"I Could Be Writing To Tell You Your Feature Is Tasteless, Promotes Sexism, And Secures Its Readership By Offering Slanderous And Sensationalized Accounts…"

People often wonder what the fallout of a Crap Email is like. We don't often know! This guy contacted us once, thinking his ex-girlfriend had changed her name to Anna Holmes, even though her name was not Anna; when he finally figured out the deal he good-naturedly defended his doghouse-building skills and retreated back into his proverbial own. Truthfully, he seemed really nice, and I felt a little bad. The same cannot be said for "Christopher Davis," the Ayn Rand prostrating author of last week's "I Am, Right Now, Involved In Something More Important," which many of you felt to be the Douchiest Email Of All Time. Here is definitive proof it was not! A tale told in two parts: one note sent to his ex girlfriend after discovering his Crap Email on our site, one sent to us. (And yes, I bought Ayn Rand's journals last weekend and have been crafting a primer on why she is to be avoided. Although that will seem rather unnecessary in a moment.)

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Christopher Davis wrote:

Well done, Class Act.

For the record, I did rather dig you, but on the whole I found you . . . insufferable. And my ex going crazy on you - well, I'm sorry you had to go through that, but, Christ, that's a lot for *me* to deal with. You were already high maintenance enough, but if I had to do damage control every time someone I had no control over sent you a crazy, unsubstantiated email, it just Wasn't Going to be Worth It. I had school to think about. Or was it work? (I honestly don't remember when this was). In any case, something Very Much More Important Indeed, and you just Weren't Being Competitive.

But, honestly, you **remembered**? And you **kept the email?** I didn't even remember your **name**. You've sent me emails before now, and since then, haven't you? And I thought they were spam and deleted them. ("Who the hell is Cynthia O'Brien? Probably a phishing scam." That's what went through my head.)

The thing I don't get, is why this got to you so. You must have really liked me. Which, I mean, if the point is "look out for Ayn Rand fans", then I guess if I wasn't so gosh-darned attractive, brilliant, and good in bed, it wouldn't ever really be an issue, now, would it?

-oh, whatever

—- Forwarded Message

From: Chris Davis

Date: 30 Jun 2008 20:55:22 -0500

To: moe

Cc: anna

Hi Moe!

This is Chris Davis, whose letter you reprinted in your article,

"Crap Email From a Dude: 'I Am, Right Now, Involved In Something More

Important,'" which one can see here:

http://jezebel.com/5020396/i-am-right-now-involved-in-something-more-importa

nt

Now, I could be writing to tell you that your feature is tasteless,

promotes sexism, and secures its readership by offering slanderous and

sensationalized accounts of events not only to which your staff writers are

not party, but of which they (or you) do not undertake to make yourselves

fully informed before offering your shamelessly inflammatory

editorializations.

But! that is not why I am writing at all!

No, I am actually just writing to direct you to cease and desist

immediately, under peril of potential legal action, your continued

publication of my intellectual property, the exclusive rights to which I,

as the sender of the correspondence in question, retain, which you are

currently publishing without my permission.

Your use of my intellectual property does not constitute "fair use" for the

following reasons:

1. You have reprinted the entire work in question, and not just a portion.

2. The use is not transformative - you printed the work in question word

for word and in its entirety, and there is no question of a lack of

constructive comment or criticism, but rather the purpose of the reprint is

to incite and inflame the passions and frustrations of your readers, for

the purpose of drawing them continually to your website.

3. Per #2, given the target audience of your website and the likelihood

that they have experienced similar situations in their lives, it can safely

be assumed that your sole purpose in reprinting the copyrighted work in

question is to further your revenue by strengthening the loyalty of your

readership, and not for purposes of parody, comment, or criticism on the

artistic merits of the original work.

If you do not comply with this directive within 15 days of the time you

receive this e-mail message, I will reserve the right to initiate civil

litigation for some portion of the revenue that has resulted from the sales

of advertisements that have appeared on the article in question.

Cheers!

- Chris