I’m no stranger to hate mail, or even a public skirmish. So far, I haven’t published anyone’s email to me, mostly because I generally respect folks’ rights to disagree, and secondly, because there’s nothing I say on this blog that I wouldn’t say to an individual directly (Most of the time when people publish emails on blogs, it’s to eviscerate the sender in a one-sided manner). Therefore, I haven’t seen any reason to put any of these email communications up for public consumption, even though there are plenty of legal precedents establishing the lack of an expectation of privacy in regards to email communication.
[note: during my music journalism days, the ezine had a section called ‘attack of the rabid fans’ where we posted and responded to the more crazy and idiotic emails we received. Obviously that was a different venue with a different subculture than LD101]
An exchange begun last night and spilling over into this morning will now become the first exception to what has been my rule. I’m sticking to facts on this one: I think they can speak for themselves.
The context: Last night I received two questions/comments on the Facebook page which felt somewhat confrontational (Still posted at present). I provided responses then checked my LD101 email, which is when I found a message from Dr. Jason Henderson, JD, the same person of the earlier queries. Henderson is the Medical Director at the HERO Network, a Indiana-based organization that claims to “to improve current healthcare policies and patient outcomes through research and patient centered advocacy” (pulled from their website).
I probably should add that I’ve never, at any time, had any communication with him prior to these events.
Dear Christie (sic)-
Today, you publically demeaned a reputable and true research company for organ donors, The HERO Network. Why? Are your insecurities that high? I have heard, via word of mouth in the true transplant community, that you were a radical and, in all regards, quite insane in your approach, but I have enough respect for colleagues to do my own own personal evaluation and did not disrespect you…until now.
So, you want to publically defame a true research company? you better watch your step. These are simple words of caution and wisdom…wise up and grow up. Furthermore, you should defer your comments and so-called advice to those which are professionally trained in the field, as you are not and simply a counselor…joke.
If you want to play, play on…but beware…you have gone too far. I personally hope you take my challenge.
(source document: Henderson-1)
I responded with a single line:
Could you supply a link to this accused ‘public demeaning’?
(source document: Henderson-2)
This morning, from Henderson:
Supply the link huh? Why? Is it because:
1. You demean so many people in a day’s time that you cannot remember to whom you demeanded(sic)? ..or
2. You are too incompetent to remember what you did with a 12 hour time span?..or
3. Because you already knowingly deleted it?..or
4. My preference…all of the above.
You have truly crossed the line and picked a fight with a reputable company for no apparent reason but your own insecurities…this has resulted in a large mistake for you.
Also, it would make things easier now if you provide me with your Corporation Attorney contact information and a list of your Board of Trustees as mentioned in your Ohio Incorporation documents. I would hate to contact the Ohio Attorney General and DOJ for such due to your failuure to provide as a ‘non-profit’ entity.
(source document Henderson-3)
At this point, I forwarded the email thread to Macey Leigh Thompson, the CEO of the HERO Network with the following:
I received the following email last night (please start at the bottom of the thread below) with the above subject line. I responded with a simple request, which resulted in this most recent missive.
Because Mr. Henderson is an agent of your organization, I felt this should be brought to your attention.
Cristy Wright, M.Ed.
(source document Henderson-4)
Now, I’m not going to post all of Ms. Thompson’s emails in full because A. she’s not the one who threatened and attacked and B. it would be far too time consuming and inefficient. So…
Her first reply, which I did not initially notice had been cc-ed to numerous people, began thusly:
“I am well aware of this situation. [name redacted because that individual really doesn’t deserve to be pulled into this] was in tears yesterday upon reading your rude tweets.”
Nothing in the entirety of the email regarding Jason Henderson’s behavior at all.
Attached is a screenshot of my twitter feed – as you can see, there is no mention of you or your organization.
I believe it was on April 13th and has since then been removed. Thank you.
A. I’ve never removed/deleted a tweet (I think there is a way to detect such a thing; I wouldn’t know having never done it?)
B. if this is what you’re referring to (see attached), I suggest a thicker skin. Such a remark will be the least of the criticism if you behave as a true living donor advocate (PS. also proves the veracity of point A above).
Here is the total contact I’ve had with you and your organization:
1. A ‘connection’ request on linkedin from you containing no introduction, no explanation, nothing. Most people would’ve hit delete; I took the time to deduce your identity before doing so.
2. Two separate emails pimping the study. Again, no introduction, no explanation, no attempts at professional niceties, etc.
3. Two separate tweets pimping said study, following the same pattern as above.
And finally, the aforementioned threatening and hostile emails.
Your underling has been blocked from the Facebook page, and his emails will be made public later today.
(source document Henderson-5)
The tweet in question (and yes, it’s STILL there; look it up):
@HeroNetwork Here’s a concept: stop promoting yourself. This is the second time you’ve pimped a nonproductive study to me.
I am sorry you feel the need to make public private conversation between you and another party. I would make your(sic) you contact your attorney before you do such.
It’s unfortunate an agent of your organization felt the need the(sic) threaten and attack. Perhaps he should’ve considered the professional ramifications of putting such things in writing.
At this point, the whole lot of them ran and hid behind their lawyer (really).
I’m loathe to offer a lot of comment here but in summation:
1. I ‘publicly demeaned’ a company ‘today’ (4-23).
2. Then I ‘picked a fight’ with a company in a recent ’12 hour time span’.
3. Then I ‘knowingly deleted’ said alleged defamation.
4. Then I made someone cry with ‘rude tweets’ ‘yesterday’ (4-23)
5. But no wait, it was ‘April 13 and has since then been removed’
6. But yeah, no it wasn’t either (defamation or deleted)
And because of all of this, I’m:
‘simply a counselor’
I need to ‘beware’.
I’ve ‘gone too far’, ‘crossed a line’, ‘picked a fight’.
And I’ve made ‘a large mistake’. For me, of course.
My aunt, a physician, was the first person to tell me the joke: What does MD stand for? Minor Diety,
while my sis-in-law, an attorney, was the first to quip: What do you call 5000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.
I like to believe that most people try to be aware of damaging stereotypes and how can they color one’s perceptions. Folks and situations like the above make it very difficult though. Very difficult indeed.
ETA: Just noticed this nugget: