Wednesday, April 21, 1999

Fluffers and Lube

Ted asks: "How about providing some of the boring behind the scenes stuff to us neophytes. For example I have heard about fluffers but no one has never really written about a day in the life of a fluffer. Or don't the girls who have sex alot have a hard time getting wet? How is that resolved? Some of these videos they look pretty dry. It must hurt after a while? Do they use lube?"

Luke: "Fluffers are primarily proverbial rather than real. At times, particularly during the Golden Age when porn was a tighter community, adult actresses would help each other out by prepping a man for a scene. If a man can't sustain a hard-on, there's no sex scene. So, to complete a scene and go home, female performers will sometimes blow a guy off camera or otherwise work to excite him.

"Yes, most porn girls require lots of lube. On camera sex for them is not primarily about pleasure, but rather money and attention."

Gene Ross tells Luke: "Be prepared to walk because something's about to bite you in the ass, and it's name ain't karma. I did a tarot reading on you, and you don't have a prayer.

"Your fate is in the stars. He who violates the laws of karma can only expect it to come back at him tenfold — which is merely an amplification of my first statement, otherwise my communication with you is at an end. Don't bother to e-mail me or call."

John writes: First, I read your site very often and find it fascinating. I compare it favorably to mainstream "gossip" sites about entertainment or sports. People who complain about your "journalism" miss the point that almost all journalism about entertainment is puffery, gossip, score settling, etc. You provide a valuable window into the porn industry and, perhaps more importantly, into the psychology of sex in America.

Second, as to libel, you would be under the Sullivan rule, which is the Supreme Court case that defined libel against a public figure as requiring "actual malice" rather than negligence or even recklessness. That case involved a southern sherriff who sued the NY Times. Gene Ross and AVN are clearly "public figures". The standard for libel of public figures is very high and almost never met in this country - Britain is another subject.

The reporting of gossip, especially if it's phrased as "heard that", is generally not going to lead to a successful libel suit because gossip is considered inherently unreliable. It is considered unlikely to have a real effect on a public person's life or reputation and the other choice, which would be not printing all inherently unreliable information, runs contrary to the American system's desire to encourage a marketplace of ideas.

Mainstream media often print unreliable information, including gossip. But their real risks are the publicity resulting from being called to task. And if they are sued, the negative publicity of defense harms their general news credibility. Your risk is the financial cost of defense, but that must be balanced against the cost to the plaintiffs of suing. Usual advice is that it costs a minimum of $25,000 to start a decent lawsuit.

The real cost to plaintiffs would be the exposure of all their embarrassing secrets because they would have to go through all the allegations made through your site. Even if they were able to survive that, the odds that they would be clean enough for a jury to reward them range from slim to
none. The blunt truth is that unclean plaintiffs don't get sympathy.

Third, I suppose the reason I read your site is the way you intertwine your psychological/spiritual journey with your work. I am a Reform Jew, both by birth and by choice. We go to Temple 3 out 4 Fridays - it's fun. You obviously have a lot to deal with given your background.

I don't think many people appreciate that Judaism asks you to be engaged in this world, that Reform Judaism in particular places heavy emphasis on tikkun olam, fixing the world. Your involvement with porn isn't a betrayal of religion at all, if your site is an accurate reflection of what you do. I can honestly say that I've learned a lot by reading what you post. Not all the stuff of course, but then I would say the same thing about the Times. You don't have to be a crusader or a perfect person to do right.

Repeat Offence?

Mike South Busted For Sex With A Camel

Mike South: A libel or slander claim can be proven by showing the following:

1. Publication,

No doubt Luke published said information. Publishing on the internet is
publishing.

3. that is defamatory

Per The American heritage Dictionary:

de·fame
(dí-fäm´) —tr. v.-famed., -fam·ing., -fames.
    1. To attack the good name of by slander or libel.
    2. ARCHAIC. To disgrace.
    [ME defamen < OFr. defamer < Lat. diffamare : dis-, apart + fama,
reputation.]
    de·fam´er n.
Some of what Luke has published does indeed disgrace AVN and/or Gene Ross. But can it be said to "attack the good name of" AVN?

4. that is substantially false

Meaning that it is mostly false. Remember that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. How does one prove the falsehood of statements Luke has made on his site as having come from "a source". All Luke has to do is produce parts of email, phone tapes or whatever and anything he posts as a rumor can be said to be substantially true. IE, it is true that an anonymous source said blah blah.

5. that is published with fault,

Meaning that it is published with error. The plaintiff in such actions bears the burden of proof. Can AVN prove that these are errors? Providing that they can only part of battle is won.

a. if about a matter of public concern,

It is likely that since both parties are public entities, this would indeed
be a matter of public concern.

b. private plaintiff = negligence

Neither party is private but in the event that Gene and AVN were deemed private, could Gene/AVN prove negligence? Possibly so since after being corrected Luke did not remove the offending statements, but the law says that the plaintiff must have offered reasonable proof that the statements were false. What proof has been offered?

c. public plaintiff = actual malice

More likely, Gene/AVN are public plaintiffs. Actual malice means that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended to cause actual harm. Luke could certainly have motive, but motive alone is not enough. Luke must have actually wanted to damage AVN.

6. and that caused damages.

Damages would be the harm done to the plaintiffs "good name".

In other words Luke must have posted false information, must have known it was false and must have posted it with the intent of doing harm to the plaintiff.

Now, who do you think will prevail?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

-The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

From www.biancatrump.com: Mike gives an excellent rundown on First Amendment law as it applies to public figures, but he's off on a couple of points.

The most important one is this: "All Luke has to do is produce parts of e-mails .....and anything he posts as a rumor can be said to be substantially true. IE, it is true that an anonymous source said blah, blah."

No offense, Mike, but unfortunately, that ain't so. The lawyers out there will correct me if I'm wrong -- but as someone who's actually spent a fair amount of time with libel law as a defendant, here's what I know about that.

First, one of the prime statements in libel law is: Truth is the ultimate defense.

But, that applies to the underlying truth of the statements.

Let's says Luke gets an e-mail from Joe Blow, which may be Joe's real name or an anonymous source, about Mike South.

Joe writes: "Hey, Luke, did you know Mike South was arrested for having sex with a rare breed of camel at the Atlanta Zoo. This is the second time in six months that South's been busted in Atlanta. I hear he has a history of arrests for sex with endangered species."

Luke then publishes this on his web site. "According to an e-mail from Joe Blow, Mike South was arrested for having sex with a rare breed of camel at the Atlanta Zoo. This is the second time in six months that South's been busted in Atlanta for sex with endangered species, according to Blow, who says that South has a history of arrests for sex with animals."

Let's say that Mike takes offense at this because he's no camel humper, and because no more Georgia Peaches will sleep with him on camera. His video business is going in the humper, er dumper. And let's say he's never slept with a camel in his life.

He sues Luke. Under Mike's theory, Luke could simply produce the Joe Blow e-mail and say, the statement I published is substantially true because that's what Joe Blow told me. Truth is the ultimate defense.

A judge will say, hold on.

First, they'll look at whether there was a reckless disregard for the truth of the underlying statements, i.e., that Mike's a camel jockey. Did Luke have any reason to believe it was true; and if not, given the salacious nature of the allegations, what reasonable steps did he take to ascertain the truth.

Second, he'll be asked whether Joe Blow was "a reliable source." The law recognizes that journalism gets done under deadline and gives a great deal of liberty. So, if Joe Blow is someone who had dealt with Luke in the past and had provided Luke with material like this in the past that Luke knew to be true, he will get some slack.

Third, he'll be asked who is Joe Blow? Let's say that Joe is the camel keeper at the Atlanta Zoo. He caught Mike in the act and took pictures. He even showed the pictures to Luke, so that Luke knows Mike did the deed. But Joe says, you can never use my name and you can never tell
anyone I took pictures. I'll lose my job. Luke, dedicated journalist that he is, says: You can count on me. I'd never out a source.

So, Luke says: Sorry, your honor, I can assure you that I had every reason to believe Joe, but I can't tell you why and I can't tell you who he is. Here's the e-mail. That's all I can reveal.

The judge will say, No problem, Luke. We have a sheild law here in sunny California, like most states. You don't have to reveal anonymous information that will compromise a source. However, the law can't be both a shield and a sword. If you protect a source, you can't use the information from that anonymous source as a defense. The law, and Mike, has a right to weigh the strength of the source and the material. So, that e-mail from Joe is out as a defense. What other substantiation did you have of these charges before you published them.

If Luke says, well, ah, that was it. I was just republishing information I got from Joe. I'm not saying I know it was true, only that Joe said it was true, he loses.

And here's why. Under the law, everyone who publishes a defamatory statement accepts that statement as their own. In other words, if Luke publishes Joe's statement, it's as if Luke is saying: To the best of my knowledge, I have no doubt that this statement is true. Otherwise, I wouldn't publish it.

Likewise, if Gene Ross were to pick it up, and put on his web site: "Today, Luke F-rd published an e-mail on his web site from Joe Blow that states that Mike South was arrested for having sex with camels." Ross would be responsible for the truth of the allegations. He's not allowed to say under the law that he's simply repeating what was published elsewhere.

The point is to prevent untrue rumors and gossip from ruining peoples' lives. And to prevent people from hiding behind the sheild of anonymity. Even public people have a right to a private life, which is part of the reason some celebrities have prevailed against the tabloids.

Now, let's say Mike prevails at trial. The rest of his analysis is absolutely correct. He can lose for winning because he then has to prove actual damages, i.e., he'll have to produce beautiful women in court who'll say: I was all ready to do a line of videos with Mike, but then I found out he's doin' the nasty with a camel. So, I signed with Max Hardcore instead. Mike'll have to prove that his video sales dropped dramatically after the allegations, and find some way to tie that slump to the allegations.

If he can't prove damages, he could conceivably win the trial, then receive damages of $1.

Even if he's awarded damages, he then has to collect from Luke.

Long and the short of it, libel cases are hard and expensive to win, especially when both the plaintiff and defendant are in a business that most of society prefers not to acknowledge. They're likely to say: A pox on both your houses, you naughty boys.

But it's not enough to just say: Well, what I published is true because I simply posted an e-mail that I received and that's what the e-mail said. Luke still has a responsibility to investigate theallegations
before he publishes them, and as a result of that investigation, he must have a reasonable belief that they're true. "No substantial doubt" at the time of publication is the standard, even with public figures.

Mike South responds: "Well done Bianca, but one thing should be noted...I would have legal redress against Joe Blow for making a knowingly false accusation. Also damages in Libel and slander cases are usually awarded based on circulation...a "net" circulation of $1 per reader would be a helluva judgement."

Fred the Lawyer tells Luke: If you are actually looking into preparing for a litigation battle with Mr. Ross, may I suggest looking at the following:

1) The Nolo Press book on representing yourself in court. (Nolo Press is a gang of renegade lawyers who hate the legal profession, and believe that people can represent themselves in court. I don't recommend doing this, but the Nolo Press book is a good book on legal procedure.)

2) Gilbert's Law Summaries on Torts is a "canned outline." It is written for law students preparing for Exams. You could probably get it at any law school bookstore. It is actually an outline for almost all torts (negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, products liability, trespassing, etc.), but it boils down slander and libel pretty well.

3) You might want to check out the local county law library. (I live in Santa Clara County. There is a county law library that has the references that a lawyer would use. I'm fairly certain Los Angeles County has such a library too.) The major sources you might want to look at is an outline of California Law by Witkin. It is a multi-volume set. You want the volume on Torts. Lawyers swear by it.

4) The county law library will have a full set of legal decisions, e.g. the California Reporter (California Supreme Court Decisions, often abbreviated as CR or simply "Cal"), the California Appellate Reporter (decisions of the California appellate courts, often abbreviated as Cal. App.), the United States Reports (decisions of the United States Supreme Court, often abbreviated as "U.S."), the Federal Reporter (decisions of the Federal Appellate courts, often abreviated as F.2d or F.3d for the second or third set of opinions), and the Federal Supplement (decisions of the U.S. district courts, often abbreviated as FS or F.Supp.). These are multi-hundred volume sets. You would have to know the cite (volume and page number) of a particular decision you were looking for to make any sense of it.

5) If you ever want to know anything about copyright law, the Holy Bible of copyright law is Nimmer on copyrights.

6) Another source for this sort of stuff is "Torts in a Nutshell" and "Intellectual Property Law" in a nutshell. These are law students' outlines, in paperback form, that you could get in any law school book store, and would tell you everything you need to know.

By the way--there are two aspects to any lawsuit: 1) who deserves to win, and 2) who can afford the lawsuit. I don't know how well endowed financially you are, but you might want to think about this.

.........................................................

RJO seeks help: "There's a gorgeous girl at work that I overheard telling her friend that she saw a porno movie the night before and loved it! I finally summoned the courage to ask her out and
surprisingly, I was successful. I always thought that I was a kind of hip and pornwise guy, but now that things become important, I'm not so sure anymore.

"Anyway, here's my question. When I have her on her hands and knees with my condomless cock buried up her ass while slapping her butt as hard as I can, do I push her face under water or just rub her face on the inside of the toilet bowl? I certainly don't want to blow this 'once in a lifetime' opportunity and have her think I'm some kind of weirdo that's trying to drown her, if that's not the deal. I plan on putting a lot of those sexy candles along the edge of the bathtub and, oh yeah, I got some of that stuff that makes the water in the toilet bowl that real cool blue. f---, I love porn." (RAME)

Shaun: I am a college student at ASU, and we touched on porn and the way it's changing in my sociology class today.
Shaun:    My teacher said that the movement was quickly changing to the role of females as directors, do you feel that there is truth to this statement, and do you have any examples or names?
Luke:    Female directors count for nothing, check my subject entry on fem porn.
Shaun:    Thank you. Are the women involved discouraging the name "porno" and trying to get the name used changed to "Erotica"?
Luke:    Yes, almost all porners prefer to call it adult, or erotica. Porno aint for chicks, unless they're on their knees sucking a dick. Tell your teacher that.
Shaun:    Those are basically my questions, I thank you for your time, and I read your site daily, and stand behind your journalism and degree of professionalism.
I'll be sure to relay the message, I tried in front of 400 students this morning, but couldn't find the words, but you've given them to me!

From the Pussycat Gossip Column on www.unchain.com

Meow Meow Porn Sluts, special surprise "interview" this week. I actually got Porn Public Enemy #1, Luke F-rd to sit with me and just get as catty as we want. How's it going Scoop?
Luke F-rd:    Busy, busy.
Pussycat:    Whatcha workin' on that's keeping you so busy?
Luke F-rd:    I just got off the phone with a guy doing a book on Traci Lords. He was plugging me for info. I'm following Rob Black's scandals, and going back through my site to place them in context. Gene Ross and I are in the middle of a war and I need to go through his site today, which is mainly about me.
Pussycat:    ok, well you're just a basic s----stirrer, I kinda like that! I've noticed you're never truly mean to Gene Ross but he's a total bastard to you! Like below the belt stuff...
Luke F-rd:    Rules of decency are important to me even if I don't always live up to them.
Pussycat:    What a paradoxical statement. Before we get into the meat of this stuff, I want to know why we're not dating. You're tall, cute and Australian, pretty much the top 3 things in my book.
Luke F-rd:    My primary concern about Gene Ross is that he is corrupt, on the take, protects bad porners, and possibly misuses his position to hurt innocent people.
Luke F-rd:    We're not dating because you have a boyfriend.
Pussycat:    Do NOT! He just found out I know you so he's probably going to dump me. Will you ask me out then and talk Australian to me? Ah yes, the Gene Ross is corrupt thing. There are so many things in the above statement that we need to talk about. On the take. You've reported that he's on the take from several companies but no one so far can corroborate this. Could this be a case of wishful thinking?
Luke F-rd:    Kendra Jade has stated on the record that she regularly saw Gene Ross, on Fridays, take cash payments from John Bone. My other sources for this simply heard that this was going on but did not witness it.
Pussycat:    But Kendra has decided to stab your cute self in the back. She's denying everything. Maybe it's time to find better sources. I'm going to make it through this conversation without comparing you to that DC Muckraking guy that everyone analogises you too. He broke the Monica scandal. If you want the answers to this story, can't you just work a little harder? Hell, just pay a source! Proof Luke, Proof!
Luke F-rd:    Kendra has never retracted her allegation about Ross taking bribes. She has apologized to Gene because she was forced to by her boss John Bone.
Luke F-rd:    I don't plan to work harder. I work hard enough on this crap.
Pussycat:    Oooh, good one. I want to get back to this later because I can sense your intensity right now. I like Happy Luke. Which porn star would you want to bang on your door to have sex with you right now?
Luke F-rd:    Allison Kilgore.
Pussycat:    Right! You mentioned her to me before that you think she's a total hottie. Can you send us a pic so we can put it up here? Maybe we'll do some doctoring and make you two do the Internet Mambo. OK, which porn star do you like TALKING to without the lust getting in the way?
Luke F-rd:    You can steal a pic off my site, from 4/10 update.
Pussycat:    OK, which porn star do you like TALKING to without the lust getting in the way?
Luke F-rd:    I can't think of one that I enjoy talking to, that I don't also lust after.
Pussycat:    The Total Package! I have to put you in a better mood. Every interview I've read/heard with you is so BORING! We need to get something going here baby! I'm going to ask you the same hilarious question that's asked of everyone in the biz. What's your favorite sex position? :-)
Luke F-rd:    Missionary.
Pussycat:    Close contact, face to face, total intimacy, is that it?
Luke F-rd:    Yes, easy to thrust, and get off quickly. I don't last long. If sex goes more than a minute, I can't come.
Pussycat:    In the infamous words of Luke F-rd, hmmm. I'm actually speechless.
Luke F-rd:    And I love to f--- women up the ass, doggie style.
Pussycat:    Now THAT'S what we want to hear. That rocks doesn't it. Let me have Allison's number and I'll see what I can do. I've been pretty good about making porn stars like you, right?
Luke F-rd:    Yes, Allison is with my buddy Regan Senter. He says that she'd like to do a scene with me.
Also, I have not found Jewish women to be sexually cold.
Pussycat:    Well we're not! We just are used to dating men that would rather make love to their golf clubs than their hot Jewish women.
Luke F-rd:    And how about sending Tina Tyler over to my hovel to suck my cock?
Pussycat:    She'd love it! She's the coolest isn't she? Can she put it in Tina Tyler's Favorite Gossip Columnists movie? I'll make sure she blows you before Gene.
Luke F-rd:    No, I need privacy.
Luke F-rd:    Only once in my life have I ejaculated into a woman's mouth, so I need to work on that immediately.
Luke F-rd:    They say I have a hard-on for porn. It's true. So send Tina over to soothe my angst.
Pussycat:    I'll see what I can do. Now, what the hell does Gene "have" on you? I know you pretty well and I can't imagine what this bulls--- is about.
Pussycat:    I think if you fessed up, you'd blow a big fat hole in his day.
Luke F-rd:    Gene has discovered two things: That I am chronic wanker and that I launder money for the mob.
Pussycat:    Oh my god, you masturbate! A lot!?
Luke F-rd:    3-7 a week, down from 7-15 times a week at age 17.
Luke F-rd:    Variability depends on if I've received a new shipment of Private movies that week.
Pussycat:    Oooh, that's something we can write a whole day's worth of gossip about! Someone who watches porn and masturbates! No wonder you're worried.
Pussycat:    So where does the money laundering come in, I guess you were standing out at the lunch truck on the wrong day?
Luke F-rd:    Yes, I've doubled my therapy. Now two 90-minute sessions a week.
Luke F-rd:    Yes
Luke F-rd:    Rob Spallone arranged my laundering gig as a way for me to eke out a living.
Luke F-rd:    Though I maintain two swank residences in prime LA neighborhoods, one on Beverly Drive and one off La Cienega Blvd.
Pussycat:    Well, now we've just scooped Gene, how 'bout that! Any other skeletons you want to get out so your adoring public won't be shocked when Gene spills the beans?
Pussycat:    Oh that's right, I've been to the LaCienega home but you've yet to tour me on the Beverly Hills cottage.
Luke F-rd:    I'm sometimes jealous, petty, vindictive, unethical, smelly, callous, cruel and schmucky.
Pussycat:    No s---? God, I must love the underdog (or make that undercat) because I know all of that and I love you anyway! But you don't actually smell that bad.
Pussycat:    Let's talk about the difference betweeen what AVN's loose lips - now morphed into www.geneross.com - and what you do...
Luke F-rd:    Gene is more of a conventional trade journalist and I am plain whacky.
Pussycat:    I think that phrase journalist has been thrown around just a little too loosely in this business. Shall we say writer?
Luke F-rd:    He's more industry friendly. He depends on the resources of AVN and I depend on RAME and my readers.
Luke F-rd:    Let's say writer, "journalist" is a pretentious term.
Pussycat:    You are whacky! That's why it amazes me that people take you so seriously. Like the AVN people combined must spend 16 hours a day worrying about you.
Luke F-rd:    Many people take me seriously because, despite my bizarre rants, my site is deadly serious. It's the greatest collection of information ever assembled about this industry.
Pussycat:    One misconception that most people (usually the offended parties) have of you is that you write the "accusing blurbs" yourself. If you look on the site, there's actually very little of your personal commentary. These "We Hate Luke F-rd" people generally skim through your site looking for their names. What you're actually printing up there are emails and recorded phone calls from "insiders". Anybody that's pissed at you should really be going to the friends they confided in, no?
Pussycat:    There are a lot of big mouths in the biz and if you get secrets, it's because someone betrayed those secrets.
Luke F-rd:    I've rarely explicitly offered my opinions, though I am doing so more often lately.
Luke F-rd:    I agree with you and would add this: I still must take moral responsibility for what I publish. I don't publish everything given to me, but I give that impression.
Pussycat:    My favorite phrase lately is "did you see what Luke wrote about me?" Read between the lines Offended Party, you'll see that your rat bastard closest friends have Luke's address button at their fingertips.
Luke F-rd:    Yes.
Pussycat:    Moral responsibility. So now you agree that putting real names up was "stupid", you won't talk about breakups (that could keep you busy for a day). So what's out of your "moral spectrum"?
Luke F-rd:    I don't agree about real names. I am ambivalent. Break-ups are generally out.
Pussycat:    Why?
Luke F-rd:    Too personal.
Luke F-rd:    Unless they do it loudly.
Luke F-rd:    Anything that directly impinges on the business is fair game.
Pussycat:    I don't think there is such thing as a peaceful breakup in the biz. No, actually I know one. But they're over 30, so they're grownups. Do you consider the Don/Tabitha Stevens breakup loud? Is that why you covered it?
Luke F-rd:    Yes, it was loud.
Luke F-rd:    I've generally ignored Chuck Martino - Shay Sweet's break-ups for instance, and I avoided reporting on a porn star recently married who lost her baby in her ninth month of pregnancy.
Luke F-rd:    Tabitha became news because she's been so widely linked, including by Don, to escorting.
Pussycat:    Good for you on the baby thing. Although the Chuck/Shay thing is a constant source of news. It's always happening. There's still something in that infamous Gene Ross bio about Florida. Let's get that out of the way. Again, I know you and it can't be THAT horrible.
Luke F-rd:    You're welcome to ask but I can't comment.
Pussycat:    Is this going to screw you if it comes out? Shall I get Al Kikuras, Piston Rod (my editors) and Black Dog to protect you? We actually have a cop that writes for our site!
Luke F-rd:    I'll be fine.
Pussycat:    Now I'm worried. There WAS something that went down with Leonarto Augusto (and PS Gene, Israeli's can occasionally be transplanted Europeans, you bigot) in Orlando!
Luke F-rd:    I can't comment or I might get my legs broken.
Pussycat:    s---! That's truly scary. Back to sex. Let's see how well I know you. Your ultimate fantasy is to have Allison Kilgore blow you till you almost cum, then f--- her up the ass, all while on the 50-yard line of Cowboy Stadium, right after the Cowboys won the NFC playoffs on the day your book goes #1 on the NY Times Best Seller charts....
Luke F-rd:    and I get to heaven.
Pussycat:    Oh but I forgot to add that you find out her real name is Jill Klein and she goes to shul every Friday night.
Luke F-rd:    I'd like to be the Messiah and usher in world peace.
Pussycat:    Um, but you weren't born a Jew....
Pussycat:    What about Porn Peace?
Luke F-rd:    But I don't want to die on a cross for your sins.
Pussycat:    Ugh, who does. Did you ever notice that all the people we interview on Unchain all like you? Jim DiGiorgio, Tina Tyler...People who hate you are like the Moral Majority, I think. They're actually a Minority with big mouths spewing what all the Christians are supposed to think. Like Jim, Tina and I like you quite well but we don't go shouting it from the rooftops but we know it well enough.
Pussycat:    Kitty has said it before and she'll say it again. You are good for the business. Mr. DiGiorgio actually got me going on that theory. Luke, you have single handedly received more press than ANYONE else in the business including those "Who Cares Vivid Girls". They're just porn babes, you're actually interesting. What do you want to do next to freak these porn people out? The Marc Wallice thing is a hard act to follow.
Luke F-rd:    I want to refine my ethics rankings and expose scumbags.
Luke F-rd:    I don't think Gene and I will stay be in business in three months. One of us will go, and I don't think it will be me.
Pussycat:    Why? You've made him immensely popular. Don't you think if you ignore his rantings on your site completely, he'll shut up?
Pussycat:    It's clear the fans on RAME on on your side.
Pussycat:    Major AVN backlash goin' on there....
Luke F-rd:    Too many people have told me the man is corrupt. Thus, I think he is worthy of investigation. In the end, I believe the truth will win out.
Pussycat:    Why can't any of these people profer some PROOF!!!!!????
Luke F-rd:    I think the primary reason that AVN gets lousy press from fans and on the internet is that it lacks humility. It gives off the attitude - We really know what is going on, and we don't have much to learn from you.
Luke F-rd:    I know a company owner who could end Gene's AVN career today but he doesn't want to get involved. He doesn't want AVN publisher Paul Fishbein to hate him.
Pussycat:    Great point! It's become pretty much, "who's ass can we kiss this month?" Ah but there's someone else out there who may be corrupt but I know you won't touch him. Why not?
Pussycat:    Ooh, same person!...
Luke F-rd:    There are lots of persons out there who are corrupt. I only have so much energy, and also I protect a few of my sources.
Pussycat:    Not so different from the government. They'd rather have the info then send the guy to jail without him singing.
Luke F-rd:    Yes.
Luke F-rd:    I want justice. If I have unfairly maligned Gene, if all my sources are BS, then I will walk away from porn journalism, I will be so humiliated and wrong.
Pussycat:    That's an amazing credo. You mean it too, I can tell by your tone of voice. This has, by far, been so much more interesting than listening to you on LA Talk Show Conway and Steckler. I went in early at the Stones concert to see Bryan Adams rather than finishing listening to that. The LA New Times article was fun too but this has been a total riot. Your fans are going to love you even more. And you know who is going to HATE you even more. Will you come back and talk to me next month when this has developed some more?
Luke F-rd:    Sure, you're welcome.
Pussycat:    Say something sexy and Australian to me before you go...
Luke F-rd:    You be one spunky sheila!
Pussycat:    Purrfect. I'm melting. I'm going to go watch all my Australian movies now and wish I was Allison Kilgore. Thanks Luke!