptable, and are therefore publishing the item in accordance > with said policy. This is tantamount to false advertising and > deliberate disinformation. And, it demonstrates the very bias your > own rules are supposed to ward off. Thereby, you have not only broken > your own rules, but further committed to a course of action which is > legally actionable. Moreover, wittingly or unwittingly, you have > become an accomplice to another edition of character-assassination, > volume "n". This is serious enough, and a public apology is in order, > to say the least, no matter how good your intent may have been. An simple example to demonstrate the difference between links and publishing might be the following. Times magazine publishes an article condemning an organization or some individual. Time magazine most certainly is liable for inaccuracies and may be held accountable in court. John Doe a regular citizen reads the article and decides to tell some friends about it. Or lets say that he may bring attention to it by only mentioning the name of the article and who published it when John Doe writes a letter to the editorial column in a newspaper. His letter to the editorial dept is complaining about another topic but mentions the Times article but that is all. Questions.... Is John Doe responsible for the article the the Times magazine wrote? No. Does John Doe become liable for showing the article to his friends? No. Does John Doe become liable for mentioning the article in a letter to the editor of a newspaper? No. Is John Doe responible for substantiating the facts of the article before telling his friends about it? No. Is John Doe responsible to contact the organization or individual mentioned in the article before he can show the article to his friends or to place it on a table in the reception room of the business he operates? No. I hope the above will open your awareness to the difference between publishing and having links to other sites on the internet. I would also like to note that your recent post to OML conviently uses your email to me to further your attacks on Doug Marett. I am not sure if you are hoping I might drop the links to AORL or trying to get me to enter the war as you call it with Doug Marett or just using email to me to attack Doug Marett or hoping to put me in a bad light for having a link to Doug Maretts site. It will not get me to take sides in this scirmish. I have no desire to and also find no need to. It is once again just another spitefull use of the OML which is the exact reason that the OML is going out of service. I am sorry that the two of you are at odds regardless of who is at fault. It appears that neither of you will come close to resolving your differences any time soon. I can only hope that a more constructive means can be found and that the two of you can resolve your differences in a more positive approach. I will continue to maintain the links to your site and to his for others to decide for themselves. The links will remain in on Pore's page of "articles at other web sites" but will not remain in the featured article section. I wish you both (Carreas) the best in your future research. sincerely Jogg
18. Our sly response to the foggy jogger.
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 20:59:02 -0500 From: Correa&Correa To: email@example.com CC: firstname.lastname@example.org.Virginia.EDU Subject: Re. Correa/Reich Affair&PORE Dear Jogg- Indeed, your link at the PORE to our Reich/Correa article is still screwed up: if one clicks on the title of our article, one goes to the cloudbusting feature posted above ours, whereas if one clicks on our names one ends up at the desired place! Check it out, we are not the only dyslexic operators around... Now, you may have a legalistic point regarding posting links to other sites and publishing articles. But your disclaimer features on the very page that is entitled Articles on Orgonomy. So, not so fast! If nothing else, in our view, you had a moral obligation of standing by your disclaimer and checking the veracity of Douglas Marett's allegations, both personal and scientific, with us, prior to posting your links. (Or do you not care about what it is you post on your page in the name of Reich and orgonomy?). Moreover, as AORL, that sad entreprise of confusionism, features right on your Home Page, this looks very much like some form of an endorsement to us and we would think any viewer logging on to your site would get the same impression- but maybe we are new to the hypereality of the web, as you say... Lastly, we should note that Mr. Douglas Marett has now withdrawn his two articles on us and Reich, and this should indeed tell you that you should be careful about those links that are so easy to make. We suggest, at the very least, your disclaimer should be made clearer. We would however appreciate if you were to keep the link to our article on your site, once functional, and we begrudge you not for the entire affair. Fair is fair. After all, what we have to say is indeed relevant to Reich's work, not to mention to our right to defend ourselves from the gratuitous and very serious accusations of Douglas Marett! Regards, Paulo Correa, M.Sc., Ph.D. Alexandra Correa, HBA
19. Putting Battaglia in his place.
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:05:14 -0500 From: Correa&Correa To: email@example.com.Virginia.EDU Subject: Re. Correa/Reich Affair Dear chilled Battaglia- We note you now need an engineer to read our messages and writings but were gung-ho to accept a-critically the confusionist claims of Mr. Marett. We also note you did not like the fact we treated what you said as if you meant it. Well, if you cannot stand the heat, follow Marett's advice and get out of the kitchen. Alternatively, try to inform yourself by reading our article. It will prove salutary! Lambda C
20. Our last response to the foggy Oggreling -
Mr. J. Oggreling You wrote: >I have not developed a controversy page yet and >said I was working on that this spring. As for the placement of the link >to your site, I chose that spot under energy topics becuase I have had a >link to a free energy spot for over a year that mentions your work. We note you have restored the controversy heading under articles at other sites, but have ommitted linkage to our "Correa/Reich" affair from it. Suppression is the outcome of dissimulation and manipulation. The Affair concerns directly "things Reichian", whereas your Energy link to our site, concerns our work. Your amalgamation of the two exemplifies the extent of your grasp of these distinct matters. You wrote: >At this time after a quick look at the Correa/Reich affair, I find a lot >of it out dated since he removed all mention to you. Outdated? What is that? If a Stalinist revises history, are we are supposed to sing along and become Stalinists in turn? This is a ridiculous argument! It sounds like something one would read in a fashion magazine... >Granted an article >could be written to directly counter his claims. Your present one would >need updating. The internet is a changing place and difficult to keep >current. I understand your frustration with changes at his web site >without any explaination by him about why it has occured. Please, spare us your patronizing Mr. School-marm attitude. Who are you trying to fool? We need no explanations from Marett as to why he has done what he has done. It is you who needs to do some explaining about your little manipulations well in evidence. Begining with: what is a self-elected moron like you who never produced anything worth of admiration in science or knowledge, whose only claim to fame is to organize the anorgonomic fragments of a Reichian Church into an Exchange of inanities, doing in the name of Reich, appropriating Reich's work? What is your claim to fame - a politically correct family home with a dog? Having sired children of the future? Cheating 9 graders? No, it leaves one wondering indeed how you, in your position of Reichian and PORE master, have the gall to ask us: >I have a question. If you are not a Reichian, then why are you so >concerned about this whole affair and proclaim you are protecting >Reich's work. Does one need to be a Jew in order to oppose anti-semitism? Does one need to be a black in order to recognize racism? Does one have to be a Reichian in order to deplore what other worms like you have done to the work of this unique thinker? Do we need you to ascertain the colossal envy, the baseness and mean-spiritdness of the attacks of Marett and his confusion of apples with oranges? AND WHO FIRED THE FIRST SEVERAL MANY GRATUITOUS SALVOS ON OUR WORK? MARETT WHO GOT AIDED AND ABETTED BY YOU, punaise! If you do not like it now so much, be much more careful the next time. Our patience is wearing thin with crap like you. Let Mary Higgins also be warned as to what YOU are up to: >If I seem reluctant to embrace a link to your article at the moment, it >may have a lot to do with the not wanting to spend more time in >another >embrioled debate and attacks. I have been dealing with plenty from >DeMeo and his following over the past year for supporting some of the >environmental criticisms of Carlinsky concerning JD's cloudbusting >claims. Embroiled and deeper than you think, you are already. For get this Mr. Dissimulation Inc., we have got your number too: >I apoligize for the link to Marett's article that mentioned you last >fall without contacting you. A person I know and was in contact with was >trying to contact you at that time without much success. When they did >finally contact you they told me you had no email and that you were >soon going to be on the internet. The only person told by one of us about our upcoming internet site, amongst all those Reichians that contacted us in November/December was...Carlinsky, who also referred to you as a "good guy". Is Carlinsky now your fer de lance? You couldn't have phoned us yourself? Behind whose skirts are you hiding, you grave-digger of orgonomy! But you know not the other half- keep posted! We have a demand, which we know you will not comply with, but, for all it is worth, here it is: DO DELETE ALL LINKS AND ANY LINKS TO OUR SITE AND OUR WORK FROM YOUR PORK EXCHANGE! Cross not our path again, Correa, PN Correa, AN PS-"From time to time you lift your head out of the muck and shout, "Down with the main point" and "Hurrah for incidentals"!" Listen Little Man, we are no Wilhelm Reich! The Castafiore hasn't sung yet!
Now, She has.