I have not been able to spend much time online of late owing to a multitude of reasons, but when I came back online today, I was hit squarely by this:
Epiren is not just a tweep I follow, but one of the most prolific bloggers around. LizDitz has outlined a detailed summary of the events leading up to this fiasco. Apparently, he also slandered Dr. Jen Gunter and made a huge mess at Rene’s work place by sending harassing emails to all of them, threatening to sue.
So, these are my thoughts on this issue:
- Two of the most prominent social media members, Ian Miller and Rene Najera have been subjected to withdraw their social media presence due to unsavory situations. While with Ian it was the prudent thing to do, for Rene, it is the more stark situation of being continued to be employed. The funny thing is that they are both “out of the closet” and have never quite resorted to hiding behind the screens in order to fight the oft-anonymous slanderers. This raises the question: is it even safe to blog under one’s real name and identity? I have been very critical of people who supported anonymous blogging, but these two events, back to back take down of major players in the field of #HCSM has shaken me up a bit. What is the way out?
- Does the guy who took up the cudgels against Rene, threatening to sue his entire department, actually have the legal route of following through or is that just a blank threat, a manifestation of his impotent rage? While I hardly have any knowledge about the legal systems in question, it seems to me to be common sense to throw these attention-seeking, mud-slinging, litigation-obsessed bullies out.
- There. I have said it. I think the guy who took Rene “down” is just a bully.
- On Liz’s blog, the man of the moment, Rhett Daniels shows up and defends his stance:
- Even if he had identified something defamatory said by Rene, going to his employers with a band of lawyers, threatening to sue them all is nothing but bullying. It’s a blog. Get a life, MOVE ON!
- But he goes on: openly threatening:
- But to be honest, one of his comments does touch a chord with me. See, I am not a person whose beliefs and thoughts are fixed, and skepticism comes easy to me, so maybe someday, when I am not this pissed, I’d like to learn about the effect and evidence behind his drugs:
- Anyways, Rhett seems like a subpoena happy paranoid person determined to clear up all internet references in his name that he seems inappropriate. While this is definitely weird behavior, I am sufficiently intimidated by this in order to shut my trap and not say what I actually feel about his nature. I find it ridiculous that he claims this is the stuff he keeps busy with since he is a retired guy… aren’t they supposed to play golf and stuff?
Anyways. The more I read of this issue, the more I get pissed. I wish this had not happened. I still am all for blogging and writing in social media under my own name and identity, but if that means people like this get to come after me, that is plain scary. Also, assuming an anonymous name is no good, because I am pretty sure I can keep up the charade but it will take the fun out of the interactions, and I am not about to do that.
Anyways. I am glad that I am in India and away from the long arm of the law wielded by cigaRHETT (his blog’s name) Daniels and the others of his ilk.
21 thoughts on “After ImpactEDnurse, @Epiren’s Turn To Go: Pitfalls of #HCSM”
The issues of defamation, slander, and freedom of speech are complicated legally. I would suggest that those considering or involved with blogging familiarize themselves with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org). They work to thwart attacks to bloggers like those threatened here.
Thanks. I really need to look that up. This issue is indeed a wake up call…
Pranab, or should I say:
Kolkata, West Bengal, India
India is a Hague Treaty country…meaning they uphold international law. Before you claim to hide in another country I suggest you check your country’s laws:
also, if you’re going to cafetaria report why don’t you at least tell that you are picking and choosing so as to support your position.
for the record, i see nothing defamatory in your posting, although it is offensive.
i would encourage you to pick up the phone and call me and discuss the issue; and give me an opportunity to talk about the drugs i make and the science behind them. one word: polymorphism C677.
i’m for free speech everywhere, even IF your country doesn’t support it like ours. So go on blogging, that’s what makes us (America) great, right?
Dude, you do realize you are a fairly obnoxious person?
you are right. i re-read your post and you were somewhat defending me. i did they same thing i claim they do…get so caught up in the anger/emotion that you stop reading stuff.
i have no issue with your posts, other than i wish it was more balanced and complete with both sides.
i hope you can accept my apologies, and more so for my unnecessarily aggressive stance.
Anarchic Teapot – i LOVE that handle! Daniels doesn’t give a shit. He’s a loser and he’s let the whole world know. End of. Let’s let the Streisand Effect do the rest -because it will!
and you should direct your comments to:
[comment redacted due to outing of personal info of someone who was not even involved in this ruckus. – Pranab]
Erm… sorry, did not get that… what are you trying to say?
stupid attempt by me to use your site to get some info out…was the wrong person anyway.
You should probably delete the contact information of the nurse who is not the blogger Liz Ditz.
Deleted the information. I am sorry that it stayed up that long… but in my defense, my blog ain’t all that popular! ^_^
Mr. Daniels that nurse is not the blogger Liz Ditz. Note that the spelling of the name is not “Dietz”, and actually matches the URL of her blog.
As usual, I’m keeping a list of blog responses to what is now known as EpiGate.
I’d like to wrest the conversation back to the risks of blogging under one’s own name, the value of pseudonymity, especially as it has to do with health care social media (HCSM). Maybe that will happen after the current uproar over Mr. Daniels’s intemperate behavior has calmed down.
You are right. We have digressed enough as it is. With the @Mommy_Doctor issue and this one, pseudonymous blogging is back in the consideration. To be honest I am still vacillating – and have not been able to make up my mind on this issue. Which one to go for? The safety of anonymous/pseudonymous blogging? OR the brazen faced, bold and ballsy approach of owning up to one’s stand?
Once I make up my mind, expect me to weigh in with my two cents…
the below is the result of nine months of research into how evil mankind is.
dnepropetrovsk murders (3 young guys bludgeon and then torture a man with a screwdriver):
dagestan massacre (6 russian soldiers killed by muslims very slowly):
mexican dr learns to cut heads off and choke victims simultaneously by using their own blood:
burnt alive in kenya for witchcraft (nice slow roasting):
boys torturing dog in mexico (dog kept hanging around, strange?):
slow beheading of christian (allah akbah):
korean christian missionary begs for his life before beheading (“I too yung, I wunt to lieve, I want to go to Korea…too yung!”):
man ripped in half (bike cop) still alive and laying in street with no lower torso.:
high dive off cliff goes wrong. splits face and is conscious:
Liz, compared to the above I’m a saint!
egregious load of arse-spam. Daniels is indeed better than those folk. but not significantly so … maybe if he were to try that last trick himself, he’d end up looking better than he does.
Yes congratulations on not being the worst person in the world. Nobody said different of course…
But if your personal goal is simply not be the absolute worst there is then you succeeded admirably. There are millions of things happening that are way worse then your little self entitled bullying streak. Still doesn’t make you a saint thou, it only makes you a small minded insecure who tries to get better persons them him into trouble.
And yes that sort of a person still looks good compared to animal tortures, murderers and horrific bodily harm. Just a thought though; normal people don’t need to compare themselves to such horrific things in order to look good.
my point was that there are real problems in the world, with real people getting hurt and real harm being done… why don’t you all stand up for those instead of trying to pounce on the cocky guy?
“my point was that there are real problems in the world, with real people getting hurt and real harm being done”
And it was a worthless point. You don’t get off with your behaviour just because someone else is much worse.
The problems* you spent a long time deliberatly searching for, watching, collating, listing and reposting to numerous sites are indeed problems, but the behaviours are either illegal with formal and informal systems in place that could or should attempt to stop or punish those actions, or the systems that reinforce that behaviour require long term and broad change. Nice try, but it’s a trick that’s equivilant to a young child caught with stolen cake on his face saying ‘But someone else stole a bigger bit’ and expecting to get let off.
If you wish to assert that the named and identified individuals of good reputation and standing here are supportive of murder and abuse by either action or ommision of reasonable, attainable and proper action, then you need to state so rather than just implying it.
For some odd reason you have included graphic images of accidental or negligent injuries in amongst your list of immoral acts. At least it looks like you have as I couldn’t bring myself to go through them all. As you knew, or must have known, that your critics include medical, nursing and other health professionals who deal, or intend to deal, with ‘real harm’, it’s logically bizarre for you to imply that they should ‘stand up for all those’ when that is exactly what the professions exist for.
* i.e. intensely disturbing and graphic videos if the three links I checked out are anything to go by.
You are a very disturbing individual. Do not make any attempt to contact me offline or through email.
Fair enough. But seeing that all this could’ve been avoided if you took your own advice, instead of trying to get somebody into trouble with their employers, the real question is; why didn’t you?