If he's interested in maintaining an orderly comment thread, that's probably the last time Doug Clark tries to say anything nice about me...

By the way, I had the same thought he did about the amount of free coverage the lottery launch is getting. I know it's news, but the barrage of front-page stories in the N&R has been a bit much, no?

Comments

[Doug H]

Ed, sorry to comment here on a different thread, but the links in you Brother Wolf entry are broken, both the "continue reading" and the "comment."

[Doug H]

Oops. My bad. Something got it straightened out.

[David Boyd]

I have been tempted often to jump into your conversations with Dr. J, Ed. However, I only know your side since I haven't read any of her comments. I have scanned them here and at JR's and I do know that she's upset about something and that I am stupid and/or lazy for not intuitively understanding why.

I make this comment at great personal risk of being on the receiving end of a thirty paragraph broadside. However, Doc, you're not convincing anybody. You need a short, tight version of the story and details. Without those two things, the only possible outcome is carpal tunnel.

[Doug Clark]

Ed, it just shows what a following you have. Your critics will chase you down anywhere.

[sam hieb]

I think the capital beat reporter is going for a Pulitizer on lottery coverage.

[jsykes]

While you boys keep holding Mary at arms length she is making typical male asses out of the entire lot of you. Her case makes clear sense, but we as a society don't care for messy ethical battles that aren't black and white.

Life is in the gray matter, where Mary is an expert, and if you can't see the root causes of her passion then I think it lessens the quality of the conversation here and elsewhere.

She was wronged, but none of us care unless she can put it in a neat package digestible in the inverted pyramid.

Mary's experience strikes to the core of right and wrong in a philosophical sense, but as I have said before theory does not apply in our practical world which is becoming more mechanical everyday.

I feel for Doctor Johnson and hopes she can internally resolve her feelings and move on with her life. It is abundantly clear that no one with the power to assuage her disdain for the hypocrisy of our system of right and wrong, which controls justice with a distorted view of the concept, cares enough to lay their mantel across the puddle and help her to the other side.

[David Boyd]

She was wronged, but none of us care unless she can put it in a neat package digestible in the inverted pyramid.

It is what it is. The competition for attention is such that if you want the world to take note, you have to put your story in a package the world can understand. Easily. Quickly.

Otherwise what do you have? An emotional person claiming to have been wronged in any and all forums available. I can find you a hundred in about five minutes.

Plus, on top of that, folks who have been willing to try to understand have been treated with suspicion by the Doc. I'm just saying. Her story might be incredibly compelling and right on the money. But the delivery is lacking mightily. Maybe you can help Jeff.

[PotatoStew]

David, you're obviously just one of Ed's little band of other elitists who will defend him to the last keystroke.

[Bubba]

LOL!

Dang, I missed ALL the fun!

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

David, I don't consider you "stupid" or "lazy". I've followed up with the "tight and short" you request on Doug's blog (as part of a post). And I'm pretty sure it was less than 100 words.

And Doug, I was not a "critic" of Ed until I commented on his blog and got "coned". I did not set out for that post (on Jim Black and the "greendogs" belated calls for his ouster) to deviate, but Ed asked questions and I answered them - both in short form and "verbage".

Another blogger alerted me to the conversation going referencing me on your blog, and unlike David Wray, I feel free to comment and defend myself.

I cannot make Ed happy - or apparently understand. Depending on the time of day, my story is either "obscure" or not relevant just boils down to a fight over money. Several folks pointed out that, as a journalist wishing to scrutinize, the ball was very much in his court - i.e. the "off the record". But Ed was just dangling a carrot - both as a "reporter" and a "friend", and he's clearly not interested. But in showing his disinterest (and sharing it with his readers), he's dissing both my ordeal and hampering the extraordinary measures I've had to take to get anyone anywhere to follow and enforce the law.

I don't get a paycheck from the John Locke Foundation - or the N&R. I don't think either on of those venerable institutions know what "fair and balanced" means. I also think the N&R (and its columnists) talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

[Ed Cone]

JSykes, I was surprised at Boyd's comment, because we've long-since passed the problem of clarity that he (and you) describe.

I'm also surprised that a journalist would look at the words of one party to a lawsuit and think they can draw the kind of conclusions you do, JS.

Here's the nutshell: Many years ago, Dr. Johnson alleged that there were serious problems with the healthcare system in Asheboro.

Lawsuits ensued.

She settled her lawsuit, and is now alleging that she got hosed on the financial settlement by lying hospital administrators.

There are several possible stories to pursue here, but neither the old allegations about medical care in Asheboro, or a financial dispute between the doctor and the administrators, is on my short list of things to cover.

[Fecund Stench]

Can I be in Ed's little band of Elitists, too? I think I'm up to speed now. We must recognize that the local blogosphere is lacking in thoughtful women. I also think that thoughtful women tend to be wordy and that men have short attention spans, among other things.

I work in A'boro and have never heard of her story until now. To a budding blogger, I advise economy and self deprecating humor. Let us get to know you by and by. Eventually, we will come to know your story well.

BTW, it has almost become a rite of passage that new bloggers get in trouble early on. In time, you may find as I did, that it is better to try and get along. Pick your battles and survive the war.

[Ed Cone]

One other note: Dr. Johnson seems to feel a need to personalize this conversation, and of course it is highly personal to her.

But it is not a personal issue with me.

I'm not judging her. I don't know her or anyone else involved.

No matter how much she questions my motives and my character, it comes down to this: I've provided a forum for an extended conversation about her case, I've looked into it a just a bit further, enough to decide that it's not something I'm likely to cover in depth.

Neither my fulltime job, nor my newspaper column, is going to support the kind of investigation this would require, and it is not a personal passion for me.

Lots of journalists have had the opportunity, and passed. Dr. Johnson impugns their character and motives, too.

Now it's been laid out, in detail and volume, at this blog. It's out there for anyone who wants it. Have at it if you will.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Ed, as I pointed out on Doug's blog, you started the personalization. Or was I misreading the "offer" to be my "friend"? I just got through addressing that on Doug's blog (my laptop is on fire trying to keep up), and I really want to sign off-line.

I didn't pick "the battle" in Asheboro, and I didn't pick this one. But slap this lady around and she slaps back.

The local journalists, whose character and motives I've "impugned" (it's not hard) include the publishing and editorial staffs at Asheboro's Courier Tribune and Greensboro's News and Record (which cuts you a check every now and then). That does not constitute "lots", Ed (still doing the diss thing). In fact, I've been interviewed twice by professional journals (one reporter found me because of my blogging). Those articles are cited/linked on the website. Other opportunities may shortly be in the offering.

It is a shame that my "local" newspapers (and their sometime employees) are the very institutions that are blowing me off. As for the "other party" in the lawsuit . . . pssst . . . Ed . . . they're taking the Fifth.

Oh, and Ed. I note that you back-track now. You DO understand the very basics of the case (minus the right and wrong thing Jeffery referenced somewhere as he defended my back). You just don't care and don't have the time. That's fine. You're not the only flipping fish in the sea.

Hi Bubba. Fecund, you work in Asheboro, but you've never heard the story (now eight years old)? It doesn't say a lot for the journalists in Asheboro does it? And it says a lot about Jeffrey's "matrix". But your advice is taken with a grateful heart. WHERE did you get that name?

[Ed Cone]

No backtracking here, Doc.

The sequence is this: you write thousands of words, and I still don't really get the story.

I say so, you take it as a personal affront.

I do a little research, I boil it down. Now it's not confusing anymore.

Also, my statement that I'd be your friend followed your comment that you have "gotten some much-needed support and encouragement..." and that you "had hoped to find more of that in the blogs."

My response in the next comment was this:

"If what you are looking for is support and encouragement, I can provide that...
However, it was my impression that you are looking to spark an investigation of your case.

"Reporters need to look for facts, not express their emotions...

"If you are looking for emotional support, say so -- I'm a very loyal friend. Perhaps I misread your intentions."

But it seems from your subsequent conmments you are still looking for a journalist.

Best of luck.

[mrproduce]

Ed, it just shows what a following you have.

Hey, I'd follow the good doc to the ends of the earth to see her pummel Ed. Looks like he has tucked his tail and ran to hide on his own blog as he yelled Whoooooo John goonahead and shoot up here amongst us, cause I done gotta have some relief! (Jerry Clowers, the "coon hunt") John His other bud's didn't help him much over on Doug's blog as they got pummeled by the good Doctor as well.

Finally Ed has met his match and got his comeuppance. How the mighty elitist has fallen.

[David Boyd]

We must recognize that the local blogosphere is lacking in thoughtful women...

This may be so, but be careful about encouraging them. You see what has happened with the schools. A little encouragement there and they are beating the pants off of us as they inch towards 60/40 rates for undergrad degrees.

Of course this blogging business may be part of their master plan. Let the men wile away the hours as they continue to gather economic power. If the Taliban doesn't get us, surely the women will.

[Roch101]

We must recognize that the local blogosphere is lacking in thoughtful women...

That is hardly true. Not true at all. Not at all. Really, not true. Nope, not true.

[David Boyd]

Foiled again.

[Danny Wright]

Hey Dallas,

That thin air up in them thar' mountains must be depriving your brain of some needed oxygen. Last night you were fantasizing about being 20 years to the good and making a mate of Dr. MJ in hindsight. On Doug's blog and here you have effectively personalized your dislike of Ed to the degree that all you really do is stand behind Dr. MJ and urge, "Go git 'im!". I am not sure where those issues come from, but you could probably do more here than simply be a cheerleader for the most convoluted cause in the history of Triad blogging.

-- Danny Wright

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

LOL David. I needed that. And Roch, I AGREE that the ladies are out there. But I've seen the way some of the ladies have been treated (Mr. P's chivlary here and elsewhere is greatly appreciated). So I've got to ask, are you really listening? On Doug's blog, someone called this a "pissing contest". Two problems with that theory: (1) I don't have the same equipment or the same range and (2) I don't pee in the same circles. So I'm going to lose that contest every time.

Actually Danny, the cause not so "convoluted" (although those now taking the Fifth and offering "no comment" would like you to think so). Jeffrey Sykes didn't need 100 words, he did it in three: "Right and Wrong".

The News & Record has tapped-danced all around stories that mirror/parallel my "local" case and the issues it speaks to: non-profit CEO salaries in healthcare, Medicaid fraud and abuse (the "disproportionate share" scam that poured nearly a billion taxpayer dollars down the toilet is the most under-covered scandal in the history of the NC press), the neck-high political corruption in Raleigh and Washington (my problems - the ones Ed now poo-poos - began on Mr. Clinton's watch - and were reported to his DHHS Secretary, Donna Shalala), the lack of interest of DA's in prosecuting perjury (unless you're Martha Stewart or Lil' Kim) and the abject failures of oversight in the non-profit and government arenas . . . to name a few. But the paper never seems to land on mine.

I am looking for a journalist, Ed. Your "research" did not include the "off the record" that several people suggested. As a blogger, your offers of friendship are laced with back-handed slurs and slams. You've offer no REAL support and no encouragement (even when I directly asked you long ago) . . . and despite your eloquent Op-Eds on "open government" and accountability (knowing full well how easily our government can make even the simplest of things impossibly complicated), you're not interested in lending assistance to someone who has been struggling for eight years with exactly that kind of thing.

With "friends" like that, I don't need enemies.

Time and truth are on my side and there is little doubt I will find one (the baseball commissioner is 10 years behind investigating steroid abuse, so I'm about on the right time line). And when I do, do you think that the N&R will then come knocking on my door? Or will JR & company just do the point and click routine from my "thousands of words" in the blogosphere - and call that journalism?

[Fecund Stench]

Hey, Roch Daddy. Where are all the women in this thread? Your comment gets you a -5 for sucking up.

[Roch101]

Me? Sucking up? Okay, you got me.

[Cara Michele]

Hi, Fec. Woman here. Against my better judgment, I jumped in on the N&R thread on this topic to protest Mr. P.'s harsh language toward Ed, and ended up being sorry that I did so. So I haven't been eager to get into this one.

But here's my quick take: Nobody, but nobody, is going to win an argument against Dr. J. You will not outlast her. It's not going to happen. My advice? Just put down your weapons and back away slowly. When you've reached a safe distance... RUN!! ;)

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Good advice, Cara (just ask the guys at Randolph). Eight years and counting (cudos to the "free press"). . .

[mrproduce]

Danny, my brain works very well , what's your excuse.
Now in the future if you wish to address me on these blogs please use the name I have chosen for the blogs. My name is included in my e-mail address for those who wish to e-mail me, not for those who just wish to use it in any matter they may wish.

[MrPodunk]

I have chose to call myself Sheena, Queen of the Jungle.

Respect my authoritah!

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Put your weapon down, Mr. Podunk. And back away . . .

[MrPodunk]

Uh, lady, you do understand that the "back away" comment was in reference to you being crazy, not you being formidable, right?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Yes, Mr. Podunk. And I was making "light" of it (I believe someone called it "self-depreciating humor" and brevity").

You chimed in rather late on this one. tmobile pulled the same stunt on Doug's blog, and I will tell you what I told him. Attacking someone's mental health is the oldest, dirtiest, most cowardly debate tactic anyone can pull out of the hat. Referencing Roch's and David's more lighthearted comments, it's also usually gender-biased - not to mention a slur to anyone who is actually stuggling with mental illness.

Ed, as "high priest" of the bloggers is always telling us how people should not be afraid to embrace the Internet - and how blogging can advance stories that the mainstream media ignores (I see "King" JR making a good show - but I don't see him advancing stories in directions that he wouldn't otherwise go). They both also talk a lot about the accountability of public officials. Yet when a practicing physician shows up - one who has gone so far as to develop a website and embrace blogging under her own name - in an attempt to right a series of wrongs that occured in the non-profit and government sectors, neither one of these venerable leaders of the blogging community can figure out a story angle. As a journalistic point, until that "off the record" happens, in my book they haven't really tried.

I am consistently dismayed at the commentary posted on these blogs by supposedly enlightened and civilized people.

I made a passing comment that referenced my situation on Ed's blog one week ago, and he launched. Since then I have been chasing down comments on three different blogs. I think it speaks to the state of my mental health that I am not going to spend another beautiful weekend sparing here. Bye-bye.

P.S., the title of this post was "No good deed (goes unpunished)". Well, buster, I am the poster-girl for that one.

[Ed Cone]

"I made a passing comment that referenced my situation on Ed's blog one week ago, and he launched."

Anyone can read the comment thread to see if it went quite that way, Doc.

[Bubba]

The comment thread speaks for itself, Ed. It also speaks a lot about your style.

Are you sure you don't want a gig in the White House Press Corpse? That would mean you could focus your, ummm, QUESTIONS toward Scott McClellan, who is better paid than Doctor J is for interacting with people like you.

[Ed Cone]

Bubba, how would you have handled it differently?

If someone writes about something repeatedly, and you still don't quite get their story, isn't it logical -- even kind -- to ask them to express it another way?

If someone makes serious allegations about other people -- in a case that has already been to court, and could possibly end up there again -- isn't it an obligation for a journalist to ask for clarification, detail, and verification, rather than just accepting it as "right vs wrong?"

I re-read the thread. I don't want to be a jerk, I want to have an intelligent conversation, and provide a forum for the same. I don't see what you see. What would you do differently?

[Roch101]

"Referencing Roch's and David's more lighthearted comments, it's also usually gender-biased..."

What lighthearted gender-biased attack on someone's mental health did I make?

[Bubba]

Rather than approach her as a journalist putting the squeeze on a public figure or a DA grilling a witness, why not approach her with an attitude of providing service to her? Provide her with some insight to help with her problem, to help her reach some personal resolution.

Saying things like this doesn't help:

"Could you possibly summarize it in one paragraph of simple, declarative sentences? No more than 100 words, no cryptic allusions, no sweeping statements. Just fill in the xs: In the year x, I worked as x kind of doctor at x hospital. x happened to a patient named x. I did x, but x did x. My complaint is x. x did x in reaction to my complaint."

Or this:

"You respond in a number of ways, but not by answering the questions and helping me and my readers construct a simple timeline of events and roster of players.

Your strategy to date has not worked. Rather than lecture and accuse and point back to your previous efforts, maybe it's time to rethink your presentation."

The two of you should not be sparring here like you were on Hannity and Colmes. The exchange did not start out that way.

Roch and jsykes seemed to respond to Doctor J in a better fashion than you did.

If I were being held against my will in a potentially violent standoff, I would hate for you to be the hostage negotiator.

[Ed Cone]

But...she is specifically looking for a journalist to cover the story.

This may be fresh to you, Bubba, but her challenge to journalists to look into her story has been going on for some time on local blogs.

Which is great, it's perfectly appropriate to seek coverage for a story -- what I don't see as productive is that when a journalist responds to her queries as a journalist, it's a problem.

When she said, later in the thread, that she was looking for comfort as well, I touched on this issue -- the journalist or blogger doing journalism is in a different role than the friend or sympathetic listener.

[Ed Cone]

Also, Bubba, those quotes you pulled need to be read in context. The request for a simple summary came after she brought up her case again, in detail, and said I knew what she thought.

Ditto the second -- I said she was lecturing and accusing after she did some lecturing and accusing.

[Cara Michele]

For the record, I didn't attack anybody's mental health. I made a joking reference to Dr. J's prodigious output and unending energy. (And the "run" part meant before she throws another "book" at you.) I was trying to inject some humor into this drama. I see that it didn't work. :(

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

I'm checking in (briefly) after a beautiful day off and note the discussion continues.

First, Cara, thank you for the clarification. I didn't need it (although what you said could have been taken several ways). But Mr. Podunk did.

Roch, YOU did not make the "crazy" slam, Mr. Podunk did. It's a dirty debate tactic (if one could call it a debate tactic at all), and I called him on it. You and David had a "light-hearted" exchange about female bloggers (with good points made by David), but from a lady's point of view, they were still just a tad dismissive.

Thank you, Bubba, for pointing out what has been obvious from the get-go in this exchange.

Ed, the thread does speak for itself. If you want people to take your comments in context, then I suggest you do the same with mine. Again, I mentioned my case IN PASSING (on a thread about Jim Black's troubles and the "progessive Dems" stance) and you launched. I was there.

Just like JR, there's no point in telling YOU to adopt another approach - perhaps more princely tactics worthy of the "High Priest" of triad blogging.

I am keenly AWARE have made some very serious allegations against some very powerful people at a "local" non-profit hospital. It would be nice, if those allegations were (1) reported by the "local" press outlets (ala Homestead and David Wray), and (2) properly investigated by law enforcement. The fact that I am a former player in a round of lawsuits make no difference in that - what I am reporting are CRIMES pertaining to hospital officials' conduct before and during the lawsuits. My expectations are NOT unreasonable. If these things had happened to Ed Cone of THE Cones, I expect you would have the same expectations . . . but probably less trouble getting some "traction".

The Asheboro Pediatrics website (whose "verbage" and detail you do not care for) would not exist, and I would not be in this blogosphere if what was supposed to happen when one reports a crime had happened.

I've embraced YOUR medium in a fashion I have not seen any other physician do. I have embraced it because doors that should be open (regulatory/government doors, legal & law enforcement doors) have been slammed in my face . . . not because I am wrong, but because I am RIGHT, and the fact that I am right threatens a number of people in their comfortable and over-paid perches. That's the crux of my "problem".

In their quest to figure out how to make money from JR's new kingdom, the N&R is now marketing, "Blog", "One voice can make a difference". Yeah, sure.

And Ed, for all of your admonitions to me not to personalize our exchanges here (in "context", I'm not the one who offered "friendship" to somebody looking for a journalist), I will note that, in your recent post on public speaking, your advice was to "personalize".

Bubba's right. If Jill Carroll had been depending on you for hostage negotiation, she wouldn't be headed home to Boston this morning.

I'm out for the rest of the day. It's a mental health thing.

[Ed Cone]

It is helpful to personalize a presentation, meaning make it relevant and clear to the audience.

It is less helpful to personalize in the sense of telling anybody who asks for clarification or asks a hard question what jerks they are.

The hostage analogy is not the template I would apply to this kind of conversation. Isn't this a group of interested individuals having a smart discussion, not me trying to negotiate with a group of hostile ideologues?

Best of luck, Doc. I'm sorry I couldn't give you what you want, although I do think this process has shed a bit of light on your story.

[Ginger Bush]

"No good deed (goes unpunished)"

No, sorry Mary, you're not the poster girl for that one.

I reported someting I heard, and got asked if I was a skinhead for my efforts.

Mayo River Blues Audio

http://www.audioblogger.com/media/109634/330182.mp3

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Ginger, I could not pull up whatever you were trying to share.

Re: "poster-girl", I was referring to what happened in Asheboro . . . i.e. getting fired (after ignoring threats) to go in and help a sick baby - and then reporting what happened to peer review . . . or getting sued for telling the government I served what happened in a confidential forum (after they asked) . . . or settling one lawsuit (allowing the hospital to drop their weapons and run on the other one) because the "non-profit" officers of Randolph Hospital bold-faced lied and withheld information that was public record - leading me to believe they could not afford to pay out what my claims (referencing the destruction of my professional life in my own hometown) were worth.

All good deeds, not repaid in kind. And shades of "bad" David Wray (if you accept the N&R's version of that story without the RMA report . . . kind of like making judgments about my case now without even looking at the evidence), I wasn't a "team player".

It's the kind of "dramatic" stuff that Ed doesn't care about because he has decided (for everyone) that it's all about money.

Ed, as several folks have pointed out here, YOU STARTED this when, in the "asking" of your questions, you delivered more than one back-handed slam. Been there done that. I take it VERY personally. But I just don't sit back and take it anymore.

Ginger, we should form a club. Then perhaps, we women would have a better chance of taking over the world - and handing some of these "team players" (who forgot what the team was about - ala the Duke Lacrosse team) their hats.