Hi folks, I'm new here. My nom de porn is Jack Point. I am the former CFO and Business Editor of AVN. I also wrote reviews for a number of years for AVN under the name Rich C. Leather. I'd like to think I could make some worthwhile contributions to these forums. But a knee-jerk defense of Luke Ford is hardly an auspicious augury of a free forum. While a source for the story was not specifically cited, the fact that Ford taped a conversation involving someone from AVN and resigned because that story was removed by the owner of his website on request of AVN is public knowledge. The story is on AVN.com, and Ford, in his last broadside, commented further on adultbeat.com. Before labeling a recounting of facts and interpretations of facts as a personal attack, it might behoove a moderator to check a fact or two before locking a thread. If the moderator had done so, that person would have found that the post was accurate as to the facts stated. Whether or not Ford taping the conversation in question is in fact illegal is an issue open to interpretation; what is not open to interpretation is that the owner of the adultbeat.com site that Ford posts on (and whom I presume paid him) agreed that at the very least there was sufficient impropriety involved to warrant pulling the story from the site. This decision apparently prompted Ford's resignation and final posting, although it remains to be seen if that is a publicity stunt, a temporary reaction, or what have you. NO competent authority has concluded that there has been any illegality - and the post that was locked did not say that. In conclusion, the post cited facts, did not cite a source, but the source could be found in seconds by clicking on any one of several links provided by this website to the source websites, and the post also offered one opinion - that if in fact this was the end of Luke Ford, he thinks "Good riddance." If that last mild and modest opinion - with which I would wholeheartedly agree - is enough to get you censored here, well, then, I may have spent my first and my last day at adultdvdtalk.
Ford's disdain for everyone and everything in the Adult Business is well documented. Though I also concur with the "good riddance" sentiment, unfortunately Ford will be back somewhere else within no time at all. He has the survival instincts of a cock roach and with about as much journalistic integrity.
Welcome JP, but as was pointed out previously to the other poster, a quick read of the forum etiquette would go over how issues concerning moderation should be addressed.
Generally they don't like beefs from other sites being dragged in here, although I have to admit that I'm intrigued. :)
DB
Somewhere wondering "What did Luke record that has AVN so worked up?"
I'll also add that some of us have been posting here for years (4 years, in my case), so folks who blow in one day and then feel justified to criticize policies and a community they don't understand (especially when they are plainly spelled out), tend to get an abrupt reception.
In this particular case, it wasn't a "knee-jerk" defense but three long-standing policies of this site: don't make personal attacks, don't post uncredited or unsubstantiated information, and don't bring disputes from other sites to this one.
your question should be, "what has AVN ever done that has had ford so worked up for the past several years?"
quote] dumblonde wrote: Welcome JP, but as was pointed out previously to the other poster, a quick read of the forum etiquette would go over how issues concerning moderation should be addressed.
Generally they don't like beefs from other sites being dragged in here, although I have to admit that I'm intrigued. :)
DB
Somewhere wondering "What did Luke record that has AVN so worked up?"
I've been here for quite a while. And sometimes threads are locked or moved for little or no reason. I sometimes get the impression that the mods here do this just to exercise their authority and not for the betterment of the board.
[Link]
pornismyreligion Deactivated User
3 Posts 4/04
Posted - Apr 23 2004 : 8:23PM
hmmm...would the "no personal attacks" policy also apply to say, John Ashcroft, whose disdain for the adult industry is dwarfed by Ford's? if I trashed Ashcroft, would that post also be locked? just curious...
That paints things with a pretty broad brush. How often is "sometimes?" What is "for the betterment" of the board? If some had their way, this place would be a free-for-all and I guarantee that it would be a fundamentally different community.
I'm not saying that the mods are never wrong (I've made my share of bad calls). But it's definitely the case that most of the time decisions are absolutely based on defendable policies.
I challenge you or anyone else to point me to an adult board of this size that is not actively moderated (i.e. humans who make judgement calls on what is acceptable and what is not) or subscription based. I don't think another one exists.
Pornismyreligion, since your new check out the Forum Etiquette page and it should answer all your questions about what is and isn't allowed here at ADT.
Hiya Mike how's it going? Looking at the self-righteous moderator bullshit, is this place worth the trouble? Or should I ship out now and save my sanity?
If you've got concerns about the way the volunteer moderators are exercising judgment please feel free to write to me or Steph. drew@adultdvdtalk.com or webmaster@adultdvdtalk.com
Probably -- because there have been about 373 similar posts already, and it gets boring in a "preaching to the choir" kind of way. If you have some breaking news or lively fun satirical theorizing to offer on Ashcroft, well that would be different. But people just spouting opinions gets so dull.
I don't know what to say. ::shrug:: It's not the subject I had issue with, it's the first-post-out-of-the-gate "scumbag" calling "stupid people" generalizing, venomous attitude of the thread that I thought clearly broke the rules of the forum etiquette. And beyond that, no, there was no citing of sources, and he as good as accused Luke of illegal activity, which you yourself admit has not been proven. I didn't want the thread to develop like that, so I stopped it there.
As always, Drew, Steph, or Saki are welcome to override me--maybe I made a mistake. That's their right, and it's my privilege to stand behind them, but until that happens, I stand by my decision. If you guys don't like the forum etiquette... then don't post here. There are lots of other places to go.
I'm sorry you think it's "self-righteous moderator bullshit". That makes me sad, but well, the best way I can say it is that the ADT forum is a community first , and a debate platform second. For that reason the attitude of people's posts is at least as important as what they have to say. If you don't get that, or don't care about it... just don't post here. It's your choice. To tell you the truth, given your apparent predisposition against us, and your unwillingness to take a minute to understand our community before you question our motives or legitimacy, I don't really care who you are, who you've worked for, or what you eventually decide.
I really don't want to make an enemy, and you're welcome to stay if you like. The point I'm trying to make, I suppose is that ADT just might not be for you.
In the meantime, there's the subject of Luke Ford on the table for those who are interested in discussing what's going on...
Very well put MLyons, and I would have locked the thread well.
JP, I'm sure that you have plenty which you could add here to make Adult DVD Talk a better place. I know that many others in the industry have. If you want to do so, then great. If you want to just come in and whine about being picked on then this probably isn't going to be the right place for you.
FWIW, the thread in question wasn't censored. What was said was said. It did get closed, and there was good reason for it right down to saying how it could have been done to continue, which I don't think would have really changed the thread or what it was about.
For a tactless analogy (as they seem to get the point across more clearly), it's like you're driving down the road in a motorhome and one of the other passengers starts to take a shit in the passenger seat. One of the friends of the owner of the motorhome stops the person from shitting on the passenger seat while pointing to the bathroom and telling them that if they want to stay in the motorhome they better figure out how to use the toilet in the bathroom or they're going to get left beside the road. Your point here seems to be that the person is being told that they can't go to the bathroom and wondering if you really want to ride in that vehicle. Your answer to that dilemna is probably the same answer to whether or not you should stay here.
When man invented fire, he didn’t say, 'hey, let’s cook', he said, 'great, now we can see naked bottoms in the dark.' - Coupling
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Apr 24 2004 : 12:19AM
California Penal Code section 632:Does Scott Ross deny that he was aware that Rob Spallone was using a speakerphone? Does Scott Ross deny that he was advised that there was a documentary crew in the room with Spallone while the converation was taking place? Does Scott Ross deny that he was aware that there were other people in the room, listening to his voice coming out of Spallone's speakerphone and occasionally shouting out questions of their own to Ross? Does Scott Ross seriously contend that he had an expectation that no one was in a position to overhear or record his comments to Spallone?
If the answer to all of these questions is "no," then kindly explain how it is "open to interpretation" whether Ford's actions were illegal.
Btw, I like reading Luke Ford. But I don't believe a lot of what I read, and who wouldn't know that he's a loose talker? Seems obvious to me. Kinda like Matt Drudge.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the legality of Luke Ford taping Scott Ross' conversation with Rob Spallone, et al.
As you your self quoted from the California Penal code:
Scott Ross did not know that Luke Ford was recording the conversation! To paraphrase the original Adultbeat article Luke Ford (under his pseudonym Duke Floored) wrote something to the effect that he "Quietly slipped his tape recorder up to the speakerphone".
This was a "confidential communication" and "all parties" - more specifically Scott Ross - did not give consent to being recorded. As a matter of fact, Scott Ross did affirmatively indicate during said conversation that he desired it to be confined to the parties thereto. This was NOT a 'public gathering' and although there may have been a documentary crew in the office, Mr Ross clearly express his wish (more than once) that he did not want his communication to be overheard or recorded - specifically by Luke Ford - and was assured it wouldn't be!
I just went to the adultbeat.com website, and found myself quoted numerous times by Duke Floored, from posts I made here on ADT about Sharon Mitchell and her educational background; other people who posted in the same thread were also quoted. I meant those posts I made to stay here on ADT, and I certainly didn't want them to end up on a porn gossip site, those kinds of places aren't my kind of thing. Yeah, Duke Floored didn't get my permission to repeat that information (especially about my education), though the Internet being the Internet, he most likely didn't have to. I certainly was not doing any sort of expose of Mitchell, just wanted to discuss this issue with others here on ADT. This has got me curious about how many other times I've been quoted on the gossip sites (I rarely read them), since even I'll admit I say some provocative stuff here.
C'est la vie.....
Disclaimer to porn gossipers: If you write for one of these sites, and you quote me, I will seek appropriate legal advice, and pursue you to the fullest extent that the law allows. Consider yourselves forewarned!
You're not the only one. I've had material that I've written and own the copyright on (mostly from my website) quoted, snipped, and discussed (usually by people who hate me for whatever reason) on more than one occasion, and on more than one website without my permission. I rarely read anything other than ADT myself, so there might be more instances that I don't know about. Then there is the guy that uses my internet name on other sites... ::sigh::
I figure there's really not much I can do about either, so I try not to worry about it too much. ::shrug:: The alternative is to shut myself up like a hermit and not even have a presence on the internet, but what fun is that?
Oh, and in a flimsy attempt to stay on topic. As far as the Luke Ford, AVN, Scott Ross, Rob Spallone thing... I just can't for the life of me figure out why I should care about any of it? But that's just me, I guess. :)
Rob Spallone is the son of Joe Spallone who was afilliated with Howie Wasserman who owned Gourmet Video who were big players back in the 80's. Does that make sense? Anyway, like most of the old timers who left once prosperous companies to their offspring, they went out of business in a big hurry. Rob Spallone is now a producer of such videos as the "Sopornos" series for VCA. He's a New York Italian Mafia stereotype who loves any attention directed his way. Though I have personal affection for him, I always shudder when he delivers soundbites to the mainstream press. As for his beef with Adult Industry Medicine, near as I can figure, Rob opened a competing clinic years ago that went belly up largely due to pressure from the industry to use A.I.M for testing instead of his clinic. Though I agree with him that one clinic shouldn't have a monopoly on the industry's business, the convenience and relative comfort that the industry at large had with A.I.M was a welcome occurrence and still is. Sharon Mitchell, despite any and all real or imagined shortcomings, is a real hero in an industry with very few. That's just my opinion of course.
On a related note, Rob's father Joe was the first guy to ever trust me with money to make a movie of my own and for that I will be forever in his debt. Alex Ladd and I partnered up to make "Cheating Hearts" in 1993. Hopefully it's now out of print :) We were both a little green to say the least.
Quaze
P.S. A bit of trivia. The video warehouse featured at the end of "Boogie Nights" where we find Burt Reynolds lamenting the old days is in fact the old Gourmet Video building and the scene between Reynolds character and the "Colonel" in the prison was shot on their old soundstage which used to be known as "Starworld"
I'm glad someone sticks up for Sharon Mitchell, although I could never get turned on by her porn. She's got a worthwhile career in her porn afterlife - how rare is that?
I guess that's why I can't see this as anything other than sour grapes over business deals gone bad. What else could explain the obsession/crusade that's been going on for years and the animosity in return? It's just gone from flamewars to flamethrowers now.
I suppose, as an outsider, I could say that it's silly and petty, but I know that when you're in the middle this and it's your career, what seems childish to outsiders is deadly serious.
All I can say is that there is little point hashing it out here. Those who hate or love Luke Ford are not going to change their mind through debate. If any of the allegations that he's made are true, then those responsible are not going to stand up and say "yeah, I did it" based on a few posts on some message board.
What it does accomplish is make the industry look bad. Hell, I suspect that it *is* bad, but I still don't like to see it go down this way, since there are a few genuinely good people on the inside who get painted with that same brush.
Right, all you drug-addicted, STD-carrying, homosexual, Mafiosos who trick on the side?
I find that when I take myself and my earthly concerns too seriously my equilibrium gets all sideways and I expect too much from others and most of all from my self. So I take a deep breath and look at things from a little different prospective. First you are wanted and welcome here on our forum the knowledge and experience that you have is far beyond what most of us possess and is as invaluable, as much so as is the knowledge of Mr. Ford. We have much to learn from both of you, Let us be able to disagree passionately but civilly with one another and not stand so much on principal but in the spirit of advancing the conversation. In the heat of a passion things often become distorted and sometimes we must regroup our thoughts and be somewhat less seriously and move on to the crux of the thing in the spirit that our passion is of the same persuasion.
I've seen Rob Spallone on Comedy Central's The Daily News Show, about 2-3 weeks ago. He has dark curly hair, and speaks with a urban Italian-type accent, right? The show did this funny segment that showed Spallone having some kind of dispute with another porn director. The other one (he had brown hair and a mustache, I can't remember his name) at least came off as a reasonable person. Spallone looked like he wanted to eliminate the other director off the face of the earth, all because of some disagreement about the "artistic direction" that the Sopornos series should be focused on. It was a riot.
Back to Luke Ford, I remember reading on AVN.com about a week ago that people on the porn gossip sites were discussing details of Mitchell's educational background. I thought to myself, "I ought to go check them out, maybe someone in California is looking into this subject, knows way more than I do about this." Little did I suspect that it was my own ADT posts that were being circulated on one of the bigger sites, by Luke Ford himself.
P.S. And I made the stupid mistake of listing where I got my Ph.D, and in what field. If my graduate professor, a real family man, even knew this info was circulating around adult sites, he'd be mortified. My apologies to you, Dr. M.
The Daily Show piece was quite funny and covered Jimmy D's (the guy with brown hair and mustache) involvement in producing a public service commercial. He helped the XXX Church make the commercial. Some people in porn valley chastised Jimmy D for getting involved while others praised him. You can read about it in the archives at simplyjimmyd.com and there's some stuff about it in the archives on Carly's site at PornBlography.
I used to post here with my full name. After Luke circulated a few of my posts, I figured that it would be a good idea to ask Steph to modify my screen name so that it just contained my first name.
At least they guy credits and links to the sites from which he gets his material. As far as the legality of it is concerned, I guess it's no different than when one of us takes excerpts from a newspaper or AVN.com and quotes them here. It would be hypocritical of us to complain about something that most of us have done ourselves (legally).
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Apr 25 2004 : 12:38PM
First, I did not get from the Ford article that Ross made any kind of statement that indicated that he had a generalized wish that his comments not be overheard or recorded by anyone. Ford's article indicates that Ross said that he didn't want his comments to be published on Ford's website, adultbeat.com. This is not a broad request for confidentiality; it's simply one journalist attempting to prevent another journalist, viewed as a rival and/or enemy, from getting a scoop.
Second, the state supreme court ruled that the standard for confidentiality under the statute is not whether the party has an objectively reasonable expectation that the content of the conversation will not later be divulged to third parties, but rather whether the party has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded. Hence, while it may have been objectively reasonable for Ross to expect that his comments would not be divulged to Ford (based on his request and Spallone's apparent assent to it), he cannot rely on this expectation to prove that he intended the conversation to be "confidential," for purposes of the statute. If you are on the telephone with someone, and you know the guy on the other end is on a speakerphone, and the guy tells you "there's a documentary crew here filming me," and you go ahead and talk to the guy without requesting that he take you off the speakerphone or kick the crew out of the room, it is not objectivly reasonable for you to expect that your conversation is not being overheard or recorded. Observing and recording things is what documentary film crews do.
You can certainly argue that what Ford and Spallone did was underhanded or dishonorable, but that's a different issue.
As I noted at the start of this string, the original post in the thread that was locked did not assert any conclusion about the legality of Ford's actions. Shylock's and Mr. Patel's posts have fairly well summed up the legal arguments on both sides of the issue. But, as a former journalist, let me point out that Ford's tactics and practices are destructive of First Amendment rights. No source is safe with Ford; countless times he has revealed information clearly intended to be kept secret, from the identity of sources, to the real names of performers, producers, directors, and, in my case, a journalist writing under a pseudonym. He uses his position to conduct personal vendettas. He used his former site to conduct extended diatribes that although they purported to be some kind of free-form expose of the tensions between his adopted religion of Judaism and his work in the porn business, they were in fact such ugly anti-Semitic screeds that eventually Ford was thrown out and shunned at nearly every Jewish temple and organization in Los Angeles. There is not and there never was a line between editorial content and reportage for Luke Ford. He constantly lies and abuses people. It's funny - after some years of exposure to porn, primarily as journalists, apparently Ford and I came to more or less the same conclusion - that most of the people in porn are not terribly trustworthy, terribly smart, and the business of porn is not run in either a businesslike nor a humane fashion. But the consequences of this "discovery" are very different. For me, it led to a decision to leave the business, and subsequently to take strong public positions supporting the good things and good people, as well as the converse, with the final goal being to improve a good business that people want and that needs improving. Ford, by contrast, wants to destroy porn, and he will destroy any individual or company in order to accomplish it. Now, let me hasten to add that NONE of this is illegal. Ford's journalistic sins, as I have listed them, are unethical but not illegal. But it is rank hypocrisy to allow a journalist to use the fact that he constantly violates journalistic ethics as an excuse to pierce a request for silence or exclusivity by a reporter. In effect, the argument that Ross nor anyone else had a reasonable expectation of privacy because of the presence of other parties because the other party is Ford, who lies about things like "off the record" agreements. The presence of a documentary crew is both irrelevant and telling at the same time, because that crew 1) are journalists, and the expectation is that they are going to abide by the same code as other journalists, and not, for example, make a phone call or send a tape or transcript to a colleague or editor that would result in a story that scoops Ross's story; 2) bring a reasonable assurance that the conversation is going to be disclosed within the documentary at some later date, but NOT RIGHT AWAY; 3) can be relied upon for representations that the documentary footage being shot will be used for purpose A but not for purpose B. The REASONS for all these journalistic rules and assumptions is so that people will respond to journalists without fears of adverse exposure. A reporter can, with editorial approval, manage a story - for example, delay its release - in exchange for exclusivity. Ross basically had two choices: ask the documentary crew and Ford to leave, or to rely on journalistic ethics. He wisely chose not to request that the elephants be led out of the room - that would hardly be conducive to a good atmosphere in which to get questions answered - but he also relied on Ford's journalistic ethics. It can be argued that his explicit requests created a reasonable expectation of privacy; it can also be argued, as Mr. Patel does, that the circumstances taken as while made any such expectation moot. I don't draw a conclusion either way about the legality, and I'm more than content to leave it up to AVN and Ross as to whether they wish to file charges, and I suspect that no DA would file on this set of facts. (Let me note in passing, though, that if the documentary crew has footage of Ross's request that the conversations not appear on Ford's website, I think a jury would convict him in about ten seconds.) But just because a DA may not choose to file does not mean that a crime was not committed. I VERY much appreciate the incisiveness of both Shylock and Patel in outlining the legal arguments (for once I could sit on the sideline), but if the opinions of major current industry figures like Col. Cummings and Mike Quasar, or my opinion as a former journalist in the profession, mean anything, perhaps they suggest that Ford isn't worthy of the competent legal defense he is getting. What Ford is also getting is a reputation that makes the potential liability of hiring him and giving him a platform more and more problematic. Again, this is not illegal. I would think that any number of my public pronouncements on websites since leaving the porn business would make it problematic to hire ME as a porn journalist, too. But I have never done what Ford does regularly. When he first contacted me, I refused to speak to him and asked him not to call me and not to mention me on his website; in revenge, he printed a series of items slandering me and disclosed my real name in a context I most clearly did not want it disclosed. When I was harassed by an industry hanger-on at a Yahoo site, I responded to a private email in an effort to get the harasser to stop. He took the private correspondence, an exchange in which I unequivocally had an expectation of privacy, to Ford and asked him to print it. Ford printed my private emails, my real name, and resurrected old slanders and insults. THIS is who you are defending, Mr. Patel. I admire your intellect and your consistency, but I urge you to reconsider.
JP... Just FYI. Your post is exceedingly difficult to read. Paragraphs would have helped.
As far as the topic though... pfffft. I just don't care. I dare say it's not our battle to fight. What good will it do to get a bunch of internet geeks, most of whom have little or no influence over the business, on your side anyway?
It seems to me that Luke just isn't worth all this drama.
And just because I'm not letting it go,
Here's a direct quote from Pornismyreligion's original thread:To me, that's pretty damn clear that he's accusing Luke of illegal activity without so much as citing his imformation.
I just can't help but think this is a useless, dead-end discussion. I wish I didn't have to read it.
Unfortunately, the points you bring up Jack aren't just a problem with porn but with all news media these days. Some journalists have forgotten about journalistic integrity and hide behind journalistic resposibility when they disclose what they shouldn't. A recent mainstream news example was when a reporter disclosed troop locations. I'm not a journalist, but have received information that shouldn't be revealed in the course of my reviewing and haven't. Likewise if I were to interview Kami for ADT (no I haven't so don't be eagerly anticipating the interview) via telephone I wouldn't disclose her number. If I were to partake in those activities it would be unethical. Part of the problem is for some reason the general public seems to want information they shouldn't have and some journalists seem to be more than happy to give it out. It's an unfortunate problem, but one I don't see going away in the near future.
Isn't the term 'porn journalist' an oxymoron anyway? It's my understanding that you cannot be considered a true journalist and yet be in bed (often literally) with whom you write about.
Renee, this has gone on for as long as I can remember, and if it's any consolation, probably the same people who read all the gossip sites read ADT anyway. Hopefully your college professor isn't among them.
Heck, even the recounting of my first orgasm in the Story forum appeared in a published book. I found it rather flattering to be honest.
Damn DB... How did you manage that? :) And how did you manage to find out about it? You just picked up the book and said, "Hey... this seems like it would be an entertaining read!" and lo and behold there was your little story?
This same stuff has happened on some of the knitting forums I'm on (yes, I like porn and knitting, in about equal amounts). A knitter will post something that she's learned, and then several months later see it published in one of the knitting magazines, without her permission. The knitting world is a tough one, but not as bad as the porn world.
I doubt my graduate professor reads ADT or any other adult website. He wouldn't allow one of my fellow students to put up a poster of a beauty queen in a skimpy bikini, in the student's office, because he felt that was unprofessional for an academic lab.
First, I did not get from the Ford article that Ross made any kind of statement that indicated that he had a generalized wish that his comments not be overheard or recorded by anyone. Ford's article indicates that Ross said that he didn't want his comments to be published on Ford's website, adultbeat.com. This is not a broad request for confidentiality; it's simply one journalist attempting to prevent another journalist, viewed as a rival and/or enemy, from getting a scoop.
Second, the state supreme court ruled that the standard for confidentiality under the statute is not whether the party has an objectively reasonable expectation that the content of the conversation will not later be divulged to third parties, but rather whether the party has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded. Hence, while it may have been objectively reasonable for Ross to expect that his comments would not be divulged to Ford (based on his request and Spallone's apparent assent to it), he cannot rely on this expectation to prove that he intended the conversation to be "confidential," for purposes of the statute. If you are on the telephone with someone, and you know the guy on the other end is on a speakerphone, and the guy tells you "there's a documentary crew here filming me," and you go ahead and talk to the guy without requesting that he take you off the speakerphone or kick the crew out of the room, it is not objectively reasonable for you to expect that your conversation is not being overheard or recorded. Observing and recording things is what documentary film crews do.
Luke Ford @ Adult Empire
Posted - Apr 23 2004 : 5:28PM
