KeelyNet Response to:
"TOXIC DISINFORMATION:
Joel Carlinsky's Bonfire of Insanity"

by Jim Martin (editor, Flatland) and
Kenn Thomas (editor, Steamshovel Press)

Response written for KeelyNet by Chuck Henderson

 


On March 15th 1997, I was informed that the above article had been posted

on the InterNet at Thomas' site and that it contained references to KeelyNet.



I found this to be somewhat curious, as I had never had any contact with

these individuals or their publications and, to the best of my knowledge,

neither had Jerry.



After reading the article and doing some checking, I now understand that

they are close associates of James DeMeo and have published several of his

articles as well as hawking several of his private publications.



Martin and Thomas' publications range from the ridiculous to the sublime

in the arena of conspiracies.



Obviously, the article is a hit piece done either at DeMeo's request or

out of sympathy for their friend. Who better to write the article than

those who make a living selling conspiracies to the public?



Individuals who are practiced at, as well as unconcerned about distorting

the truth, quoting things out of context, or the use of convenient lies.

This, in and of itself provides a rather strong indication of the

character of the supposedly injured party in this piece.



The same party that they have chosen to elevate in their article to a

position equal to the second-coming of Reich. I am certain that if

Martin and Thomas' publications were sold at the newsstand, that they

would hold a prominent place right next to the tabloids.



We did not post Carlinsky's complete article as it first appeared on

the OML (Orgonomy Mailing List - now defunct), but an edited version

of it. It was posted primarily because it bolstered our stance against

posting "how-to" plans on the construction of devices that could cause

large scale damage and because it points out several areas of concern

that must be considered by anyone contemplating the use of a cloudbuster.



DeMeo was given several opportunities to post any response that he wished

to post at our site which he refused.  Instead, we received private

e-mail that was full of venom and veiled threats.



He would not allow us to post his response to Carlinsky's article at

our site and said he'd take legal action if we did. Then he was angered

when we failed to link to his response at his web site.



Given the pathology witnessed by the content of the e-mails he has sent

to us, we felt no obligation to do so.



Now, let's take a look a some of what Martin & Thomas have to say in

their article. The quotes are underlined.



          "Jerry Decker and Chuck Henderson reposted the article

           on their KeelyNet web site. This location is revealing,

           since KeelyNet was previously chosen by John Lear for an

           'exclusive' on his confusionist UFO story."



The term "reposted" implies that something was removed and then replaced.

This is not the case with the Carlinsky article. It was posted once and is

still there.  As to John Lear and UFOs, neither have anything to do with

the subject of orgonomy or cloudbusting which should be the focus of the

article.



          "DeMeo has always made this material -- to KeelyNet,

           Paranoia, the 'skeptics', or anyone with an interest

           in the truth (DeMeo's version*)-- available..."

           (*insert mine)



As evidenced by Martin & Thomas' article, truth is relative to one's own

perceptions and motivations.



          "The response deals vigorously with Carlinsky's exaggerated

           and false criticisms, making reprints of Carlinsky a

           redundant aggravation that DeMeo has also had to address.

           To date, none of DeMeo's critics - Ogg, Carlinsky, Battaglia,

           Joan D'Arc - have countered the substance of DeMeo's

           self-defense, though they have been mightily embarrased by

           it and have shamefacedly attempted to divert the issue to

           picayune hair-splitting."



Really?, I thought that Battaglia's March 31, 1996 posting to the OML

addressed several points of DeMeo's response article rather well. One

thing that DeMeo, Martin, and Thomas seem to forget is that in order to

counter substance, first substance has to be presented.



DeMeo's "Response" article is approximately 55% character assult on

Carlinsky, 35% self-aggrandizement (including, but not limited to,

presenting himself as Middle East Peacemaker), 6% advertising and 4%

quotations from Reich.  DeMeo, like Martin and Thomas, is a master of

semantics.



Before leaving the reference to OML all together, I would like to bring

up something rather puzzling. Why would DeMeo and his associates wish

to practice the same thing that they damn the FDA for, namely, censorship?



It was due to influence by DeMeo and his associates that the OML's

archives were first sanitized to remove Carlinsky's article (1st posted

2/13/96) as well as the dialog that followed. Now, I find that the only

OML archives available are from when the OML was started through

January '96.



What happened to the missing eleven months of 1996? There is an

individual that is currently trying to resurrect the OML. I hope that

he is able to do a complete rebuild of the archives.



As far as being embarrassed goes, I think that the embarrassment is

DeMeo's, much like a child being caught with his hand in the cookie

jar and then experiencing a similar anger when told he can't keep

the cookie.



DeMeo and his associates claim that Carlinsky is a stalker, that he

has threatened and harrassed him. They claim to have evidence of these

actions.  Then why haven't they filed charges? There are Federal as

well as State Stalking Laws.



          "Those who have embarrassed themselves in their dalliance

           with Carlinsky -- CSICOP, Paranoia, EIDOS, KeelyNet,

           Jamerling Ogg, Jim Keith, and John-Michael Battaglia --

           could coalesce and become an identifiable axis of

           disinformation, or they might reconsider and make a

           clear statement against his behavior."



Again, I reiterate, the embarrassment is DeMeo's. While I have no use

for CSICOP or EIDOS, and know next to nothing of either Paranoia or

Jim Keith, I would have no problem "coalescing" with Jamerling Ogg,

John-Michael Battaglia, and other like-minded individuals to form a

group of Allies willing to openly look at all sides of the issues,

not just one myopic viewpoint.



The conflict is between DeMeo and Carlinsky, not between the individuals

and organizations that choose to look at both sides of an issue while

hoping for a productive and informed dialog.



Once more, the focus here should be exclusively one of taking

responsibility and precautions when experimenting with cloudbusting,

not personal attacks, infighting between factions of those versed in

orgonomy or attempts to force censorship of material that expresses

such environmental concerns.