From - Tue Apr 24 11:57:54 2012 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000 X-Mozilla-Keys: Message-ID: <4F96CD81.4010604@LivingDonor101.com> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:57:53 -0400 From: Cristy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Thompson, Macey Leigh" Subject: Re: Serious Issues of immediate Concern References: <4E0D1A876B0284489AC7AFFDB6CCA11010C93D01@IU-MSSG-MBX102.ads.iu.edu> <4F96C92A.7040200@LivingDonor101.com> <4E0D1A876B0284489AC7AFFDB6CCA11010C93D5F@IU-MSSG-MBX102.ads.iu.edu> In-Reply-To: <4E0D1A876B0284489AC7AFFDB6CCA11010C93D5F@IU-MSSG-MBX102.ads.iu.edu> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050104000000000804030906" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050104000000000804030906 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060004020507030701030405" --------------060004020507030701030405 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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.