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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
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: vortex-l@eskimo.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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
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: vortex-l@eskimo.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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:28:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Correa Reactor

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:45:16 -0500
To: vortex-l@eskimo.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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
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.

5.   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...

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:00:51 -0500 (EST)
From: D. M. Marett
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Correa/Reich Affair


Dear orgonomy@jefferson.village.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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.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: pore@ime.net
CC: orgonomy@jefferson.village.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: orgonomy@jefferson.village.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.