Luke Ford

Dennis Prager made fun of zero tolerance policies today. He noted the man in Delaware who made a joke about having pipe bombs in his carry on bag. This joke caused the airplane to make an emergency landing. Eight passengers out of the 109 total were injured as everyone rushed out of the plane.

EXCEPT, in this case, the man who made the joke took several pills and fell asleep. He could not be awakened. Then the plane made the emergency landing. The joker was fined $40K, and sentenced to six months in prison.

Prager thought it goofy that Oregon Health Services are giving out free death injections. The right to die is a right in Oregon, and the lethal injection for poor people is paid by the state government. (Assisted suicide)

Oregon is different says Prager, who has lectured there. There is a palpable sense of difference, of going their own way. P. thought California was the weirdo state, but now he thinks it is Oregon. A caller suggested that California's weirdos moved to Oregon. It is a very progressive state. Referendums and initiatives started there. Oregonians have a secular religion - egalitarianism.

"They have a strong value system. They are sincere. But that is irrelevant. I would rather they had a weak value system than have a strong value system… [which perpetuates evil]."

Sincere idealism is not positive says Prager. He quoted from Arthur Miller's play, Incident at Vichy, where a Jewish doctor needs to find a corrupt Nazi he can bribe. Good is not measured by the sincerity of the actor, but by the actions of the actor.

P. says this Oregon decision exemplifies the substitution of health for morality. Sex education classes are subsumed under health education classes.

P. says he loves Los Angeles. It is difficult to admit to an Easterner… Remember Woody Allen's line in Annie Hall: The only cultural advantage of living in Los Angeles is that you can make a right on a red light. The joke is that you can make a right on a red light through New York State, except in NYC. Which shows how insular are residents of NYC, says P.

At 1:40 PM, Prager discussed the front page of the LA Times on Saturday written by the medical writer. "Everything is health." Article said that if you want your marriage to last, do what your wife says. The longest lasting marriages boast men who give in to their wives. Psychologists found that men who failed to meet their wives demands, had no chance for a lasting marriage.

Prager says that guys he's talked to who've been married 20-50 years, say "I've learned to say, yes dear." I agree with that. Women intuit better. Every rule has exceptions. Women have a gift with the micro - about how families should run, what to do with the kids…etc… That is why mothers hear the baby's whimper while the man sleeps soundly, dreaming about the next Dodger game.

But just as women are more gifted with the micro, men are more gifted with the macro. For instance, voting. Men are usually better informed about national and international issues.

Prager advises that one should listen to one's wife about a relationship, and listen to the husband on how to vote.

By THOMAS H. MAUGH II, TIMES MEDICAL WRITER

Los Angeles Times Saturday February 21, 1998

If you want your marriage to last a long time, the newest advice from psychologists is quite simple: Be willing to do what your wife says.

A widely recommended form of marital relationship advice has been active listening, in which one partner paraphrases the other partner's concerns--"So what I hear you saying is . . ." But that is unnatural and requires too much of people who are in the midst of emotional conflict, said psychologist John Gottman of the University of Washington. "Asking that of couples is like requiring emotional gymnastics," he said.

Gottman and his colleagues studied 130 newlywed couples for six years in an effort to find ways to predict marital success and failure.

Couples who used techniques such as active listening were no more likely to stay together than couples who did not, they report today in the Journal of Marriage and the Family, published by the National Council on Family Relations.

"We need to convey how shocked and surprised we were by these results for the active listening model," the team admitted in the article. In fact, Gottman and his colleagues have long recommended active listening to couples seeking counseling and had expected that its use would be a predictor of success in marriages.

That it was not, he said, suggests that its widespread use in marital counseling--a field already beset by sharp philosophical divisions--should be abandoned.

The marriages that did work well all had one thing in common--the husband was willing to give in to the wife.

"We found that only those newlywed men who are accepting of influence from their wives are ending up in happy, stable marriages," Gottman said. The autocrats who failed to listen to their wives' complaints, greeting them with stonewalling, contempt and belligerence, were doomed from the beginning, they found.

In the researchers' observations of couples, they found little evidence of women failing to listen to their husbands. But the study did not let wives completely off the hook. Women who couched their complaints in a gentle, soothing, perhaps even humorous approach to the husband were more likely to have happy marriages than those who were more belligerent.

Dennis Prager: Wouldn't it be nice to believe that men and women are essentially the same? We just listen to each other and compromise like a democracy? Real life doesn't work that way. One reason that Prager believes the study is that he senses the people who commissioned it were unhappy with the results.

A Steve phoned to say that he and his wife had opposite roles: He listened more carefully to his kids and she, a Political Science major, knew more about politics.

And how is your marriage, asked Prager?

"Its ok… We have our problems."

A woman asked why do we need this study? P. said that the well educated have abandoned common sense. They depend on studies. For instance, when he articulates that kids need a mother and a father, he often gets calls asking for studies to prove Prager's point.

Prager talked about the PBS series on Reagen. He said that the educated class ridiculed the US President from 1980-88. Reagen had two simple ideas: Communism is evil and high taxes kill economies. Then he left it up to the experts to implement these beliefs. Mr Carter and Mr Clinton know lots of details. They lack vision.

Prager compared a man listening to his wife to the President listening to his head of the Department of Agriculture. Listening to those who know, is empowering.

A caller said that men listening to wives may be more of a sign of a good marriage, a symptom, than a cause.

P. says no published study will argue that there are areas of life where men are wiser than women. It's not PC. P. says if nearly all men listening to their wives about relationships, we would have a happier society. And if most women listened to their men about politics, we would have a better society.

Prager says that he spends most of his professional life stating the obvious, which is why he is controversial.

P. says that the years he worked with his wife Fran, 1989-92, were very happy. Their lives changed with the arrival of Aaron in 1992. If you love being around your spouse, why would you not want to work together, said Prager.

Women phoned in to boast about how they had trained their men. One woman related how she persuaded her husband to get a dog.

P says his brother Kenny did not want a dog but finally relented. And now Kenny, a thoughtful melancholy lung specialist at Columbia who now lives in New Jersey, loves his dog. All of Prager's family is Orthodox except Dennis, who does not belong to one denomination in Judaism.

Chris Donald wrote on the Prager List:

In a message dated 2/26/98 11:06:51 PM, Luke wrote:

>Yes, if I had God's power, I think that I could've done a helluva better job than God did. I would not have created the human being with such a strong desire to inflict hurt on the >innocent.

Interesting position, from a man who said he relates to God primarily through fear....

>And if I had written the Torah, the Pentateuch, I would've spent far more time discussing >ethics and less time describing how to sacrifice turtle doves.

If you had written the Torah...as many people would have read it as will read your pornograghy history 4,000 years from now.....

Have a good Shabbat. Pray hard.

In a message dated 2/27/98 10:21:22 AM, Luke wrote:

>I'd say the leading moral struggles I face come from my work as a journalist- >how much to delve into people's private lives and how much to reveal painful >though truthful information.

........I am loosing the battle on an hour by hour basis...but I DO struggle.

>I also have to watch my mouth. I am always tempted to release one-liners that>I and a few others find very funny, but many other people don't know how to>deal with.

You see, it is THEY that have the problem, not me. My inability to control my mouth and my daily behavior is often universally repugnant to random people I come into contact with... and yet I am convinced it is THEY (and not I) that have the problem and should make the effort to adjust. I am fine, and I will continue unabated and unflapped.

"March ON, I say. Damn the Torpedoes! Full steam ahead!" Fuck everyone else. Hurray for me!

>"You'll never be like him," she told me. "Dennis loves people. You hate them."

This is also, I suspect, somehow the fault of others....

My moral struggle is- when is it morally justifiable to fight spit with spit?

And when is the target too unstable to make it safe to do so?

Subj: Prager-L: Prager's ass't responds re: Luke Ford
Date: 98-02-27 18:33:06 EST
From: ZIMatTPP@aol.com (ZIMatTPP)
Sender: owner-prager-l@email.csun.edu
Reply-to: prager-l@email.csun.edu
To: prager-l@csun1.csun.edu

Luke Ford publicly wrote on this List:
>>>To argue that a media rep, whose responsibility is to deal with the media and to fact check when asked by the media, has NO responsibility is silly. We are our brothers keeper.
Journalists run questions by media reps all the time to check facts. A media rep who refused to cooperate, and then ridiculed the journalist to numerous folks for his supposed mistakes, is probably a lousy media rep. Such a media rep would not last in the real world. I have dealt with media reps since about age 14, and have dealt with hundreds.>>>>>>>

My name is Laurie Zimmet and I am Dennis Prager’s pesonal assistant. I am also director of media relations for Dennis Prager. Although he has an entire staff working at The Prager Perspective office, I am his assistant.
I have not publicly responded to Mr. Ford thus far because what Chris Donald wrote regarding the meeting with Mr. Ford is true. I spent over 3 hours with Mr. Ford explaining why he was not the one to write Dennis’ biography. For Mr. Ford to write that I never responded to him is therefore a lie.
Since that long talk, Mr. Ford has attempted, through email, to verify information he had either already put up on his unauthorized web site on Dennis or was about to. I did not respond for two reasons.
One, Mr. Ford’s web site and biography on Dennis was unauthorized, unsolicited and not supported by either Dennis or myself. To respond is to validate.
Second, so much of what Mr. Ford sent to me was either slanderous, or contained such personal information, that it should never had been considered for public domain. In short, it was largely gossip of which some was true and some not.
Mr. Ford's contention that my silence is in part responsible for his posting wrong information on Dennis Prager and that our silence is in a sense a neutral position and therefore supportive of his endeavor, is unbelievable. It is tantamount to him writing that "Dennis Prager beats his wife," sending it to me, writing that I have a week to respond, and when I don’t he puts this up on a world wide web site as fact. This is not journalism, it is extortion.
Mr. Ford wrote:
>> Journalists run questions by media reps all the time to check facts. A media rep who refused to cooperate, and then ridiculed the journalist to numerous folks for his supposed mistakes, is probably a lousy media rep. Such a media rep would not last in the real world>>>>>
My answer to Mr. Ford is that he is not a journalist. He did not send me any credentials. In the 4 years that I have known him the only published work I have seen from him was a porn film in which he starred. It was given to a friend of mine for viewing. After a couple minutes, I shut it off.
Mr. Ford took Dennis’ name for his web site URL without our permission. We were never sent a request. I don’t think any of you would appreciate your name as an URL. (e.g. Luke Ford starting a chrisbolton.net or a chrisdonald.net) without requesting your permission to do so.
This week he tried to take our dennisprager.com away from us by hiring a company called Servint to do so. They verified his name as the request recipient. I have this verified in writing. We are launching our site today. I have been working on this expensive endeavor for over six months. I didn’t want to put out anything less than the class Dennis deserves. I could have easily purchased a program for $50.00 or used an AOL template and had a site up within a week. Dennis deserves better than that.
For someone who has written so often how indebted he is to Dennis Prager for changing his life for the better, Mr. Ford has demonstrated a most unusual form of gratitude: stealing Dennis' name for an unauthorized web site, trying to take Dennis’ official site away from him, and worldwide distribution of truths and untruths about Dennis’ private life, that of his wife, his children, and his friends.
Mr. Ford has done a fine job of summarizing Dennis’ shows, providing the related articles of Dennis’ show topics, and researching articles written about Dennis. But all of this is overshadowed, in my opinion, by his irresponsible web site and biography on Dennis Prager. It is unauthorized, unsolicited, and will not be supported by Dennis, myself, or anyone from the Prager Perspective staff.
Sincerely,
Laurie Zimmet
cc: Dennis Prager
Subj: Prager-L: Prager's ass't responds re: Luke Ford
Date: 98-02-27 19:18:21 EST
From: lukeisback@gmail.com (Luzdedos1)
Sender: owner-prager-l@email.csun.edu
Reply-to: prager-l@email.csun.edu
To: prager-l@csun1.csun.edu

I have known Laurie Zimmett for four years. She is a person of integrity and richly deserving to be Prager's assistant.
We've had our share of disagreements over the years. This is the most significant.
I have tried to keep her name out of our discussion, just as I have generally ignored the personal attacks by Chris on me.
When I discussed media representation in my posts, I purposefully tried to keep the discussion to values, not personalities. While at times I have written personal information about Dennis and others, I have almost never revealed anything negative. The few times I have revealed personal information that could be embarrassing, it almost always came from things Dennis has said publicly.
Laurie writes:
>I have not publicly responded to Mr. Ford thus far because what Chris Donald > wrote regarding the meeting with Mr. Ford is true. I spent over 3 hours with > Mr. Ford explaining why he was not the one to write Dennis’ biography. For > Mr. Ford to write that I never responded to him is therefore a lie.

Laurie, Chris and I did talk for about three hours on December 25th. They both made clear to me their opposition to my writing on Prager. I regret that this intensely personal and frequently painful conversation we had that night has been dragged across the internet. Their recollections of the conversation and mine agree on some points and differ on others.
Laurie and Chris both deliberatly chose to take my discussion of journalism, privacy and media reps as totally directed at Laurie. I regret that they have done so. It was clearly labeled as beyond and aside from personality.
> Second, so much of what Mr. Ford sent to me was either slanderous, or contained such personal information, that it should never had been considered for public domain. In short, it was largely gossip of >which some was true and some not.
I would like that serious charge backed up. What have I written about Dennis that he has not said either on the radio or at lectures in front of hundreds?
> Mr. Ford took Dennis’ name for his web site URL without our permission. We > were never sent a request. I don’t think any of you would appreciate your > name as an URL. (e.g. Luke Ford starting a chrisbolton.net or a chrisdonald.net) > without requesting your permission to do so.
I told Dennis and Laurie of my plans well in advance of my acting on them.
There are infinite variations on Dennis Prager that could be used for a web site... Dennis Prager as a headline appears frequently on flyers, newspaper headlines, quotes on book jackets...etc... Every page on my site has always had a disclaimer that it was not authorized by Prager. Unauthorized articles, unauthorized journalism is the norm. Newspapers and magazines do not seek permission before writing on someone. I have bent over backwards to give advance notice.
I stated several weeks ago on this list that I would take down my Prager site if he requested. I also told him this privately from the beginning.
The difference between a ChrisDonald or Chris Bolton site is that they are private figures while Dennis is a public figure who has been written about for 20 years. I have written virtually nothing on Dennis that has not been published elsewhere. I have simply put it together.
>This week he tried to take our dennisprager.com away from us by hiring a company called Servint to do so. They verified his name as the request> recipient. I have this verified in writing.
Servint is my new server. I did not try to take dennisprager.com away. The servint company confused dennisprager.com with dennisprager.net and made a stupid request, which I immediately stopped. A site cannot be changed like that without signatures and documentation. You will find no signature attached to this request, it was a stupid goof by Servint. It did no harm. It was corrected immediately. It had no potential to do harm. A simple phone call or E-mail to me would've set this straight if Laurie or anyone had any questions.
> For someone who has written so often how indebted he is to Dennis Prager for > changing his life for the better, Mr. Ford has demonstrated a most unusual > form of gratitude: stealing Dennis' name for an unauthorized web site, > trying to take Dennis’ official site away from him, and worldwide distribution of > truths and untruths about Dennis’ private life, that of his wife, his > children, and his friends.

OK, back up your charges. I want you to show all the supposedly private information that I disseminated about Prager that he has not already said publicly, and about his friends, children, etc...
Do I conduct my affairs and my writing perfectly? No. If I were to turn a similar microscope on to others, as has been turned on to me of late, you would also find flaws. Yes, I have plenty of them. But for someone who has been relentlessly attacked on this newsgroup over the past five weeks, I have conducted myself generally with restraint. I do not descend to these types of personal attacks. You've never seen me digging up stuff on Chris, or Laurie or on Dennis.
My writings and web sites speak for themselves.
SHARON: "After reading the clear denunciation of your actions by Mr. Prager's assistant, Ms. Zimmet, I could not agree more. Your actions do indeed speak for themselves and you have been clearly found out. Proverbs 10:7-10."
David Uva:
Last week, I was examining the web site "www.dennisprager.net", authored by Luke Ford. I found this site to contain a biography of Dennis Prager as well as various critique of his show. At the time, I thought that Luke was revealing too much personal information about Dennis and unfairly scrutinizing him. This, in combination with some news posts I read implicating that that Luke may have been using misinformation and was printing this material against the wishes of Dennis Prager, caused me to become very outraged at Luke, since I am a huge admirer of Prager.
In a very knee jerked-reaction, I made a post, titled "LUKE FORD IS A FRAUD!", to this newsgroup. In this and a subsequent article, I stated that Luke had "slandered" Prager. I also used, for the vast majority of the original post, an article by Chris D. (to whom I also owe an apology for using his words without his consent or knowledge) from a Prager mailing list. This article by Chris, contained many allegations against Luke which have not been substantiated. I have no personal knowledge as to whether or not the accusations against Luke were true, and I admit that it was wrong of me to have posted this as a reaction to his web site. My original intention was to use this article as an attachment and state that it did not represent my knowledge; however, that would have been wrong also.
I have no intention of harming the reputation of Luke or anyone close to him, which is exactly what that post could have done. I ask of anyone who read my post, to please disregard it! Any conclusions one makes about Luke should be done so without giving any credibility to that article.
I wish to also make clear that I respect Luke's right to free speech.
Even though it may seem that luke is overly critical of Dennis at times, it is his prerogative to do so as long as he is truthful and demonstrates responsible journalism. Also, the ability to disagree and point out where one is wrong is what talk-radio is all about.
Furthermore, it is apparent that Luke has powerful writing and research abilities that can be beneficial in any discussion group.
Once again, my sincere apologies to Luke Ford and anyone else I may have offended.
Subj: Prager-L: Luke's Internet Scribblings on Dennis Prager
Date: 98-02-28 21:37:14 EST
From: lukeisback@gmail.com (Luzdedos1)
Sender: owner-prager-l@email.csun.edu
> Second, so much of what Mr. Ford sent to me was either slanderous, or > contained such personal information, that it should never had been > considered for public domain. In short, it was largely gossip of which some was true and some not.
>Mr. Ford has done a fine job of summarizing Dennis’ shows, providing the > related articles of Dennis’ show topics, and researching articles written > about Dennis. But all of this is overshadowed, in my opinion, by his > irresponsible web site and biography on Dennis Prager.
These are serious charges from a moral person who is the assistant to my hero.
So I take them seriously.
Less than one percent of what I have posted on this newsgroup, and the internet, about Dennis Prager and his ideas could in any way be construed as gossip. Of that, between 80-100% of that information has been said by Prager on his radio show before hundreds of thousands of people.
Therefore, those comparitively few words that supposedly slandered Dennis, his friends and his family, must be incredibly damaging and serious to outweigh the hundreds of pages of stuff that I have posted regarding his ideas, most of which have been either supportive or neutral. So I am most curious what the slanderous things were that I wrote.
You've made a serious charge. Now the honorable thing is to back it up.
Many readers of this list must be confused by the intensity of the disagreements and the personal attacks traded between Chris and company and myself. After all, Chris and company and I have been friends for about four years. Overall, we share values. We all love Dennis Prager and want him and his values to succeed. We all want to take Prager's values to the world. We all do take Prager's values to the world, and largely strive to live our lives in accordance with the wisdom we have learned from him.
So why the vehemence and heat, when, after all, Chris and company would have no problem with 95% plus of the stuff I write about Dennis? Are the remaining words of mine that vicious and evil?
Precisely because we share so much in common, we are having this disagreement.
It is a civil war, it is intercine strife.
I think most disinterested observers would conclude that it is not really about Dennis Prager and my writings on him. What this is really all about are relationship issues between Chris, myself..etc... Our own self esteem, turf, self-image, foibles, sins, flaws, insecurities, neuroses, ambitions, hopes, dreams, jobs, income, self-respect, standing with peers, place in pecking order, hierarchy, feelings...etc... Different ones probably apply differently to the persons involved.
When people fight, particularly when people who overwhelmingly share values fight, they rarely fight over what they are explicitly arguing about. There are the surface issues, the ones articulated, but underneath them are the META-issues, the true driving force of the clash.
When people hate, they rarely articulate the exact reason why they hate someone.
If this was really about my writings on Dennis, my detractors would know that they had no credibility with me on this particularly issue, and that attacks on me would not change my mind, as they change few people's minds. They would also know that I cannot be intimidated so easily.
If this petty airing of dirty laundry was really about my writing on Dennis, my detractors would've asked Dennis to either write, E-mail or phone me, asking me to stop. I've often said that if he did so, I would stop.
Or, as Dennis is a busy man with more important concerns than our relationship issues, they could've turned to the many persons-friends we have in common who do carry credibility with me, explained to one of them their objections, and ask that person to talk to me. Internet newsgroups and mailing lists are not the medium to resolve these types of disputes.
Things like this should be resolved quietly, discreetly, with as few persons involved as possible.
I think that Prager list readers would be wise to wait before pronouncing on many of the issues between myself and my detractors over my web site and writings on Dennis. It doesn't particularly bother me if you want to attack me, but it does your own soul no good. I suspect that very few people really know what is driving this argument and that things will become more clear when Dennis chooses, if he ever chooses, to pronounce on the issues involved. Until then, I think that we should generally avoid personal attacks, if for no other reason than to honor the man who has brought us so much joy - Dennis Prager.
Of course the values raised by this discussion should be fair game, and individual actions, but to pronounce on whether a whole person is good or bad, or mentally sick or healthy, is a perilous task usually best left to God.
Rhonda:
The only thing I am confused about is you. You say one thing and act another way. There are so many subtle and not so subtle ways you have been inconsistent in your so-called friendship and admiration of Dennis Prager.
For you to still not realize what it is you're doing wrong is completely baffling to me. You are acting like a skitzoid psychopath. Sometimes the words that come from you are so full of warmth and wisdom, they could have been written by a rabbi or some other man of God. Then in the next post if not the next paragraph, you will say something so bizzare, it makes me think you've been invaded by the body snatchers and that someone from another planet is speaking through you.
You must examine yourself and your own motives very honestly. Because apparently no one from the outside is going to be able to reach that soul of yours.
Screwtape loves to confuse and confound and I'm afraid he is the one pulling your strings. You may not realize it, though, until it is too late.
Subj: Re: Prager-L: Luke's Internet Scribblings on Dennis Prager
Date: 98-03-01 03:08:22 EST
From: lukeisback@gmail.com (Luzdedos1)
Sender: owner-prager-l@email.csun.edu
Reply-to: prager-l@email.csun.edu
To: prager-l@csun1.csun.edu
In a message dated 98-03-01 02:27:10 EST, you write:
> The only thing I am confused about is you. You say one thing and act another way.
I have the blessing and the curse of being able to see things from many different perspectives, and the courage and lack of discretion, to express these contradictions in different settings.
I also confuse my poor Christian family, who at various times wonder whether I am sick or evil. Or do I suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder or Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
I live a very serious life, totally dedicated to work and study and Judaism. I just go about my work etc...in a frequently goofy way. I'm generally harmless.
You have not seen me making many personal attacks, even though I am a frequent recipient of them.
I try to only be goofy in ways that will do minimal if any damage. So I make fun of myself all the time, and rarely of others.
I am difficult to get to know. There are a handful of wise people who quickly get a handle on me, such as this adorable rabbi in Orlando, Dr. Rudolph Adler, my UCLA prof friend Jules Zentner, and a few others that I won't embarrass my naming.
I don't think I take pride in "complex." It's just the way I've chosen for the moment. Wise people are very slow to criticize about things like this, when they don't have a handle on what is going on.
But you are so obviously good natured and well intentioned, you get instant forgiveness... :)
When I am being serious, that will show through in my writing. When I am goofing, that will also be obvious to the careful reader.
There are areas where I try to be consistent. But everyone believes in ideals that they do not live up to. For better and worse, I'm just more open about it.
> For you to still not realize what it is you're doing wrong is completely baffling to me. You are acting like a skitzoid psychopath.
I honor your good intentions, but a public email list like this is not the appropriate place to make these sort of personal comments. If you are really truly curious about me, and wish me more good than harm, than you would make these type of enquiries privately. I am writing this not so much to you, as I am not using your name, but as an important statement of values.
If people are truly concerned about someone on this list or elsewhere, and have concerns that could reflect negatively on the recipient if made public, then these concerns should generally not be made publicly. If you want someone to stop doing something, you first should ask yourself if your direct asking him to stop, will do anything. If it might, then you should ask privately. If that does not work, and this is very important to you, you ask someone who has credibility with the person concerned, to talk to him.
Though well intentioned, there are various folks on this list who do not have any credibility with me right now, and their criticisms will do no good. They will only do harm.
A wise person thinks before criticizing persons. Criticizing an idea or even an individual behavior is much less problematic.
I frequently don't listen to people deeply. It is a flaw that I share with many people. I often see religious people trying to change others. That is fine. But they just bulldozer ahead. They are not listening to where the person is at.
PEOPLE DON'T CARE HOW MUCH YOU KNOW, UNTIL THEY KNOW HOW MUCH YOU CARE.
You seem a well intentioned person, but I do not sense you that you care for me. I'd guess that you've made about 30 negative comments about me on this list, and about 3 positive ones. If you thought about this more deeply, you might readjust your approach.
Others, such as the honorable gentleman who just apologized to me on this list, or a Mike Dang or an SGill or a Dana, have credibility with me that they have earned. They have pull. If they asked me to change something, I know that they would do it privately. Personal criticism, particularly when delivered publicly, shaming a person before hundreds, will not motivate the recipient of your barbs to the changes you'd like to see.
Or as Proverbs puts it, "Do not reprove a fool, for he will hate you. Reprove a wise man and he will love you."
We all are too quick to criticize persons. We are too petty, too often and too much.
Before doing so, stop, think, judge where your recipient is at, ask yourself if your criticism will do any good? Then, generally speaking, do it privately.
One may then question my frequent criticisms of Dennis Prager. First of all, they are entirely of various decisions of how he conducts his radio show. Or of his ideas. They are not of his person. Second. I don't make them for the primary desire of trying to change him. If I wanted to effect a change in his or anyone's behavior, I would generally place my comments in question form, and in private. I write about Prager as a journalist, as an observer, as my job.
You may be stunned at my arrogance. Who appointed me to write about Prager? Answer: The thousands of people who visit my web site and Email their appreciation, and patronize my advertisers.
I write about a person who has chosen to be a public figure, to put himself on the line... A person who gets attacked for a living. I do not write about other people on this list in the critical way I write of Prager, even though I love and adore Prager more than anyone alive.
As a journalist, my primary obligation is to truth, not to people's feelings.
Outside of that, my primary obligation in interpersonal relations, is to people's feelings.
I am very self critical and open about my flaws. You could say I bare my throat for the blade. But the person who digs that blade in, especially publically, is the fool.
I am known for eccentric behavior but it is almost always controlled by my values. Even at my wildest, you won't see my picking on people, criticizing them, making fun of them. People are too precious.
Yes, I have made risque jokes at innapropriate times, but you won't hear me saying to folks..."You know what your problem is? Your problem is that you are X, Y, Z..."
Luke further responds to Laurie on the Prager-List:
I only recall saying that you did not respond to my emails subsequent to my decision to write Prager's bio...After Jan. 15. So please substantiate to the contrary or apologize.
And do you want to stick with your characterization of this private conversation as "over 3 hours with Mr. Ford explaining why he was not the one to write Dennis' biography" or would you like to resubmit that as about five minutes? And do you really think this private conversation should be disected on the Prager List? After all, it was your buddy and mine Chris who brought it up, and now you.
And perhaps you might elaborate about your email of around Jan. 15, where you said I should give Prager the option to ask me to desist. Which I had already
done, and have done repeatedly. I have only asked of Dennis that he not oppose my writing on him. And thus far he has accomodated me.
Your feelings, Laurie, about this are all very interesting, but probably not worthy of posting to this list. But now that you have done so, and stopped hiding behind Chris's posts (and your private attacks on me to our friends), perhaps you will now have the ovaries to back them up?
Perhaps you might explain Laurie, why, if my writing on Prager is so heinous, he has not bothered to ask me to stop? And if you felt so strongly about this, why did you not ask him to ask me? And if you did, what does it mean that he hasn't?
Or why did you not seek out a person who has credibility with me in this area (we know many fine persons in common), and deal with the matter this way?
Rather, you have chosen to, until now, silently use Chris as your attack dog on this List making endless personal accusations about me. Was it really necessary for you to slander my name to so many of the friends we have in common? Was cooperating and coordinating with Chris the destruction of a person's name who has the temerity to write without your permission about Dennis, really the best way to accomplish your noble ends?
And while you are at it, perhaps you could share with us your view of this E-mail discussion Prager-List? It would give us a better understanding of your views on any "unauthorized, unasked for" writing about Dennis Prager.
>...so much of what Mr. Ford sent to me was either slanderous, or
I will ask you again to back up your serious charges. And as I have written hundreds of pages about Dennis and his values, these "slanders" must be very naughty indeed, to justify your charges and tactics.
> My answer to Mr. Ford is that he is not a journalist.
Perhaps you might explain how you have the wisdom to declare who and who is not a journalist?
>He did not send me any credentials. >In the 4 years that I have known >him the only published work I have seen from him was a porn film in which he starred.
Now that is relevant?
Incidentally, Laurie, in case you're curious (I know this whole meeting on a literal level of your charges misses the main point but...) I have published several essays on Dennis Prager in past years, worked for a news radio station in Sacramento for four years (KAHI/KHYL 1982-87) won various awards for my journalism at high school and college, written for newspapers ranging from the Sacramento Bee, Auburn Journal to the Gladstone Observer in Australia, and have been written about and quoted in such publications as the New York Post, Video 3000, The Independent on Sunday ( a leading newspaper in London), MS Sidewalk San Diego, and about two dozen others.
I just wanted to take your serious charges on a literal level. I have already explained that we are not fighting over what we are fighting over, but that, unfortunately, Chris and Laurie decided to take our personal relationship tensions and project them into some high falutin language on a public plane.
> This week he tried to take our dennisprager.com away from us by hiring a company called Servint to do so. They verified his name as the >request recipient. I have this verified in writing.
I am sure that you would take the time to know what you are writing about before leveling such a serious charge? As a web site can only be shifted to a new server through a certain procedure, I'm sure you already know what that is? You must have signed authorization, complete with ID from either the web site owner or the web site administrator. So please produce this, or perhaps you should just withdraw your charge and apologize.
I have explained already that my web server SERVINT stupidly confused www.dennisprager.net with dennisprager.com in making its request to INTERNIC, an embarrassing mistake that caused no harm and had no potential to harm.
If you are going to level such a serious charge in public, Laurie, perhaps you should also explain why, if you had genuine concerns, you did not bother to E-mail or phone me about this strange request about dennisprager.com that showed up Wednesday.
> Mr. Ford has demonstrated a most unusual form of gratitude: stealing >Dennis' name for an unauthorized web site
Perhaps you could also enlighten us with your feelings about the other web pages devoted to Dennis Prager and the very name of this mailing list that you used to level your charges: Prager-L? And if my site is so hurtful to poor Dennis, uhh, why hasn't he called me? Are you saying that he is hiding behind your skirt and is unable to speak for himself?
> Mr. Ford has done a fine job of summarizing Dennis’ shows, providing the related articles of Dennis’ show topics, and researching articles written> about Dennis. But all of this is overshadowed, in my opinion, by his > irresponsible web site and biography on Dennis Prager.
Well, we are all waiting for you to substantiate these charges, which have been made with your active cooperation, these past six weeks on this list by Chris, and by you privately to many people.
Subj: Prager-L: Luke's Internet Scribblings on Dennis Prager
Date: 98-03-01 12:57:20 EST
From: ChrisDnld@aol.com (ChrisDnld)
Sender: owner-prager-l@email.csun.edu
In a message dated 3/1/98 8:08:22 AM, Luke wrote:
>Though well intentioned, there are various folks on this list who do not have any credibility with me right now, and their criticisms will do no good. They >will only do harm.
To lose credibility with Luke...what must one do? Star in a porno film?
>We all are too quick to criticize persons. We are too petty, too often and too >much.
>Before doing so, stop, think, judge where your recipient is at, ask yourself >if your criticism will do any good? Then, generally speaking, do it privately.
I'm completely lost here. Considering the frequency of criticisms and micro-scrutiny of DP by this author...... day after day...... after day.....one can only marvel at the double standard involved here.
It's OK to do to a public speaker, but not to a public writer? How did you arrive at that? What exempts you? Tradition?
> They are not of his person. Second. I don't make them for the primary desire of >trying to change him.
And I do not write imagining I can change you. Some of us who care deeply have tried to accomplish that for almost 4 years now...to no avail. That's hard to swallow, but we have.
I write, spending my valuable time here, in order to discredit someone's work which I think is doing an immoral thing to the detriment of a friend of mine. I do it because ethics demand that I do. Laurie agrees with me.
So it's my moral opinion, Lauries, and DP's vs. yours. What else am I to do?
>I am known for eccentric behavior but it is almost always controlled by my values.
Luke, please do not misrepresent yourself like this publically. This is how your personal life becomes public. You force the hand of those of us who know better. You have chosen to live and die by your earned reputation. Please DO NOT force it public here.
Chris_
Subj: Prager-L: Regrettable proof and a welcome end
Date: 98-03-01 17:15:42 EST
From: ChrisDnld@aol.com (ChrisDnld)
Sender: owner-prager-l@email.csun.edu
Beware the man who has an excuse for everything but an apology for nothing.
Luke's contention that I and Dennis Prager's Director of Media Relations have a personal vendetta against him, or as he puts it "a civil war", and that's why we are against his unauthorized and slanderous web site on Dennis Prager, actually frightens me. It is more dilutional than I'd ever imagined. There is no civil war, no vendetta; just an ill human.
As was the case with his last "book"/website, he is doing a wrong, and is paranoid of those pointing it out, without regard for how credible they may be. I had been something of a friend of Luke's for 3 years. I introduced him to this list.
Luke wrote that everything personal he has written on Dennis and his family was already made publicly either at speeches or in print. Luke wrote that Laurie Zimmet should back up her claim of gossip and slander on the part of Luke Ford. Of course she will not do that. As she wrote, to respond is to validate. She works with credentialed journalists on a daily basis. She does not validate Luke as journalist. She also does not want to drag gossip through this List.
However, since I do not represent Dennis and because I so want to show the rest of you how credible Laurie Zimmet is, I will provide only one example. I regret having to provide even this one. I regret it for Dennis' and his wife's sake. But I need the rest of you to understand how egregious and hurtful Luke's bio is.
Luke wrote:
>>Dennis and Fran tried to have another child, but after unsuccessful attempts which included a couple of misacarriages>>
This is what I found out from the parties involved:
A) This was never made public before; not in speeches and not in print.
B) It's not true. Or as Dennis put it, an UNBELIEVEABLE LIE!
That Luke put this up on a world wide web site in unconsionable.
Most of the personal information on Dennis that Luke put up on his site was not already made public. As Laurie put it, some are truths, some are lies, most of it gossip and not for public reading.
I refuse to list the others. Those of you who wish that I would, please think more of Dennis, the man this List is dedicated to, than any voyeuristic tendencies within us. Please send an ethical message here.
LUKE: Check out Volume eight, number four of Prager's journal Ultimate Issues where he describes the efforts he and his wife went through to have another child. Essay entitled "Thoughts On Adopting A Child"
Subj: Prager-L: Regrettable error and apology
Date: 98-03-03 00:07:06 EST
From: ChrisDnld@aol.com (ChrisDnld)
Sender: owner-prager-l@email.csun.edu
After further research and review, I acknowledge that Luke told the truth here.
I was misled in this instance, and I apologize for this error. Dennis apparently misled Laurie as well- he must have forgotten writing about it. I certainly did not remember it, and cannot read every article DP has released to confirm everything I am told by reliable sources. Sometimes we amateurs must rely on the credibility of the credible. (Especially the horses mouth. Sheesh.)
While there are numerous other examples that I have provided here and privately of errors and mis-statements in Luke's Bio, and while I still feel that such personal info is not something to be republished on the Web (without DP's express permission), in this specific case I was indeed wrong. And I am sorry for the error.