|
Purpose "The lofty, if largely unspoken goals of l-keford.com are first and foremost to unify communication among all the branches of the sex industry--i.e.,porn, dancing, and prostitution--under one domain name, and simultaneously, as a part of this world-changing process, to pioneer the link between modern science and the porn industry." (Dudley Moore) The primary purpose of this web site is to write truthfully about porn. I interview people and compare what they say with other sources of information (such as my own observations, magazines, newspapers, the internet, etc). I am similar to Larry King or other talk show hosts who allow their guests to speak and do not constantly interrupt and challenge and fact check them. And at times, I interject my own opinions. People usually speak in their self interest and frequently at the expense of their rivals. It may take me days to get around to talking to other sources, and I may never be able to if they won’t talk to me. That I have easier and friendlier access to certain persons (Reb Sawitz or Russ Hampshire or John Bone), means that I present their perspective more frequently and accurately than that of their competitors. Sometimes I swallow stories for the sake of my own survival or to not destroy a source or to save a friend. I like some people in the industry more than others and that will come across. I give priority to big news and breaking news and I do not necessarily wait to get the full picture before I publish anything. The breaking news front page of my site and other such fast updates are likely to be the least accurate part of my writing. Thus, it is useful to divide my sites in two - there is the breaking news segment of the daily updates, where information is gossipy, satirical, frequently inaccurate and generally resembles a soap opera, and then there is the more considered historical sections of profiles and subject analysis. I seek news that is compelling. Usually big news is bad news such as the industry’s HIV cases and suicides. I never publish anything I know to be false unless I am quoting somebody. For instance, I will let porn stars say they do not prostitute themselves on the side when I know they do. Sometimes I will insert the truth in brackets and sometimes I will not. Whenever I find I have made a mistake, I correct the error. If it is a big one, I do it more quickly and loudly. Sometimes I subordinate truth to other concerns such as decency. I prefer to print porners real names, but if they strongly object, I usually won’t. I penetrate the private lives of porners to the extent they don’t mind or to the extent that their private lives impinge on their work (such as showing up to a set intoxicated). Sometimes, when I quote people, I will correct the grammar of my subjects and reorganize their statements to create greater clarity. Sometimes I won’t. Frequently I will diminish profanity and over-the-top remarks. I am more interested in conveying information than in writing elegantly. This site is not the last word on porn and does not seek to be. I rarely review porn. I find the people in the industry more interesting than the product. I don’t give a damn about the profits of pornographers. I don’t care about industry unity. I don’t believe porn transforms the world for the good. I think porn is a vice like smoking and drinking, and that in the hands of disciplined morally responsible adults it usually does not do great harm. My feelings about porn change though my thinking remains fairly constant. Thus, on some days I loathe porn and on other days I enjoy porn, but on all days my values tell me that porn is profane (as am I at times). I am proud of some of my writing on porn. I am thoroughly ashamed of other things I’ve written, such as incorrect information about various folks’ health. I am ambivalent about much of what I publish, such as the outrageous remarks of industry loudmouths. I don't like using anonymous sources but do frequently out of necessity. A big weakness of this site is that I have not always quoted my sources, such as magazines and newspapers. If you see quotes or information or perspectives that you believe comes from an identifiable source, please let me know. In an unusually exuberant moment in March, 1999, Luke described the Free Speech Coalition board as dominated by pansies. AVN publisher Paul Fishbein replies: "Number 1- Until you are involved
with Free Speech, you cannot criticize it from afar. The people on the
board work extremely hard and get little support from the industry. Guys
like Margold dedicate their lives to it just because they believe in the
issues. It's hard when so few people care but I think they do a very admirable
job in an industry that doesn't care about, or even understand, the issues
that affect their lives. Though Russell and I left, Steve Hirsch and Steve
Orenstein have been added. Luke F-rd replies: Unlike you, Paul, I don't share the FSC agenda. I'm not even a First Amendment absolutist. I worship God, I don't worship free speech. I regard free speech as one of many important values. I don't regard pornography as a form of speech protected by the First Amendment and I don't see the Free Speech Coalition spending much time or resources on genuine matters of free speech. The "Free Speech Coalition" is a misnomer. It is more correctly "The Big Pornographers Profits Coalition." To the extent that Luke cares about pornographers' profits, he wishes that they would diminish. If Republicans came into power and swept the big porners into prison for polluting souls, Luke suspects that he would not lose much sleep. Much of the time that I write on the FSC, I simply poke fun. And sometimes I write objectively. And sometimes I mix the two techniques together. How can the reader tell when I'm journalistic versus satirical? The reader will have to think. Sorry. Those who expect the "News Updates" on my site to be journalistically sound will be keenly disappointed. It might be more helpful to view my front page as a talkshow which contains news, commentary and rants. The fun comes from distinguishing which is which. Luke not only feels free to write what he thinks on his own goddam site, he also feels free to write what he feels. If I feel like calling the FSC or AVN a pansy organization, I will sometimes do so without worrying if it is empirically true or journalistically sound. Much of Luke's site says considerably more about Luke than about porn. When I call FSCers pansies, I'm probably just projecting my own neurosies, fears and prejudices. Fine. On this site about porn, Luke F-rd stands naked before you, in his smelly, jealous, petty insecure essence. I do draw limits to what I put on this site. For instance, in December of last year I told you that I'd no longer run anonymous accusations about people's private lives. I've stuck to that. In fact, www.geneross.com has run several stories about break-ups, health problems and other matters of porner's private lives that I knew about but refused to run because I thought such stories too invasive (not that I haven't often run such stuff in the past and may do so, at times, again). 6/28/00 Montdlaw writes: Here is your primer. Mr. Ford is totally enamored of himself. Not his physical self, or even his mental self, but his intellectual self. The site is a hymn to his need for fulfillment. It allows him to feel intellectually superior to almost everyone he comes in contact with. Here are some things you should know -- if you want to get the joke: 1) Mr., Ford will print anything. Including, rumor, innuendo, women and men verbally humiliating themselves, fatherly advise from mentors, insults, the self destruction of Buck Adams, desperate pleas from his concerned family and the results of his neurological exam. He even publishes correspondence from people who consider themselves his personal friends. Poor suckers who preface their e-mails with "Don't print this . . . " Lynne replies: As one of those poor suckers (Oh, how I wish...), I have gotten used to being exposed on the site in a less than positive light. The secret is to try to live the best life possible, so as not to have superfluous embarrassment in it, and to recognize that, as an editor, Luke is a true sociopath. He really has no idea as to how his behavior will be perceived and is as astounded by the reactions to what he posts as we are to the idea that he would post it at all. Mr. Ford has had thirty-four years to make a laughingstock of himself, tending to forget that others don't have that practice, one reason why he sometimes thinks things are funny which the rest of us do not. 2) Mr. Ford will frequently apologize. This is lip service in the traditional sense. Lynne: I have seen that rare and endangered species, a contrite Luke. He is so pretty when he's vulnerable, the huge eyes and quivering lips... 3) Mr. Ford's Judaism while sincere, pretty much shows why Orthodox Jews are not seeking converts. 4) Mr. Ford's quest for the perfect Jewish bride is largely an affectation. He knows the orthodox woman he seeks wouldn't consent to sit in the same room with him, let alone marry him. Lynne: I remember NJG and I trying hard not to burst out laughing when you went through your "I need a date" routine at that lecture, Luke. But this fills my heart with joy... People ask me how I can stand reading about your dating which, as you know, I find difficult to do because it inflames my heart with jealousy. It is the knowledge that you will only pursue women who don't want you that keeps my heart from breaking on a regular basis. 5) Self destructive women find Mr. Ford very attractive. 6) Mr. Ford does not take any of this too seriously, nor should you. |