Leroy, Oracle, CIA & the Jewish Defense League

Mon Jul 14 22:10:56 PDT 2003

On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 07:12:13AM -0700, richard childers / kg6hac wrote:
> Unlike Oracle's officers, I am not under oath

What oath are Oracle's officers under? 

> Everything I have said is factually true, to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> If you can identify a false statement (you've obviously put a lot of 
> effort into looking for one, for reasons which are as yet unclear), 
> please point it out.

No.  Actually, if you think I tried to find a factually incorrect
statement, then you've misunderstood the general gist of my comments.

My problem with your statements is not that you're engaging in falsehoods.
Rather, you're twisting situations and offering commentary on unrelated
issues as a way of making people's minds up for them.  You're implying
things (e.g. your stepfather 'falling' in front of a bus) because, I
believe, you know that you have no actual proof that what you'd like us
to believe is in fact true.

I'd love to find fault with some fact you've stated.  The problem is that
what you wrote in that post to craigslist is so woefully short of facts.
This is especially ironic given your oft-stated position on 'perception
management,' since frankly so far all I see you do is trying to manage
perception, rather than addressing reality.

Further, while you did not actively lie about being the author of the post,
your "hey, this seems interesting" letter to BayLISA was most definitely
lying by ommission.  Now that you've done so, I think you'll find your
reputation and your credibility rather damaged.  Your statements, until
proven otherwise are of rather dubious veracity.

> Are you a friend of Oracle, Ray? Do you, or did you, own any stock in 

Oh, for heaven's sake, Richard.  It's ASCII, and my name is at the top of
every letter I send out to the net and every article I post, anywhere.
It's *Roy*.  With an 'O.'  

> Oracle? Do you have any family, friends, or relations working there, now 
> or in the past?
> 
> As long as we're engaging in full disclosure, don't you think that 
> should be applied to everyone?
[...]

No.  Not really.  I haven't asked people to trust me, or believe me, in
anything I wrote.  I 
A) Engaged in commentary that was fairly clearly defined as such and
communicated my perception and my *opinions* of your writing -- providing
people with at least one interpretation of the post; 
B) Presented a claim (that you are the author of that post) backed up by clear
and documented facts that are verifiable by anyone who chooses to click on
the links I provided -- in other words, I asked people not to trust me, but
rather Google's archives;
C) Presented facts that were relatively non-controversial (the presence of
ex senior CIA officers at Oracle), but also with enough information that
anyone who wanted to go and Google could confirm these.

In other words, the only potentially-extraordinary claim I made -- that you
are the anonymous author of the craigslist post -- was backed up by much
more than my reputation, my veracity, my credibility.

You are the one bringing forward accusations and outlandish claims.  Your
veracity is at question.  Those who choose to question you, as long as they
do not simply say "trust me that he's wrong," do not have their credibility
or motives at question here.  

> And, conversely, would it be fair to ask if Roy invested all of this 
> effort, in order to do his best to see that I was -exposed- to 
> repercussions?

Well, yes, absolutely.  I *wanted* these repercussions to occur.
Specifically, I wanted people to:
A) Not simply take your commentary on the post (ignoring for the moment
your conflict of interest) as the only possible viewpoint on it; 
B) Know that you are the author of the post.

In other words, I wanted to expose you because I wanted truth to come out.
I admit this.  Hell, I'm proud of it.

> I'm not saying Roy Rapoport is affiliated with either the JDL or the ADL 
> (and neither is he);

Then heavens, why bring it up?

Saying "I'm not saying my opponent is a wife-beater and a child molester,
but ... " is the oldest, cheapest trick in the book.  

I'm not saying you are ... well, a whole bunch of things.  But I'm not
going to say them.

> but I do note that when I Google "rapoport +oracle" 
> I get a lot of hits ... and when I Google "rapoport +synogogue" I 
> quickly learn that there are a lot of rabbis named, well, Rapoport.

I'm shocked.  Shocked, I tell you! I have to admit that this makes me
seriously consider the possibility I may be Jewish.  

And clearly, my religion has something to do with this.  

Richard, seriously, what do you hope to gain here? Do you honestly think
the vast majority of the BayLISA audience considers the fact you brought up
my religion as a (veiled, again) attack against me to be in your favour?

Of course I'm Jewish.  I noted this elsewhere.  I was also born and raised
in Israel.  I also left Israel late enough in my life that ... well, I'm
not saying I work for the Mossad, mind you (and neither are you).

> (Truely, the Internet is a wonderful source of unbiased answers to 
> simple questions. No evasions or twisting of words - just straight 
> information from as many sources as care to share what they know, 
> freely. You are free to pick and choose your sources from a wealth of 
> alternatives, and to decide for yourself.)

Yes, it's pretty cool.  That's why I like it so much -- it tends to help me
find facts to corroborate people's claims sometimes, when I wonder if
they're just a little bit insane.

> Shalom, Roy. If you're as serious about the truth as you allege, you 
> should be zeroing in on the fact that Oracle elicited a company called 
> Asset Security And Protection (ASAP) to contact me, under false 
> pretences, alleged to be a company called ASAP Employment Services, and 
> then to lie, under oath, in San Mateo Superior Court ... instead of 
> trying to expose -me- for reporting it to my peers, or my government. 
> (Unless you don't want them to know, that is.)

I'm not trying to expose you for reporting it.  I'm trying to expose you
for 
A) Making wild accusations without any factual backup; and
B) Lying by ommission about your pushing of these facts on this mailing
list.

I don't care about Oracle.  I think Oracle is scum, I think Larry Ellison
is scum, and I'm not disputing that he engages in behavior that is, well,
scummy.  

> And if you're not serious about the truth of the matter, well, then, you 
> just threw a stone at me; perhaps trying to see if you could elicit the 
> same pack behavior, from a group of your peers.

There's a difference -- though I'll accept you aren't necessarily equipped
to perceive it -- between throwing stones and pulling the curtain aside to
expose the rather short and dumpy little man.

> Have you considered defenestration, as a hobby? You show great promise.

I'm not trying to throw you through a window.  I'm trying to show you the
door.

Be well,
-roy, growing amused