Dear Mr. Maynard,
re:
You
know that I could have left the review and comment thread open to the
public on Facebook. Most likely you would not have noticed it for
many months.
This
is assuming you perform your own name searches time to time, you would
not have known that page existed. Right?
So
maybe you could thank me for alerting you to the presence of the page,
respect and honor me by having took my review and comment thread into
your mind's view before you removed it from Facebook. Did
you?
You
remain silent, perhaps you will answer this comment stream in our
meeting? I provided you a printout copy of that content last week
--- without a transmittal record.
That page is now deleted from Facebook.com but it is indeed archived to:
This
is a fact. There is absolutely nothing illegal by this action of
mine. The content that is stored on my domains is web surface
indexed and searchable.
Now, you could ask me to remove the content from my web domains. The information society works this way.
You
had a review placed onto your Facebook business page, I archived my
review and contents affixed to hold it's web presence open so you
realize what is here on the web has permanence if one requires that
function. [ I require it ].
The
facts Are: I indeed did place that review and content onto your
business listing page that you choose to remove in an abrupt and
immediate action of non-involvements of that particular function
of Facebook, only because I informed you of it's presence.
The web is assuming transparency is the rule of default in business operations, can't you see that?
You might think how that reflects onto the information society.
What was once a review has been deleted and not "processed" into a concern or response to this client's review.
You
think it is right to just remain there silent? .There is an erosion of
trust that has occurred without a response from you generated and given
back to me. That erosion of trust is outside of assimed morality
and transparency.
Just
because we have an interpersonal relationship of client / provider and
does not mean we can't interact on the informational society. No,
it does not mean we separate unity.
By
having a copy of the review thread contents on my domains, you have
lost control of that content. It is under my control and direction
and choice whether or not I oblige a request of content removal from
you.
I prefer to have content removal requests in writing.
They should be directed to:
I have done nothing illegal by archiving the contents from facebook.com
to my domains. This is an actual fact of our information society
presence of archived data that is lost by deletion.
What
is important here is that I know that my domain "functions" to cause a
emotional binding to the contents archived and the communication channel
just provided to you, an email address.
This in affect taking a "back step" maybe something here needs to be addressed which can't be just ignored.
In the future, there will be more objects onto the information society that I can indeed comment onto..
I
will do just that if we have not found understanding and reconciliation
of these matters. I will not tell you about the affixed comments
next time. They will be left to the public to encounter their
message.
It
will be your responsibility to go seek and find them constantly, as a
matter of "maintenance" forever of holding silence instead of
transparency in your work professional presence.
The
same thing that TedMed talk mentions, What Doctor's Will Not Disclose,
you are caught in this same moral dilemma pf non-disclosure
paradigm.
You will always have to watch over your back of information tracked on the web.
Is that really the way you want to live information society life to the end of time?
It
would be better to move to a different placement foundation of trust,
don't you think? Hold apparent that I am calling for this paradigm
shift of understanding and relations of interpersonal relationship
shift that must proceed to unite peace building efforts here. We
can't separate our conscience from these circumstances and claim
non-importance, non-involvements, hippa rules or any other coy and
nonsense responses to sit there and remain silent.
It is not of conscience to let this moment pass into an oblivion.
This is an emoji character I represent as the oblivion that occurs in interpersonal relationships of all kinds.
I
will leave you with the SCAN CODE URL to link to a short audio lesson#2
at the Awesome Kramobone Playroom School, an adult consensual practices
school of thought and action.
You
are stuck in a binding presence of mpatapo and how to untie these
bindings back to freedom reflects that I am a school and there are
information society lessons that I am offering you here in this
email. Perhaps you will take into consideration and do something
right of returned cause and action back upon me --- for a change.
Did
you inform the proper notification federal authorities to the hippa
privacy involvement violations that are implied that I had reported to
you? This is backed up on Glassdoor Reviews. These facts
were given to you by my verbal comments I made during my signing of your
privacy agreement in our contract I have with Foothill Aids
Project. Do you remember that?
I made the claim in my report to you that Colorado Health Network in particular Jamie Villalobos was the offending party.
How
can you not receive my correspondences and documented life events
record into your perspective of evidences? How can you just leave
this in a silent non-action motion and leave that stated intention you
made to me unfulfilled?
That results to a stated intention oblivion. You insult my intelligence.
If
you have the courage to talk with me advise on what can be done
here. There are so many violations of trust already that has
occurred with Foothill Aids Project that you have to give me a response
for. You can't just leave this conclusive writing unanswered.
Thank you for reading.
James Martin Driskill
