Side-Coned

My original plan with this blog was to get up one or two good/detailed posts a day on matters pertinent to medicine, law and politics . . . particularly as it relates to local and state matters and specifically as it reflects on my case (for perjury/contempt/fraud) against two local "non-profit" hospital executives.

As an example, I've been meaning to post a kind of rebuttal to "The President's Message" published in the North Carolina Medical Board's quarterly "Forum". Dr. Moffatt spoke of civility and duty in a little ditty entitled, "On Collegiality". Haven't gotten around to taking this fluff piece apart. But I will.

Occasionally, to lighten things up, I post something just for fun. For instance, my horoscope today says that "it's time to pay back a debt or acknowledge your gratitude to someone". That's fodder for a great blogpost. I think I will work on that this week.

I digress. My original plans for regular posting were thwarted because of a disruption in The Force. What was originally planned as a two-month medical sabbatical (sinus surgery to correct a job botched at Randolph, as well as a well-earned vacation) has extended to four months and three surgeries. I am recovering well from the removal of "the plumbing" last month, and am scheduled for LASIK eye surgery in Pinehurst (with the world-renowned, Dr. Martin) on Thursday.

I get to wear an eye patch for Christmas (I'm a compulsive eye-rubber). Then I get to see the world through a new eye (I'm only having one done). I will have a "near" eye and a "far" eye.

By the way, Merry Christmas and if you don't want to be wished one, "deal with it" (a whole nuther topic).

One of my Ya's said that, if I got anything else done, I would need to join a "surgery self-help group". Another wryly commented that it was just the equivalent of a "40-year" tune up".

Whatever. These things needed to be done. They're done. In the meantime, I've slept a lot, and adopted another cat, and worked on CME (hours and hours which I need to register while I'm out). I'm currently wrestling with the notion of taking another month or two off before I resume work. I've read about women taking year-long sabbaticals just to go to the beach and write. Now there's an idea.

At any rate, the point that I'm trying to get to is that sometimes I get sidetracked

This week I got side-coned. It started when I jumped into the fray on a post at Sam's (also known as "The Conservative Alternative"). As I understand it (and let's be clear, it's my understanding), Sam developed the blog as a counter-weight to all of the left-leaning blogs in the GSO blogosphere.

Politically, I'm an Independent and (I think) a moderate. I'm also a Christian (a "lapsed Baptist") who thinks a lot of the "political correctedness" regarding the day-to-day practice and application of my faith & heritage (which must defer at all times to everyone else's so as not to "offend") is hooey. But I find myself siding a great deal with Sam/Bubba/MeBlogin/Brenda/Joe, etc. A lot of the time, when I jump in (and I don't as much as I used to), it's not so much about the issue at hand, as the way I see people being treated/ganged-up-on when they express a dissenting (usually "conservative") opinion.

Mama says that from the time I was a little girl, I was a sucker for strays and underdogs.

I still find the "batshit crazy" tossed by Cone at judicial candidate, Rachel Hunter (immediately prior to the election), morally and journalistically repugnant. The lowest of lows. There is no defense and no justification. It's one of those times, when you delete the comment (as opposed to crossing it out) and offer an unconditional apology.

Anyway, here's the thread (at Sam's): "It's About the Power . . . Not The Children (Stupid)". I'm not going to reiterate any of what I said there, here.

The background to this story though, lies in my Inbox. I wanted to get on with my own posting on my own blog. But at the same time I was doing blog-battle with Stew and Roch at Sam's . . . Ed Cone and I were going at it in e-mails. I referenced some of those e-mails in the thread at Sam's.

I've given this a great deal of thought. What's been going on isn't exactly "private". As I don't want to be accused of "lying" (a sore spot) or taking anything out of context, I've decided to publish the exchange here . . . in the form of a conversation. It is, after all, nothing that I/he has not said before. It will be like a thread. I'll even color code the comments with "blue" and "red" (get it?). I'm fairly certain I have not missed anything and all the dates/times are correct, but I've done this very quickly (as I have many more productive things to do today).

The title of the first thread is "Stop Please".

Ed (12/13, 10:11 pm): From CA: "...their take is that I’m just in it for the money." Not my take. Quit putting words in my mouth, please. I don't recall taking newspaper quotes out of context either.

Mary (12/13, 11:04 pm): I suggest you go back and read your own threads. As I recall, you and/or Roch quoted the statements I made to the N&R immediately after the settlement . . . statements I made whilst unaware that executives had lied under Oath - and I had been swindled . . . as some kind of "evidence" that my motives were suspect, you most certainly took those comments out of context. I know your take. You're not interested, you don't care. It's well-established.

Ed (12/14, 7:37 am): What you recall is not in question. you are making affirmative statements about my views, and your statements are incorrect.

Mary (12/14, 8:37 am): "Quit putting words in my mouth", yet what I recall is not in question? So you were just having some fun at my expense? Even better. Tell you what Ed, you just keep tossing those softballs to Elizabeth Edwards (could that have anything to do with upping your own profile?). And I'll keep asking her trial-lawyer, millionaire husband (he who "supports" young people selling portions of their lives to government service programs to wipe out their educational debt) where he was when he could've helped me out.

Ed (12/14, 10:44 am): Edwardses: You’re entitled to your opinions. I’m asking you to quit mischaracterizing my views, namely, that my “take is that [you are] just in it for the money." You say a lot of nasty things about me. That’s your choice, but I would ask that you stick to the facts when doing so.

Mary (12/14, 11:57 am): Re: the Edwardses. Yes, I certainly am. What happened to the theory that one has no real blogging credentials without their own blog? And I/others have repeatedly asked you (and some of your friends) to re-examine and tone down the behavior that makes some of the rest of us so angry/frustrated/exasperated. My observations are honest. I don't like the way you operate. My choice is to say so. You refuse to acknowledge that your name alone has given you a huge advantage over the rest of us (particularly in terms of your relationship with the N&R and the political elite who run this state - as the very links you cited in the latest EE fluffball demonstrate). You pontificate about "community" and inclusiveness", yet provoke and bait and polarize and push commentators who disagree with you into corners . . .. you incite/encourage "gang-ups" (the reason the whole "coning" nickname took off) . . . and then pull the "who me?" act. Everybody's opinion and contributions matter . . . but not really. And you're the guy who has resorted to the "nasty" & despicable . .. . ala "batshit crazy" (directed at a woman with a brain tumor no less). I'd offer that "reaping what you sow" is biblical, but I'd get another "keep religion out of everything" lecture. I came to you for help and was treated like snark bait. I'd ask you how I'm "mischaracterizing" your views . . . specifically as they pertain to my case (as that is what started this round). But that would continue this conversation.

Ed (12/14, 11:50 pm): I write a personal weblog. I’ve never said otherwise. It’s not a community site. It’s inclusive in that anyone can comment, but it’s not there to make people feel warm and fuzzy. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? You sure dish out a lot of invective for someone who wants to be treated with kid gloves.

Mary (12/14, 2:23 pm): Your personal weblog sure has gotten a lot of traffic diverted to it from the N&R. "Cooperative relationships" between people and organizations on the "in" are wonderful things. And yes, for a while, I did have you confused with someone else. No more. Congratulations. It took some work on your part. But I'm not confused anymore. I've never asked to be treated with kid gloves. But I give as good as I get. I sense that is what you cannot stand. Someone who will not just take the hits and back down . .. . but keeps on coming. The GSO blogosphere is splintering into factions . . . rather than growing into a community. Part of that is to be expected as the blogosphere grows and more newbies come into to ether. But the responsibility for a lot of what is going on in the GSO "community" lies at the feet of its "High Priest" and "King". As long as "the King" keeps asking for feedback, he will get it. And as long as you keep dishing out the "batshit crazies", don't complain when someone puts words in your mouth. Their words are probably nicer. Now STOP. Please.

Ed (12/14, 2:36 pm): I don’t get much traffic from the N&R, actually. I was blogging long before they got into the game, and I would imagine that I send them a lot more traffic than they send me. You sense wrong – I don’t mind disagreement or pushback. It’s just when you make stuff up that I have a problem. Connie Mack Jr is a nut. His wife ran a nutty campaign and showed herself to be utterly unfit to sit as a judge. Deal with it. If you think that gives the right to lie, so be it. It’s your crediblity on the line.

Mary (12/14, 5:07 pm): We've had this conversation already. On the matter of credibility, your threads speak for themselves. I haven't made anything up ("what you recall is not in question"). And, I'll note that even though you started . . . and continued . . . this "conversation", you never bothered to tell me exactly how I've mischaracterized your views. You just called me a liar (pushing that button) and ran. But I'm used to it. People jump through a lot of hoops and take great pains to answer your questions. I know I did. On the other hand, you generally have a hard time answering a question. Rachel lost, Ed. She's battling cancer. The very least you could do is be a gracious winner. In the loosing, Ms. Hunter may ultimately be able to help more people. Like I said, when you keep dishing it out, do not complain when people push back. Deal with it.

Ed (12/14, 5:23 pm): I was quite clear about the mischaracterization in the first email: you said my take is that you are just in it for the money, but that is not my take. I have not mentioned Rachel at my blog since the election wrap-up, so I don’t know what the “gracious winner” thing is about. Furthermore, I’ve allowed Connie to continue posting his off-topic, semi-coherent comments, without comment of my own. I wish Rachel well in her health battle, and urged others to be kind about it during the campaign, but nonetheless recognized her use of the condition as a campaigning point as the tawdry trick that it was. Again, I don’t complain when people push back. I did email you to ask you to stop misprepresenting my views.

Mary (12/14, 5:44 pm): Answer the question, Ed. Or STOP pestering my inbox. In the interest of not "mischaracterizing" your views about my case (it is my case we're talking about), WHAT are your views? WHAT is your take? I quote: "Connie Mack Jr. is a nut. His wife ran a nutty campaign and showed herself utterly unfit to sit as a judge." First, somewhere around 600,000 North Carolinians didn't see it that way. And second, the statement itself (which you have now repeated on several occasions) proves that you "don't gracious winner thing is about". Third on the one hand, you "wish Rachel well in her health battle" - the mere mention of which is a "tawdry trick" (never mind the double standard that the Edwardes can talk all they want about the death of Wade or Elizabeth's breast cancer and be praised for it) . . . you "urged others to be kind" . . . yet on the other hand, it was just fine to fling the "batshit crazy" and it's a-okay to keep calling Connie and Rachel, "nuts". I'm pushing back, Ed. And you're not just complaining. At this point you're whining.

Ed (12/14, 6:25 pm): The question was, how did you misrepresent my views. it's been answered clearly from the start. i have no interest in opening another long conversation about your case. You chose me as the target of endless invective and constant comments, not the other way around. Bledsoe lives in your own town, he won't touch your story. sam and joe are your online buds, they don't pick up the banner. i've allowed you unlimited space to explain it, yet i'm your bogeyman. I'm sorry i can't give you what you need.

Mary (12/14, 8:38 pm): "Endless invective and constant comments"? That's amusing coming from the man who invented coning. As I have told you before, I've attempted contact with Bledsoe once (through his website/"blog" . . . which a number of people have noted he does not man). I've not met him or spoken to him, so I have no idea what he thinks about me/my case. The intent of the attempted contact was not so much for Jerry to pick up the banner and write the book (I think I'll be the one to do that). It was more to get some insight on writing . . . and what the hell is going on with the journalists here. On the other hand, I've gotten a fairly good picture of that from his work on other stories. Not a pretty picture (again). As you also well know, Jerry's bag is crime, not medicine. Of course, we've hashed this before. You just had to get in the dig. Sam's specialties (as offered on his firm's website) and my problem don't mesh. Besides, I'm done spending thousands on attorneys when I'm the victim of a series of crimes (and shouldn't be the one who needs the attorney). So excuse me if I keep raising hell about the despicable treatment DA's in North Carolina can dish out to citizens. Joe has said on his blog that he does not doubt my story. And he has offered sympathetic thoughts in private e-mail correspondence. I understand that, as a physician practicing solo in the area, Joe has a lot to loose if the same friends of the same people who came after me set their sights on him. I would not see anyone else go through what I have. Therefore I have not asked for his help. In allowing me the "unlimited space" to explain, you took fairly unlimited liberty to diss. I have opinions about that. If you want to blame anyone, look in the mirror. And if you haven't noticed, I don't press that "publish" bar at your blog too often these days. This time I did not ask you for anything, Ed. Just like JR, you've made it clear what your limitations are. If you did not want to open the conversation, you should not have sent me the first e-mail. The question (one of several presented here that you will not touch) was, "How did I misrepresent your views about my case?" That IS what we're talking about. I said that your take was that I was only in it for the money (based on my recollections of visits to your blog . . . which "are not in question"). You have not answered the question. Yet you're in the Inbox again. You will not answer the question. So STOP.

There was nothing in the Inbox the next morning, and I breathed a small sigh of relief. But the "debate" at Sam's still raged. I decided to visit his blog only once a day (so as not to be accused of making "endless and investive" comments . . . and to slow down/possibly mute the nastiness that I knew was coming . . . sure enough, Roch delivered).

After these exchanges, I often feel as if the life has been sucked out of me.

Lo and behold, Ed was back in my Inbox on the 17th. The title of this "thread" is "Not Accurate".

Ed (12/17, 9:02 pm): By saying what you recall is not in question, i did not mean that you recall correctly. I meant that your recollection is not the point, the facts are the point. I do not believe you are in it just for the money. That is the misstatement of my views. you say that's what i think, it's not what i think.

Mary (12/17, 10:52 pm): I recall the facts just fine. I was there. On the receiving end. And the pummeling you & Roch (and company) dished out almost destroyed any hope I had left. I'm sure you're both very proud of that. Whatever you think, (like JR) you've made it clear that, as both a journalist and GSO's most "prominent" blogger (with the boatloads of personal and professional connections your name provides), you will not help (I'm supposed to call Bledsoe). You're the son of a physician, and you will not help. You're a Father who would've expected me to do what I did had it been your child's life in danger, but you will not help. You're a citizen/journalist who says that open government and public accountability are important, but you will not help. You're a Democrat who insists your party and your candidates (that includes a trial lawyer who has proposed programs very similar to the one I got burned in) are there for the little guys/gals whose lives are irrevocably altered by corruption and bad government, but you will not help. I'm not in it for the money, but you will not help. To top it all off, for some unknown reason, you're concerned about my take on your take on my case. You call me a "liar" . . . Roch attacks my "integrity" . . . while you dodge questions right and left. And you both seem to think (after the hell I've been through) I'm gonna respond favorably to that? Some "community", this blogosphere. This Christmas will be my eighth as an outcast in my own hometown . . . because of events that defy medical ethics, justice and reason. Come January (once my medical leave is up) I have no idea what I'm going to do or where I'm going to go (because in turning to the blogging world as a last resort, I've put everything out there and signed my name). That's not okay. But I'm dealing with it. As it stands, you are not welcome in my Inbox. Go away. I mean it.

Ed (12/18, 7:47 am): Mary, I regret that you took that initial conversation the way you did. I certainly did not wish you ill. You've lived with your story for years -- it was new to me and others, and what you took as hostility about a sensitive subject was meant as serious questioning in routine, brusque web style. In the current discussion, I am responding to a specific statement, and I'm not dodging any questions: you published a comment saying that my view is that you are just in it for the money, that is not my view. I have said this clearly several times. Nothing I say seems likely to change your view of me, which I regret. For examply, when I suggest in all sincerity that you contact an investigative journalist in your hometown, you see it as a taunt, etc. It is not a taunt. I don't know you. I don't have harsh personal feelings toward you. I have chosen not to drag this out into another protracted public battle, yet you continue to fight me in public, and now you tell me to stop private communication, which I will do.

Mary (12/18, 8:36 am): Your "routine, brusque web style" is the problem, Ed. It's the reason you have so many "fans" these days who feel the same way I do. Some have decided to openly call you on it (the very reason Sam's blog exits). As you say, DEAL WITH IT. In this current "discussion", in which you have called me a liar, and (apparently) teamed up with Roch (both online and off) to attack my integrity (I purposely have gone back to the thread at Sam's that started this intrusion only once a day . . . to avoid spending hours boxing shadows for naught), you are still making excuses. Perhaps the problem is not so much "the facts" in this or any other conversation (which amounts to parsing over words), but your writing (instead of mine - which you originally viciously attacked) and the way you come off in many of your on-line "discussions". If I've misunderstood your "specific" meaning and intent (as I apparently have if I take you at your word now), that would seem to be your problem, not mine. Words are cheap - yours at this point especially so. With regard to this public "fight" (which is really just me expressing my opinions about the way you operate - based on my own sad experience), we are so unequally matched in terms of connections and resources and readership that I do not understand why you care. I am not going to change my opinion until you change the way you do business. As much as I despise liars (the real kind), I hate hypocrisy more. So we are at an impasse, and you really need to stay out of my Inbox.

My last retort was published at Sam's.

The point of putting this up is not to "get even" with Ed Cone (who, for the record, as a blogger-king-high priest-journalist-"friend"-whatever, I have given up on), but to make the point that blogging is getting a very bad rap because of stuff like this. As I related at Sam's this morning, a national columnist I've chatted up (who thinks I have an important story to tell . . . to a "sober and discerning audience") doesn't know what to make of blogging . . . and likened it to a bunch of blow-hards in a bar shouting each other down . . . getting nowhere . . . and accomplishing nothing. My response to him was as follows:

"Not all of us are anonymous. I'm not. I sign my name.

Your bar analogy is a good one. I agree that a lot of bloggers are just blowing hot air . . . and (particularly the anonymous ones) accomplishing nothing. Bloggers had some success early in the 2004 campaign (ala Howard Dean) . . . and later in triggering the oust of Dan Rather from CBS . . . but it appears to me that most are now resting on those "laurels" . . . and jockeying for position. The "citizen journalism" angle is not really panning out except perhaps in rare circumstances at the "hyper-local" level (for the record this alludes to the admirable job Joe and Brenda and Trouble and others are doing in keeping the heat on the GPD fiasco). It's an argument I've made multiple times in multiple posts.

I think that most people do not know about JCAHO and our medical boards and the like . . . and do not care . . . because the MSM doesn't tell them these stories. Besides, I think people are numb to anything but the most sensational. Corruption is expected."

I'm gonna keep looking for that "discerning audience". I know they're out here. And I know they want more from their government and their journalists . . . and their doctors and their lawyers.

And those pesky, loud-mouthed bloggers.

They're not getting it.

12/19/06 Editorial Note: I have had some time to come back this morning and scan this post for syntax and typo errors . . . the ones I've found have been corrected. Anyone scanning the "comments" section can see that Ed Cone has asked me to take this post (specifically the e-mails) down, as he considers them "private".

Mr. Cone is a journalist. There are three words that usually preface any communication (with journalists/lawyers/whatever) not intended for publication/distribution and those words are "Off the Record". These words are offered at the beginning of a correspondence or communication, not the end. These e-mails were not identified as "Off the Record" or even "Confidential" when the dual-coning started. They are not, in any way, privileged.

As I have indicated in my last response to Mr. Cone, I have played by the rules, done everything I was supposed to do, and gone everywhere (and to everyone) I was supposed to go. The loud and clear message I have gotten (including from him), is that none of it matters. Those who break the rules and the law thrive, the powers-that-be most certainly do not care, and I am supposed to just "deal with it".

I don't like that message.