Who’s behaving badly? A culture of arrogance

Rape—experts say—is a crime of power and control more than sex. Underlying it all is a sense of arrogance, and on sites such as Amazon, we often have no idea who we are talking to or where they live because they are mostly hiding behind an anonymous, false identity.

The following list summarizes how I was treated starting several weeks after I posted a comment for a brief and poorly written review left by an anonymous Amazon book reviewer for another author’s book. What I wrote was not a review. What I wrote was a comment expressing my opinion of a review. I have since deleted that comment on Amazon and left another comment in its place in addition to explaining why I did it (six customers–guess who they might be—don’t think this post adds to the discussion and it was hidden—-click on “show post anyway” to read it).

1. You should consider therapy. (Anna Karenina is the second anonymous speaker. The first anonymous speaker, KarLynP, has since deleted his or her comment).

2. You cannot debate on a rational topic. (Anna Karenina)

3. You are told that before one can debate, there must be a person worthy of debating and that you do not quality.  (Anna Karenina)

4. Your comments are labeled as “ludicrous nonsense”. (Anna Karenina)

5. Some of what you wrote is called “nincompoopery”. (Anna Karenina)

6. You are accused of calling yourself a troll. (Rmahala Burlingame—this may be a real name)

7. You are accused of not using your brain. (Anna Karenina)

5. You are accused of being a somewhat privileged white male that fits the description of the average troll. (Rmahala Burlingame)

6. It is inferred that you are an “egotistical narcissist”, because during an Internet search of your name, one of the anonymous speakers discovers your Blogs, Websites, book reviews and comments that is your author’s platform, which is a modern-day necessity for any writer that wants to find an audience for his or her work. Building a complex Internet platform is part of the writing business today. (Old Rockem)

7. You are described as a “bloviating person”. (Rmahala Burlingame)

8. You are called a snob. (Rmahala Burlingame)

9. One of the anonymous speakers says that he or she is much more famous than you could ever dream of being and that you would never be as smart as him or her. (Anna Karenina)

10. You are told that your reading skills are so poor that you could not get into 1st grade. (Anna Karenina)

11. You are accused of being a stalker, because after one of the anonymous speakers, Anna Karenina (AK), left a comment on your Blog along with two IP addresses, you wanted to know who he or she was and searched for the location of both IP addresses, and one of them may have been AK’s place of employment, so you call but still don’t know who AK is because he or she was using an anonymous name and the place of employment says they have no way to trace who sent what. (genmar rienee)

12.  After all that, you start getting e-mails advising you to apologize to everyone involved inferring if you don’t, the situation will get worse.

13. After you refuse to apologize to this alleged mob of anonymous Internet stalkers and bullies, it gets worse.

14. On Goodreads, four people give your new book a one-star rating and on Amazon a one-star review appears written by an anonymous person—allegedly a SockPuppet—that could not have bought or read your book. In fact, when the four Goodreads one-star ratings appear, that book has only sold three copies worldwide and all from Amazon Kindle.  In addition, there are two, five-star Goodreads ratings. So three books have sold by the time there are six ratings and one Amazon review.

15.  Then all the one-and-two star reviews for your books sold through Amazon receive a large block of YES votes, and the four-and-five star reviews get many NO votes.

16. Then the sale of your work—novels that have been selling steadily for years—slips almost 40%.

Note: This is not the complete list. There is more, and this isn’t over.

If the definition of rape is correct, then my work and my reputation as an author has been raped by a mob of allegedly arrogant and mostly anonymous Internet bullies who may troll the Internet looking for ways to recklessly spread false and libelous statements.

What we might have here is an alleged culture of arrogance that has created a group mindset that anonymously trolls the Internet to damage the reputations of others—especially authors.

This alleged anonymous mob found me guilty without a trial, without a lawyer, and without a judge or jury. And because I dared to express my opinion about this issue on my Blogs, there was retaliation.

And it all started when I left a comment for one 2-star review of “Tough Cookie” by mystery author M. Ruth Myers. On March 19, “Tough Cooke” had eighty-six 5-star reviews, fifty-nine 4-star reviews, twelve 3-star reviews, one 2-star review (in the next paragraph, and one 1-star review. I also left a comment for the 1-star review posted by an Eileen DeMarco—her only Amazon review, and there is no way to tell who he or she is.

This is the one 2-star review of Myers’s ‘Tough Cookie’: “Too soft and expected situations with the most probable endings, could be written by the reader himself if they had read three novels.” – nancy d. mendez

My comment—my first opinion of the mendez review—was posted on January 20, 2013 the same day the mendez review appeared, and it said, “This isn’t a review. Learn how to write a proper review and then maybe someone that is literate will pay attention to you. I give this sorry excuse for a review one-star or an F-.”

In conclusion, if you are reading this and think of yourself as an open minded, fair person, you may want to read all the posts on this topic and click on the links to the originals before you pass judgment. The first comment from KarLynP, an anonymous speaker, appeared on February 16, 2013, and KarLynP never leaves another comment (and has deleted that comment), and I never did hear from nancy d. mendez, the person that wrote the review.

Anna Karenina (AK), the second anonymous speaker, left his or her first comment on February 22, 2013. AK seems to have left the most comments.

Old Rockem’s 1st comment, from the third anonymous speaker, appeared on February 24. Then number four, Rmahala Burlingame—I understand that this is a real name—left her first comment about ten minutes later.

The following links will take you to the posts I have written about this issue:

2-26-2013: Dealing with Internet Bullies

3-8-2012: The Internet is not a safe haven for being anonymous and behaving badly

3-13-2013: Taking it Global: Online Freedom of Speech versus the 6th Amendment

3-15-2013: Is this an example of defamation? — not protected by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

3-31-2013: Ginmar: Alleged Cyber Bully, Troll and Stalker?

Note: When I contacted Amazon on this issue, I was basically told they would do nothing because what was happening was acceptable according to their guidelines, and that I should use similar methods to support my work. For example, get more people to vote “YES” for the good reviews and “NO” for the bad reviews—just like the alleged vigilantes were doing—and then have more people write good reviews.

But I don’t have an organized posse to help defend against this alleged mob of vigilantes that are mostly anonymous. Most authors are loners, introverts, and spend their time in front of a computer screen writing, editing, promoting, publishing, etc. And if I did what the alleged vigilantes are doing, they would criticize me for doing the same thing that they do and say it is another example of an author behaving badly.

Besides rape, libel, and defamation, isn’t this also discrimination?

Discover more here: Found Guilty because of Reckless and False Speech – based on true events

_______________________

Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran,
is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Who’s behaving badly? A culture of arrogance

  1. Too many parents raise kids who are spoiled rotten and the internet has become their playground even as adults when they grow up because they are bored and hurting others gives them a thrill.

  2. Lloyd, can I ask why some screed about logical fallacy has been added to one of my comments?

    Note from Blog Host, “For anyone that is literate enough to understand what the use of a logical fallacy reveals, it is self-explanatory.

    But to answer your points.

    “The post is not about flame wars, it is about libel and defamation. The topic of the post has nothing to do with real rape victims, etc. My post uses rape as a comparison because both criminal acts have to do with a false sense of power by the alleged criminal.”

    I wonder why it’s only other people’s comments that are ‘libel and defamation’ and not yours. In your original comment, you said that a reviewer ‘might’ need therapy. But you take exception to this ” You should consider therapy” from Anna Karenina.

    Note from Blog Host, “This has all been covered (links included where this topic has been covered). “You should” does not say AK needs therapy although I must admit that I think she does—much more than I might.”

    2-26-2013: Dealing with Internet Bullies

    http://wp.me/p2mPRS-lM

    3-8-2012: The Internet is not a safe haven for being anonymous and behaving badly

    http://wp.me/p2mPRS-lX

    3-13-2013: Taking it Global: Online Freedom of Speech versus the 6th Amendment

    http://wp.me/p2mPRS-mi

    3-15-2013: Is this an example of defamation? — not protected by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    http://wp.me/p2mPRS-mk

    After all, I changed my comment and apologized to the anonymous person that wrote the review I left a comment for and then I posted a new comment that offered constructive criticism. But no one has apologized to me for: “You are a bloviating, egotistical snob with reading skills so poor that you could never get into 1st grade, and I am more famous and smarter than you will ever be.” Most of this came from AK.

    And how does someone using his or her real name libel or defame someone hiding behind an anonymous name? How can you defame someone, no one can identify?

    When you say “Besides rape…” you are likening your experience in a flame war with rape. Did any of the people who upset you attack you physically? spike your drink? hold you down? threaten your life? then insert a part of their body into yours? If not, then there’s no ‘besides rape’ about it. In that flamewar, you were not raped. It wasn’t in any way analogous to rape.

    “In both cases, physical rape and cyber bullying, there is a correlation that a false sense of power may be involved leading to a criminal act.”

    There may well be a false sense of power in both acts. There may also be a false sense of power in embezzling millions of dollars from a bank, or tearing up a highway at 50k over the speed limit, or conning a cancer patient out of their savings, or any number of criminal acts. That doesn’t make them interchangeable, nor does it make their effects identical. The only crime truly analogous to rape is rape.

    “There is no logical connection between me seeking advice from a lawyer regarding alleged libel and defamation and attempting to intimidate and silence.”
    No-one said there was.

    While you’re busy explaining ‘logical fallacy’ to everyone, you might want to look at your ‘analogy failure’ at the same time. Unless you were actually raped by any of the people involved in the flame war, you cannot claim ‘rape’. Not even as an analogy. It makes about as much sense as claiming you were ripped off by a phony Nigerian prince – also an act involving a ‘false sense of power’ and also potentially leaving a victim feeling abused, bruised and violated. It makes about as much sense as claiming rape.

    And I notice that you are still telling commenters where they lie. If that doesn’t come from a ‘false sense of power and control’, where does it come from?

    Note from Blog Host: Let’s examine what I said, “Rape—experts say—is a crime of power and control more than sex. Underlying it all is a sense of arrogance” The analogy between the anonymous mob behind a flame war and a rape in the real worl is that both are “crimes of power and control”.

    The same may be said of modern human trafficking, which is mostly sex slavery. What do you think of human trafficking? If we were to rank three crimes of “power and control”, what order would you put them in from worst to least?

    This is how I would rank them:

    1. Human trafficking (worse)
    2. Physical rape
    3. Cyber bullying (least)

    But all three are mostly crimes that deal with power and control.

    I wrote about an attempted rape in “The Sexual Molestation of the Happy One”

    http://crazynormaltheclassroomexpose.com/tag/sexual-abuse/

    I also wrote about the sexual slavery of human trafficking in “Slavery is ALIVE and your Child may be at Risk”

    http://crazynormaltheclassroomexpose.com/2012/07/02/slavery-is-alive-and-your-child-may-be-at-risk-part-13/

  3. You said, “my work and my reputation as an author has been raped by a mob of allegedly arrogant and mostly anonymous Internet bullies.” Do you really think that experience compares to that of a woman who’s been sexually assaulted by a stranger, or by a child who’s been raped by her stepfather? To that of the young woman in India who was gang-raped on a bus a while back? If you do, your lack of proportion alone is enough to prevent me from wanting to read any of your books.

    In any case, the damage to your work and reputation hasn’t been done by anyone but yourself. It’s you who took a dispute on Amazon to your blog and then (having invited comments) tried to get one of the persons who commented fired. It’s you who has attempted to intimidate posters on your blog by telling them that you know where they live. It’s you who has alienated most female readers (and I daresay most male readers) by comparing your online run-ins to rape. Those sort of actions, not one-star reviews of your books or online sniping, are what drives off readers.

    _____________________________________________________________________

    LOGICAL FALLACY ALERT from Blog’s host

    1ST EXAMPLE: “Do you really think that experience compares to that of a woman who’s been sexually assaulted by a stranger, or by a child who’s been raped by her stepfather? To that of the young woman in India who was gang-raped on a bus a while back? If you do, your lack of proportion alone is enough to prevent me from wanting to read any of your books.”

    • This argument is a “Complex Question” fallacy that implicitly assumes something to be true.
    • This also introduces a “Red Herring” fallacy. that is introducing irrelevant facts or augments to distract from the question at hand.
    • In addition, this is an example of the “Straw Man” fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position – usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent’s position – a “straw man” – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds.

    2nd EXAMPLE: “It’s you who has alienated most female readers (and I daresay most male readers) by comparing your online run-ins to rape. Those sort of actions, not one-star reviews of your books or online sniping, are what drives off readers.”

    This is an example of two logical fallacy. One: “Non-Sequitur refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other world, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

    3rd EXAMPLE: “It’s you who took a dispute on Amazon to your blog and then (having invited comments) tried to get one of the persons who commented fired.”

    This is another “Red Herring” and it is a lie. I never tried to get anyone fired, and have explained this on my site but there are other sites that are still spreading this false rumor. When I leave comments to explain the truth, they are not posted

    The second logical fallacy is an argument that appeals to numbers. This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it’s true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn’t necessarily make it true or right.

    To learn more about how cyber bullies may use logical fallacies to take control of a debate, I recommend Philosophy professor Keven deLaplante’s Critical Thinker Academy at

    http://www.criticalthinkeracademy.com/

    http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/05/23/the-critical-thinker-academy-interview-with-kevin-delaplante/

    • I find it interesting that Marie Antoinette and Sami have the exact same IP address in or near Chicago, Illinois—maybe a Sock Puppet or sisters?

      As usual, the contextual meaning of what I meant has been twisted from what the first paragraph in this post says, “Rape—experts say—is a crime of power and control more than sex. Underlying it all is a sense of arrogance, and on sites such as Amazon, we often have no idea who we are talking to or where they live because they are mostly hiding behind an anonymous, false identity.”

      What I said in no way infers that the sort of rape I’m talking about is worse than the physical rape of a woman or child. What I’m talking about is an alleged crime motivated by power, control and arrogance—the same behavior that experts say is the motive behind a physical rape.

      There is an old idiom that described what I mean: “If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck.”

      And, other than maybe a dozen or more mostly anonymous—such as Sami (aka: Marie Antoinette)—alleged cyber bullies, I do not think my reputation has been damaged because I moved this issue from Amazon to my blog after the conversation on that Amazon thread said these things about me first.

      1. You should consider therapy. (Anna Karenina is the second anonymous speaker. The first anonymous speaker, KarLynP, has since deleted his or her comment).

      2. You cannot debate on a rational topic. (Anna Karenina)

      3. You are told that before one can debate, there must be a person worthy of debating and that you do not quality. (Anna Karenina)

      4. Your comments are labeled as “ludicrous nonsense”. (Anna Karenina)

      5. Some of what you wrote is called “nincompoopery”. (Anna Karenina)

      6. You are accused of calling yourself a troll. (Rmahala Burlingame—this may be a real name)

      7. You are accused of not using your brain. (Anna Karenina)

      5. You are accused of being a somewhat privileged white male that fits the description of the average troll. (Rmahala Burlingame)

      6. It is inferred that you are an “egotistical narcissist”, because during an Internet search of your name, one of the anonymous speakers discovers your Blogs, Websites, book reviews and comments that is your author’s platform, which is a modern-day necessity for any writer that wants to find an audience for his or her work. Building a complex Internet platform is part of the writing business today. (Old Rockem)

      7. You are described as a “bloviating person”. (Rmahala Burlingame)

      8. You are called a snob. (Rmahala Burlingame)

      9. One of the anonymous speakers says that he or she is much more famous than you could ever dream of being and that you would never be as smart as him or her. (Anna Karenina)

      10. You are told that your reading skills are so poor that you could not get into 1st grade. (Anna Karenina)

      Anyone that would read this libelous, defaming speech and believe it without reading every word on this issue probably would never read my work anyway. And if this issue goes to court, do you really think I care what a mob of mostly anonymous vigilantes and their flock of followers thinks of me?

      And here the anonymous Sami (aka: Marie Antoinette), who is speaking for literally millions—even tens of millions—of readers as if he or she knows how all of these people will react to what I write or even know I exist. Of course if the anonymous cyber bullies get there first, they may be able to sway public opinion in their favor. It is easy to stir up a mob with lies and libelous statements twisting the facts out of context. The Nazis and the KKK did this all the time.

      I’m amazed at the arrogance of any anonymous person who claims to speak for millions of women and men that for sure have no idea this conversation is taking place and on March 20, there were only thirty-nine visitors to this Blog. And as I write this reply to your comment, only four have visited so far this morning.

      • Actually, you already stalked my IP Adress and came up with this:

        “Sounds like Marie Antoinette strives to be the same sort of person as Anna Karenina. From a Russian literary character to a French queen that lost her head.

        But AK lives in San Francisco and MA may live in or near Belfast in the UK.”

        Stop lying and trying to make out your being harassed by sock-puppets. Face it, lots of people think you’re a wrong headed, arrogant bully.

      • According to the legal term for “stalking”, I do not qualify. There is no way—when this issue goes to court—that a judge could define my using an IP lookup site to see where an anonymous alleged cyber bully may live as stalking.

        Stalking Law and Legal Definition:

        “A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking. A person may be charged with aggravated stalking if they commit the crime of stalking while subject to a temporary restraining order, injunction against trespass, or similar order.

        “Stalkers target public figures or celebrities, children, and sometimes even complete strangers. But, in most cases, a stalker is someone you know and with whom you have had a relationship. Criminal statutes which can be used in an effort to deter stalking include laws against harassment and assault, as well as a specific stalking law.”

        How about your use of the anonymous name of Marie Antoinette?” I think that is sort of creepy.

        Maybe there is more than one Marie Antoinette. How should I know, and different IP locators sometimes come up with different locations.

        For example: one IP Lookup site says, “Geolocation technology can never be 100% accurate in providing the location of an IP address. When the IP address is a proxy server and it does not expose the user’s IP address, it is virtually impossible to locate the user. The country accuracy is estimated at about 99%. For IP addresses in the United States, it is 90% accurate on the state level, and 81% accurate within a 25 mile radius. Our world-wide users indicate 55% accurate within 25km.”

        IP Lookup site: http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip-lookup

        For the real location of an IP address, I would need a court order approved by a judge, and that could not be stalking because it would be sanctioned by the courts.

        In fact, it would be impossible to stalk someone through an IP Lookup. Can’t stalk an anonymous cyber ghost/bully/troll.

        I notice from your e-mail address that you also use “anne boleyn 666”

        Interesting combination.

        Why would you use an anonymous name of a Queen of England that was beheaded at the orders of her husband Henry VIII in 1537 in addition to “666” which is considered the mark of the beast?

        The description of the beast is found primarily in Revelation chapters thirteen and seventeen. Chapter thirteen gives the fullest description of the beast. John saw the beast “rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.” (Revelation 13:1)

        Those who dwell on the Earth are deceived into making an image of the beast as a means to worship his authority.

        In addition, Marie Antoinette was beheaded too.

        What do you have this thing with queens that were beheaded and the mark of the beast?

        What better anonymous tags to use for an alleged cyber bully/troll than Marie Antoinette, Anne Boleyn and 666.

        I think these anonymous names may reveal a future rage killer similar to Adam Lanza who shot twenty children and six adult staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

        “Face it, lots of people think you are a wrong headed arrogant bully.”

        Hey, I’m not coming to you. You are coming to me, and one person, you, making a claim that he or she knows what “lots of people think” is impossible.

        For example, I don’t know what anyone thinks unless they tell me and even then, how do I know it is true. So, how many people with real names have told you this? How many have written down what they think and signed his or her real in front of witnesses. What you claim to know would not hold up in a court of law. It would be considered one person’s opinion and invalid.

        People hiding behind anonymous names with a false sense of power do not count because one person with a dozen sock puppets could make it sound like twelve people agree with you when there was really only one person.

        You can claim anything you want about sock puppets but as long as we are dealing with anonymous people hiding their real identity, such as you, there is no way to know what is true or false.

  4. Lloyd, I’m really sad that you’ve learned nothing from this experience. Your false correlation between rape (a crime of violence, where someone forces a part of their body inside someone else’s) and getting into a stoush on Amazon over a book review was, I think, designed to cause a reaction. And your good name (as I’ve pointed out to you several times now) has been damaged by your behaviour, not anyone else’s. Please take my advice and stop this now before you do yourself irreparable damage. And I’m fairly sure your commenters know where they live without you telling them.

    • Thank you for your opinion and advice. However, the number of people that are reading what I write on this Blog—that may think I’m some sort of slug—is not as impressive as you may think. The daily average has been 32 a day for March. I think many of those people that are visiting this Blog are repeats that return to see what I write next so they can make more alleged moral judgements about what a horrible person I am for daring to speak my opinion over what one anonymous speaker called an “Amazon flame war” as if that makes that sort of behavior acceptable.

      I can think for myself, and I plan to seek the advice of an attorney that specializes in this area of the law.

      • While you’re seeking the advice of a lawyer who specialises in Amazon flame wars, you might also want to talk to a lawyer who has represented rape victims, and maybe a victim support group, or someone who actually has been raped while you’re about it. Then you could put your feelings of outrage alongside their feelings of being physically violated and see how it stacks up.
        The behaviour of several people involved in the flame war, yours included, wasn’t the least acceptable, but it wasn’t rape. It wasn’t evenly remotely like rape. That seems to be the focus of the comments here. And, in the same breath as you speak of being ‘raped’ you casually inform several commenters that you know where they live. It has nothing to do with the conversation and everything to do with attempts to intimidate and silence.

        ___________________________________________________
        LOGICAL FALLACY ALERT from this Blog’s Host

        This is another example of a “Red Herring” fallacy because it introduced irrelevant facts or augments to distract from the question at hand. The post is not about flame wars, it is about libel and defamation. The topic of the post has nothing to do with real rape victims, etc. My post uses rape as a comparison because both criminal acts have to do with a false sense of power by the alleged criminal.

        Experts say there are three different types of physical rape: Anger, Power, and the Sadistic.

        In addition, it has been established that the Internet and wireless networks offer an ideal climate for bullying. Faceless, often nameless electronic transmissions give many kids a false sense of confidence and power, leading them to think they can be different people online than they are in real life. Many believe they can “say anything” online. This sort of behavior can have grave consequences.

        In both cases, physical rape and cyber bullying, there is a correlation that a false sense of power may be involved leading to a criminal act.

        The “Non-Sequitur” fallacy is also at play here. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists. There is no logical connection between me seeking advice from a lawyer regarding alleged libel and defamation and attempting to intimidate and silence.

        A logical conclusion would be that I am seeking advice from a lawyer—an expert in this area—to see if the existing and growing evidence may establish a strong case for libel and defamation, and if so, then possibly go to court seeking justice where there is no guarantee that I would win the case. The statute of limitations for libel is one year so I must act quickly.

        If you want to know more about the misuse of logical fallacies and how to deal with them, I suggest visiting Philosophy professor Keven deLaplante’s Critical Thinker Academy.

        http://www.criticalthinkeracademy.com/

        http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/05/23/the-critical-thinker-academy-interview-with-kevin-delaplante/

  5. Er, I didn’t write the last two paragraphs contained in my previous comment. I wonder how they got there? Osmosis, no doubt.

    Perhaps you ought to join a support group for victims of rape. I’m sure that your sad story of violation via Amazon will give them a much-needed laugh–if you don’t get thrown out of the door first.

  6. Talking of arrogance, you seem to think that the disgust at your appalling behaviour is coming only from one person. Guess what? Pretty much everyone who has read your blog thinks you need help. No, really, they do. First you stalk AK, now you compare her to a rapist. Honestly, get help. You badly need it.

  7. Er, I didn’t write the last two paragraphs contained in my comment. So it sounds as if you have yourself to thank for them, if anyone.

    Perhaps you ought to join a support group for victims of rape. I’m sure that your sad story of violation via Amazon will give them a much-needed laugh.

  8. Yes dear, getting a one star review is just like getting raped. I can totally see where you’re coming from on this one, and don’t think you’re a reactionary, over-blown, angry little pillock with too much time on your hands at all.

    Look darling, I had my head cut off a long time ago. My brain still functions at a much higher level than yours.

    • Sounds like Marie Antoinette strives to be the same sort of person as Anna Karenina. From a Russian literary character to a French queen that lost her head.

      But AK lives in San Francisco and MA may live in or near Belfast in the UK.

      A one-star review from someone that read the book without an agenda, didn’t like it for whatever reason and then gives his or her honest reason without being insulting or snarky is not the same as one that comes from a person that—for sure—did not read the book and left the review to punish me for standing up to a pack of alleged anonymous Internet bullies.

  9. If you consider an Amazon flame war as being equivalent to rape, Anna K is right. You do need therapy. Or you are just as dim-witted an insensitive as some of our Republican politicians, and that’s saying a lot.

    _________________________________________

    Note from Blog host:

    What you call an Amazon “flame war” may still be illegal and considered libel and/or defamation in a court of law. It doesn’t matter what you call it. The politically popular name for an alleged criminal act is still a criminal act.

    For example I’m sure these two teen girls thought what they were doing was a Twitter and Facebook flame war and now they are in jail:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/03/teen-girls-charged-for-allegedly-threatening-steubenville-ohio-rape-victim/

    • Thank you for providing more evidence of how this alleged libel and defamation issue is spreading across the country and world. This time, it seems to be from someone that lives in or near Chicago, Illinois. The last comment was from the UK.

  10. Hi Lloyd
    A note of support. I have been following your blog for a few months now and I must congratulate you on your clear, concise and well balanced arguments. You have coherently and fluently, and with equanimity (in my opinion), written about the saga of the Amazon bullying. This is not about free speech. This is about faceless and senseless bullying. Keep up the good fight.
    Kerry

Comments are welcome — pro or con. However, comments must focus on the topic of the post, be civil and avoid ad hominem attacks.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s