I opened my August MH+D issue today and saw, in addition to the news of the ownership transfer, vague mea culpas for past “inappropriate behavior” to be remedied. I also noticed both Susan’s and Rebecca’s names were absent from the staff roster.

As a former (yes, former) contributor and advertizer, I was curious. Was the behavior in question the unethical behavior I experienced? My search led me to your piece.

I have to say, hats off for bringing down a perp, proof the pen is mightier than a dick. I hope some form of compensation will be forthcoming for you.

I also have to say thank you for the work you must have done for my partner and me, Scholz & Barclay Architecture. We always apperciated the ads you created for us, the artistic layout of articles on our work, and the consistently excellent graphic quality of the magazine.

The issues we (as well as other acquaintances) have had with the magazine relate to integrity (such as refusing to publish an article on a business unless they bought advertising) rather than harassment.

To give you an outside example of the culture of vindictiveness present at the publication, I was told not to submit photos of a project that MH+D had been asking us for for months after I commented in a Facebook thread. A gallery owner was bemoaning the death of curating for excellence, citing pay-to-play Art Collector Maine. I commented that the MH+D’s magazine was run the same way, and one needed to accept that it was advertizing not journalism. Susan and Rebecca were all, if you don’t think we’re journalists, find another publication, rather proving my point.