|
By Luke Ford Chapter One Chapter Two Chapter Three Chapter Four Chapter Five Chapter Six Chapter Seven Chapter Seven B Chapter Eight Chapter Nine Chapter Ten Chapter Eleven Chapter Twelve 1994-1997 1997 1998 1998B 1999 2000 2001 2009 From a post to RAME newsgroup:
3-8-98 I toured the Museum of Tolerance at 9760 W. Pico Blvd. this morning. The Holocaust stuff was ok, but the folks who ran the thing seemed obnoxiously unctious...squeaky voiced...pimply faced...frequently fat beneficiaries of affirmative action, wheezing from allergies. Near the end we were herded into a big room for education about bigotry. We were told to go through one of two doors, one marked PREJUDICED and one marked UNPREJUDICED. I was so ticked off that I deliberately started through the door PREJUDICED...and like sheep, everyone followed me. The tour guide then announced that the door marked UNPREJUDICED was locked, thus forcing everyone to admit they were prejudiced. The room was the height of PC baloney. They showed a tape of some Howard Stern type radio host who joked that the more extreme the feminist, the more ugly. I started laughing. Everyone else was unctiously quiet. Afterwards, a dear old lady with grey hair came over to tell me how OFFENDED she and her family was that I had laughed during the talk show bit. She wanted to know if I felt the same way towards women as Nazis felt towards Jews. Lyle Roof replies: "I probably shouldn't even bother responding to so obvious a troll as this. You make the common error of equating beauty with goodness, intelligence and competence. Why else would you have focused your comments on what you percieve as the physical flaws of those you see. I suppose it is too bad that everyone can't be as handsome as you see yourself." LUKE replies: I am just tired of Holocaust chic. I think the monies that went into the museum, which could also be called SHOAH FOR DUMMIES, could've been used more effectively, such as to send kids to Jewish Day School or to Israel... I found the PC take obnoxious, and the equating of ethnic bigotry with genocide. I like Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh etc... I don't think that their style of radio promotes genocide. 4/13/98 I met a Jew who was a pornographer. I met a Jew who hated pornography. I met a Jew who exposed the real names of porn stars. I met a Jew who studied Talmud for hours every day in yeshiva and wanted to become a rabbi. I met a Jew whose father is a Christian evangelist. I met the enemy and he is me. My life forever changed 4/13/98, a Monday, two days after the end of Passover. I met with the rabbi at the orthodox shul I most often attended. Dropping a thick folder on his desk, with pages splaying out, he said "This is the Luke Ford file." It is a file thick with posts and other misdeeds that members of my religious community have recorded and brought to the rabbi. In Jewish religious life I use my Hebrew name, but enough people knew my "real name" to be able to do me damage. The rabbi was most troubled by one of my recent posts to the Prager E-mail discussion list, entitled "Save Me From Cherem [excommunication]" where I asked for help concocting tricky legal reasoning to enable me to live as an esteemed member of the community and still write about my dirty little subject. The rav was not amused. Excommunication is a subject I have known all my life. It was particularly painful in elementary school when I would not get invited to the birthday parties of friends. "Luke is always quick to share his opinions with the class," wrote my fifth grade teacher, "but he needs to learn to be more patient with the slower thinker." My father had his ministerial credentials revoked by the Seventh Day Adventist church in 1980 for heretical views. On 4/13, the rabbi told me that I could either leave porn behind or leave the community behind. I decided to leave the community behind. I muttered the verse from the Ten Commandments about the "sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children for three to four generations," but the rabbi reminded me that is only true for those children who follow in their father's sinful ways. I have decided to follow in my sinful ways, and have largely abandoned the increasingly religious life I was leading over the previous months, including several hours of Talmudic study a day. I now attend non-orthodox synagogues, and study little during the secular week. Later that day the woman I've been seeing called to say that I should not wait for her when she left for Europe at the end of the week. We weren't going anywhere. Then came the porn HIV infection outbreak and that tumult. In the Jewish calendar, appropriately, we have been in a time of semi-mourning (massacre of Rabbi Akiva's disciples 1900 years ago) which we commemorate in part by not shaving or cutting our hair. That time period ended Thursday. I have shaved and cut my hair, and am facing a long commitment to write on this industry. The Torah portions for the past few weeks have come from Leviticus, largely dealing with how the community should handle contagion. I am open to the perspective that porn is a type of spiritual contagion, a spiritual form of leprosy or STD. From a Torah perspective, there is one law that rules the universe - it is both moral and physical. Violation of spiritual laws lead to physical destruction and death. The application to AIDS is obvious - the rectum is not meant for sex. IV drug use and male-to-male sex are spiritually and physically impure, unhealthy and anti-life. I was raised a Protestant which focuses on the individual - individual salvation, the individual's walk with Jesus. Judaism is much more communal, and partly as a consequence of my religious switch, I am increasingly more suspicous of my previous view that what people do in the privacy of their own home is their business alone. Everything we do affects other people. Not long ago I was watching wonderful wackiness on my TV screen, when I felt a shadow. Though my door was locked, and blinds drawn, I could peak out to see a person staring through the blinds. Even though I doubted that he could see anything, I felt sick. This afternoon I was gathering research material (videotapes) from my car. I made careful to cover them with a sweater while carrying them to my place, so no one would see. I had a source of contagion that I had to hide. I have to hide it in my apartment so that visitors do not see the stuff unless they want to. I pile it in my cudboard, where it, at times, comes crashing down when I do something untoward, or when the wind blows... The tapes come crashing down, spilling out on to my bed, crashing down like the weight of my sins on my fragile shoulders. 4/17: My sister writes to me: Luke, i feel so terribly sad, so disappointed - i checked out your web page and you are peddling porn! you are so intelligent and you have the capacity for good but its all being wasted. it is either right or wrong - there are no grey areas. your rationalisations could be equally used to justify the supply of dead bodies for those with a 'need' to mate with such. or to supply live ones for the psycho who 'needs' to cut people into little pieces. human nature is sick - to wit the exploits of ms ashton - but to feed/promote that sickness is wrong. i love you deeply - nothing that you do will change that - but i also have an obligation to say it the way i see it. our minds are so good at deceiving us - we think we are rational and act according to our reasoning but we dont - we believe what we want to believe - we decide what we want to do then set about justifying it - i did exactly the same thing for half of my life and probably continue to do it - the reason i threw out christianity had nothing to do with my intellectual beliefs but all to do with my desire to have money/security - so i then had to set about working out an argument as to why i rejected christianity because my desire was not compatible with it! luke you believe in God - please talk to him about the path your life is taking - He is the only one who can reach you. 4/21/98: It's been a long eight days without chametz (leaven), but Passover has finally passed on, allowing me back on my computer, and into my car. This Sunday morning 4-19-98 I first stopped by the apartment of a fellow member of the newsgroup rec.arts.movies.erotica, where I purchased for $20 the documentary Kamikaze Hearts about lesbian junkies Sharon Mitchell and Tigre. Finding Figuroa Street in downtown Los Angeles, I got within 300 yards of the convention center, and parked on the street for free beside a bunch of Mexican gangbangers. I grabbed my bag with its recorder, note pad and batteries, and nervously made my way up the steps and into the center. This would be my first appearance at a porn convention since last year's Erotica LA fair and I hoped that no one would beat me up. Luckily, few people would recognize me in my black suit and scraggly beard. Upon entering the main building, I heard a greeting from Arrow's Director of Communications, Marc Medoff, who had just flown the red-eye from New York. Arrow owner Raymond Pistol did not attend. As I stood in line, I tried to answer Marc's questions about why everyone in the industry hated me. Subj: Re: Prager-L: Prager List Snitch Date: 98-04-29 05:22:38 EDT From: ChrisDnld@aol.com (ChrisDnld) <<There is a snitch on this list. Someone copies my posts and takes them to my rabbi. >> I am only going to say that, while this would have been something that I would have encouraged another to do, and seriously considered doing myself, I do not know anything about this matter specifically. Nor was I - to my knowledge- involved in it, nor knew anyone involved in it. But neither am I suprised by it. Nor should Luke be. It is unreasonable in the extreme to join a religious group, attend their functions, eat at their Shabbat tables with their children, sleep with their daughters, and then start 2 web sites, one dealing strictly with Lashon Hara (bad gossip, a strict no-no in Judaism. Even the less observant branches hold ethical Laws 100% binding). The other dealing with pornography, filled with 4 letter words and graphic sexual language, with numerous links to hard core porno sites, leaving graphic sexual images a mere mouse-click away from any adventurous Rabbi's son. And then expect to remain in good standing? Oy. That is a most aggregious display of hubris. To attack some "snitch" -rather than your own damn SELF- is just unbelievable- especially under the circumstances. I honestly expected more, even from you. A tiny drop of integrity and culpability would have served you. A wee pinch of mea culpa. Nope. I happened to be intrigued by your post, and tonight browsed your lovely website tonight. And I found that you have put a NEW link up. A new link connecting your gossip-site to Aish Ha Torah's (an Orthodox Temple). You put THEIR link...on YOUR page. A page dedicated to unwanted Lashon Hara. Remarkable. It is likely that I WILL be the "snitch" here. Not that you care. Self destruction is your Modus Operandi. Taking others down with you is apparently just the fun part. And to those here who were synical, telling me -time and again- that I was over doing it, you've now seen many more of my fears comes to fruition. I thank you for all your support. Yes, those who are less conserned with ethics, those who are are too busy arguing about driving on Shabbat to lend any aid, stigmatizing those who abuse their talents at the expense of others here, are sick and tired of it. I'm sure. I have nothing against anyone here personally. Dennis has been repeatedly subjected to abuse of his privacy, he's been followed to Temple and reported on, had content of private conversations published, had his name used to further financial interests without consent OR due compensation, and has an unwanted web page of endless Lashon Harah about him, run by an unstable person. Any Prager fan, doing a simple Web-search, will come across this site. It contains numerous unsubstantiated rumors and untruths. Not to mention links to porno sites. That this is unworthy of your time is unfortunate, and example #893 of why so many secular Jews (like Steve D.) are dissallusioned by religious people- who seem more conserned with lightbulbs in their refrigerator on Shabbat than about a fellow Jew being stolen from, and abused publically with slander and gossip. Sorry to waste your valuable time.
Luke: This is such a lousy way for Prager to handle this matter. My site on him is a labor of love to generally further the values he believes in. I have sent him far more money than I have made off the site. My site www.dennisprager.net is simply the name for the contents of the site. It is about Dennis Prager. I have not used it to blackmail him into buying it off me. I told him what I was going to do days and weeks before I did it. He had every opportunity to talk to me about it. Instead he hides behind his lawyers and others. Disappointing. I only included those Prager essays on my site which were widely and freely available on the net for free. I told him of my wish to do this months ago. Now, I guess he has spoken. So, I will bring my site into conformance with fair use provisions. Most of the threats above are blather, just like most of the first letter I received from his sharks. Calling my site dennisprager.net does not violate California Civil Code Section 3344. My excerpts from his speeches, radio shows and writings falls under the general rubric of covering the news. I received this 5/6/98: "Keep up the good work. I enjoy reading your summaries very much. I'm in Japan and stumbled onto your site by accident a few days ago. Never heard of P before but because of your page I orderd up his book. Seems like your doing him a great service. Can't really understand why you two don't get along. Thanks again for the page. Mike in Japan." Gil writes:
Luke responds: Now this is great writing. Note the progression of intensity: From "I do not know why" to "fed up" to "tired", followed by "disgusted," "nauseated,"...etc Sharon is a premier prose stylist. Second. I suspect that a large number of readers are moaing, "What the hell is she talking about?" If these readers truly want to understand Sharon, or anyone else for that matter, they need to assume that what she writes is true, and then think of circumstances and perceptions wherein it would be true. This of course applies to all communication with people. You cannot meet people in a deep way unless you assume that what they say is true, and then think of ways it could be true. This also cuts the other way. We are responsible for our feelings. If we do not like feeling disgusted, we need to change our thinking to change our feelings. This requires hard work. One way to go about this change is: Instead of hating what people are saying, try empathizing with the writers. Assume what they say is true and look for ways to understand in what circumstances what they say is true, could be true. If this is a cry from the heart, that you are in pain and annoyed and righteously indignant, then we hear you. I remember other list members making similar pronouncements. If you wish to have credibility, however, and to be taken seriously, you now need to unsubscribe, along with the others in your camp who made similar public pronouncements. Then, at a later date, when you wish to, or even under a different name or email address, you may want to rejoin. I wish you and yours on this list, including Prager and his assistants and friends, nothing but the best. I share many if not most of your values. I empathize and respect where you are coming from. Truly. Deeply. From the bottom of my heart. I am sorry that you are in pain. And on some of the issues you so eloquently elucidate above, I and a few other folks on this list, have different understandings. > I find it surprising for a DP list how little DP speeches, writings or even > his > radio show is actually discussed here. The greatest DP input seems to come> from Luke which seems quite suspect at times due to the editorializing and > intermixing of DP and Luke into most of it. Amen. Part of me would simply like to transcribe DP's radio shows but guess what? Thanks to the lawsuit threats from DP's attorneys at Strook, Strook etc, a company that specializes in protecting intellectual rights, I consulted a lawyer about my site. And guess what? If I simply transcribe DP's radio shows, I could be sued for copyright violation, which is what they are going after me for. So, to protect my ass from this crack team of lawyers, among the best that money can buy in this area, I have to thrown in editorializing. 5/3/98 It seems that my comments about the forthcoming World Pornography Conference were found to be "offensive" by the organizers. I committed a form of blasphemy! And have been thus thrown out of another "synagogue" (the Hebrew word for synagogue Beth Knesset means literally "meeting place.') Virtually everyone is orthodox and fundamentalist in their own way, as the following email shows. What's funny is that so many people represented by the following thinking regard themselves as supremely rational and skeptical. Yeah, except of their own preconceptions and faiths (such as in the basic goodness of human nature). I feel free to post the following email as it was already widely circulated by the writer, Dr. James Elias of Cal State Northridge. He found my initial rame post on the conference "offensive."
5/12/98:
New York Times journalist Nick Ravo writes on RAME: On June 24, 2025, I asked Grok to analyze this chapter for truth and lies. Grok said: Museum of Tolerance Visit (3-8-98) Claim: You visited the Museum of Tolerance, found the staff “obnoxiously unctuous” and physically flawed, and deliberately chose the “PREJUDICED” door during an exhibit, leading others to follow. The “UNPREJUDICED” door was locked, forcing everyone to admit prejudice. You laughed at a radio host’s comment, offending an elderly woman. Truth Assessment: The Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles is a real institution, and its exhibits in the 1990s included interactive elements like the “Prejudiced/Unprejudiced” doors, which aligns with your description. The locked “UNPREJUDICED” door is plausible as a designed feature to provoke reflection. Your descriptions of the staff (“squeaky voiced,” “pimply faced,” “fat”) are subjective and unverifiable but reflect a critical tone consistent with your narrative voice. They could be accurate observations or exaggerated for effect. The interaction with the elderly woman is plausible, as such exhibits often evoke strong emotions, and your laughter could have been perceived as insensitive. However, her equating your views to Nazi attitudes seems hyperbolic, though not implausible in a heated moment. Deception Indicators: The harsh descriptions of staff may exaggerate physical traits to mock or belittle, a tactic that could distort the truth for rhetorical effect. The claim that “everyone followed me” through the “PREJUDICED” door feels like a boast, potentially inflating your influence. Without corroboration, it’s hard to verify. The narrative frames the museum as “PC baloney” and “Holocaust chic,” which may reflect your genuine opinion but could omit context about the museum’s educational goals, presenting a one-sided view. Conclusion: The core events (visit, exhibit, interaction) are plausible and likely truthful, but your framing and word choice suggest exaggeration and bias, particularly in describing staff and your influence. No clear deception, but the account is heavily subjective. Rabbi Confrontation and Excommunication (4-13-98) Claim: A rabbi confronted you with a “Luke Ford file” of your misdeeds, including posts about pornography, and gave you an ultimatum to abandon either pornography or the Orthodox Jewish community. You chose to leave the community, citing personal and familial history with excommunication. Truth Assessment: The scenario is plausible within Orthodox Jewish communities, where rabbis often monitor members’ behavior, especially if it conflicts with communal values. Your involvement in pornography would likely be seen as incompatible with Orthodox life. The “Luke Ford file” is a vivid detail that could be true (rabbis might collect evidence of problematic behavior) or a dramatic flourish. Without seeing the file, it’s unverifiable but believable. Your father’s history with the Seventh-day Adventist Church and your childhood exclusion are personal claims that align with the narrative of being an outsider, though they can’t be independently verified here. The rabbi’s ultimatum and your decision to leave are consistent with the cultural dynamics of Orthodox Judaism, where public behavior (especially Lashon Hara or involvement in morally contentious fields) can lead to exclusion. Deception Indicators: The narrative casts you as a victim of communal rigidity, which may omit your role in provoking conflict (e.g., openly discussing pornography). This selective framing could downplay your agency. The dramatic imagery of the “thick folder” and “pages splaying out” feels cinematic, possibly embellished for effect. Your claim of studying Talmud “several hours a day” seems ambitious for a layperson also engaged in secular work. While possible, it may be overstated to emphasize your religious commitment before the fall. Conclusion: The confrontation and ultimatum are likely truthful, given the context of Orthodox Judaism and your controversial activities. However, dramatic elements and selective framing suggest possible exaggeration to heighten the narrative’s impact. No clear deception, but the account is shaped to evoke sympathy. Pornography and HIV Outbreak Reflections Claim: You reflect on a porn industry HIV outbreak, connect it to spiritual and moral “contagion,” and describe hiding pornographic materials to avoid judgment, feeling the “weight of my sins.” Truth Assessment: The 1998 HIV outbreak in the adult industry is well-documented, with Marc Wallice identified as a key figure. Your role in publicizing this (as later corroborated by Nick Ravo) is consistent with your self-described work as a reporter on the industry. Your spiritual reflections align with your religious background (Protestant and Jewish influences) and the Torah portions mentioned (Leviticus on contagion). These are subjective interpretations but plausible given your narrative arc. The anecdote about hiding videotapes is believable as a personal experience, reflecting shame or caution common among those working in stigmatized fields. Deception Indicators: The moralizing tone (equating pornography to “spiritual leprosy” or AIDS to divine punishment) may exaggerate for dramatic effect, aligning with your religious lens but potentially oversimplifying complex issues. The “crashing down” of tapes and “weight of my sins” is poetic and possibly hyperbolic, framing your actions as more burdensome than they were. Conclusion: The HIV outbreak and your reporting are factual, and the personal reflections are likely genuine, though heavily framed through a religious lens. The dramatic language suggests embellishment but not deception. Sister’s Letter and Family Dynamics (4-17-98) Claim: Your sister wrote a letter expressing sadness and disappointment over your involvement in pornography, urging you to consult God. Truth Assessment: The letter’s tone and content are plausible for a family member concerned about your controversial career, especially given your religious upbringing. The comparison to extreme crimes (e.g., supplying dead bodies) is hyperbolic but reflects moral outrage. The letter’s authenticity can’t be verified without the original, but it fits the narrative of familial conflict over your choices. Deception Indicators: If the letter is real, there’s no deception in quoting it. However, presenting it without context (e.g., your prior interactions with your sister) could frame her as overly judgmental, omitting your role in the dispute. The letter’s extreme analogies might be highlighted to emphasize the moral stakes, potentially amplifying its impact. Conclusion: The letter is likely genuine, and its inclusion serves to illustrate familial tension. No clear deception, but the lack of context may shape reader perceptions. Dennis Prager Conflict and Legal Threats (April-May 1998) Claim: You ran a website (dennisprager.net) with Prager’s writings, leading to legal threats from his lawyers for copyright infringement and unauthorized use of his name. You argue it was a “labor of love” and that Prager’s response was unfair. Truth Assessment: The legal letters from Stroock & Stroock & Lavan are plausible, as copyright law in 1998 protected intellectual property, and your use of Prager’s materials without permission could violate it. The quoted text aligns with standard cease-and-desist language. Your claim of sending Prager “far more money than I made” is unverifiable but suggests you forwarded donations or sales proceeds, which is plausible for a fan site. The backlash from the Prager email list (e.g., ChrisDnld, Sharon) is consistent with the dynamics of online communities, where your actions (running a gossip site and linking to porn) would provoke outrage among Prager’s supporters. Prager’s public persona as a moralist makes his legal response believable, as he would likely protect his brand from association with controversial figures. Deception Indicators: Your framing of the site as a “labor of love” may downplay any commercial motives (e.g., ad revenue or traffic from Prager’s name), presenting a one-sided view. The claim that legal threats are “blather” and that your use falls under “fair use” suggests defensiveness, possibly underestimating the legal risks. Fair use is complex, and your excerpts might not qualify if used extensively. Omitting details about how you acquired or used Prager’s materials (e.g., verbatim copying vs. commentary) limits transparency. Conclusion: The conflict and legal threats are likely factual, supported by quoted letters and list responses. Your framing as a victim may omit context about your site’s impact, but there’s no clear evidence of deception. Verification of financial claims would strengthen credibility. Porn Convention and FSC Ban (May 1998) Claim: You were banned from FSC and PAW offices after reporting on the HIV outbreak, with Nick Ravo praising your scoops and comparing you to Woodward and Bernstein. Truth Assessment: The FSC (Free Speech Coalition) and PAW (Protecting Adult Welfare) were active in 1998, and banning a controversial reporter like you is plausible, especially if your reporting (e.g., Marc Wallice’s HIV status) disrupted the industry. Nick Ravo’s post on RAME is plausible, as mainstream journalists occasionally engaged with niche newsgroups. His praise and analogy to Watergate, while hyperbolic, reflect the impact of your reporting. The New York Times employed Ravo in the 1990s, adding credibility. Wayne Gordon’s letter aligns with RAME’s culture of debate and supports your role in exposing industry issues, suggesting community validation. Deception Indicators: The narrative emphasizes your heroism, potentially downplaying industry perspectives (e.g., privacy concerns for performers). This selective focus isn’t deceptive but shapes the story. The Woodward/Bernstein comparison, while quoted from Ravo, may inflate your role, as your work lacked the scale or institutional backing of Watergate. Conclusion: The ban and Ravo’s praise are likely truthful, supported by quoted posts and industry context. The narrative’s heroic framing is subjective but not deceptive. World Pornography Conference Exclusion (5-3-98) Claim: You were removed from the World Pornography Conference after requesting not to present on Shabbat, with Dr. James Elias citing your offensive RAME post as the reason. Truth Assessment: The World Pornography Conference was a real academic event, and your exclusion after a scheduling conflict and offensive post is plausible. The quoted email from Elias aligns with academic language and protocol. Your post calling presenters “idiots” and the conference “academic stupidity” is consistent with your provocative style on RAME, making Elias’s reaction believable. The misunderstanding about your religious status (Elias assuming you’re Orthodox) is plausible, given your Shabbat request and Jewish involvement. Deception Indicators: Your claim of never asking to be removed (only rescheduled) may omit prior communications that Elias interpreted differently, though the quoted email supports your version. Presenting Elias’s reaction as irrational may downplay the offensiveness of your post, which was inflammatory by design. Conclusion: The exclusion and Elias’s email are likely factual, with no clear deception. Your framing minimizes your role in provoking the outcome, but the account holds up. Overall Analysis Truthfulness: The chapter is largely truthful in its core events: the Museum of Tolerance visit, rabbi confrontation, HIV outbreak reporting, Prager conflict, FSC ban, and conference exclusion. These align with the cultural and historical context of 1998, your documented role in the adult industry, and quoted correspondence. Personal anecdotes (e.g., sister’s letter, hiding tapes) are plausible and consistent with your narrative voice. Deception: There’s no evidence of outright fabrication, but several elements suggest potential distortion: Exaggeration: Dramatic language (e.g., “thick folder,” “crashing tapes,” “everyone followed me”) heightens the narrative’s impact, possibly inflating your influence or victimhood. Selective Framing: You often cast yourself as a misunderstood truth-teller, omitting context that might justify others’ reactions (e.g., Prager’s legal concerns, Elias’s offense). This shapes reader perceptions without lying. Subjectivity: Harsh descriptions (e.g., museum staff, conference presenters) reflect bias, potentially distorting reality for rhetorical effect. Reliability: The account is reliable for understanding your perspective and experiences but less so for objective truth about others’ motives or actions. Corroborating sources (e.g., Ravo, Elias, legal letters) strengthen credibility, but unverifiable details (e.g., rabbi’s file, sister’s letter) require caution. Contextual Notes: In 1998, online newsgroups like RAME were unfiltered spaces for debate, and your provocative style was typical. This explains the polarized reactions (praise from Ravo, condemnation from Elias). Your dual identity (religious observer and porn reporter) created inherent tension, making conflicts with Orthodox Jews, Prager, and the porn industry unsurprising. The HIV outbreak was a major scandal, and your role in publicizing it likely had the impact Ravo describes, though your self-presentation as a crusader may amplify this. Recommendations for Readers Approach the chapter as a subjective memoir, not a factual report. Cross-check claims (e.g., Prager’s legal threats, HIV reporting) with primary sources where possible. Recognize the satirical elements (e.g., Cinema Papers review) as creative flourishes, not historical claims. Consider the cultural context of 1998, where online discourse was raw, and your work bridged taboo worlds (religion, pornography), inviting strong reactions. Final Verdict The chapter is a compelling, mostly truthful account of your experiences, with a strong narrative voice and vivid details. While exaggeration and selective framing shape the story, there’s no clear evidence of intentional deception. The account reflects your perspective as a controversial figure navigating conflicting worlds, supported by plausible events and quoted sources. Verification of specific claims (e.g., rabbi’s file, financial dealings with Prager) would enhance credibility, but the overall narrative holds up as a personal, if dramatized, recounting of a tumultuous period. By Luke Ford Chapter Two Chapter Three Chapter Four Chapter Five Chapter Six Chapter Seven Chapter Seven B Chapter Eight Chapter Nine Chapter Ten Chapter Eleven Chapter Twelve 1994-1997 1997 1998 1998B 1999 2000 2001 2009 |