Lloyd Lofthouse

Ginmar: alleged Cyber Bully, Troll and Stalker? Part 3/4

Why do I think is Ginmar allegedly stalking me? Pay Attention to the dates!

The following list establishes Ginmar’s state of mind and offers evidence that she has allegedly been stalking me on Amazon and Goodreads making reckless and false speech that libels and defames me and my work.

1. Ginmar says: “Some authors have been having temper tantrums over bad reviews and now they’re stalking reviewers.” (July 11, 2012 at 7:43 PM) Note: this comment was made on another site and to other people—not me. I’m using it to establish an alleged mindset for Ginmar.

2. Ginmar says to me: “It’s quite an accomplishment to boast of winning book contests that one pays to enter. It’s like bragging about charming a lady of the evening onto her back. (February 24, 2013 at 9:22:33 AM PST)

3. Ginmar says: “So you approve of stalking and harassing critics.” (February 28, 2013 at 8:08:47)

4. Ginmar says: “Bottom line is, people have every right to review and comment on your books and the way you stalk people. I’d hate to be you uf the person you harassed at her job was as litigious as you are.” (March 27, 2013)

5. Ginmar says: “Those are reviews you buy. The Midwest Book Review is either a paid review service or some other kind of scam. Either way…” (March 6, 2013, 4:00:02 PM PST)

6. Ginmar says: “You deleted your post. MWBR is a review mill that gives all books five stars. As for the rest.. you deleted so I no longer have the list. Deleting is not going to bring your rep back after calling that person’s job over a sarcastic comment” (March 27, 2013 at 5:54:04 PM PDT)

7. Ginmar says: “If you comment at Lloyd’s blog, be aware he doesn’t like disagreement. He tracked one person’s IP and called her job.” (March 27, 2013 at 9:43:10 AM PDT)

8. Ginmar says: “Oh, for pete’s sake. Number one, learn to sarcasm, dude, seriously, you’re embarrassing yourself. Also, stop using ‘terrorist’. Somebody who criticizes your books and the way you freakishly exaggerate whatever’s going on is not a terrorist.They are somebody who has an opinion. YOU stalked somebody to their job based on your….I have no idea what to call what’s wrong with you.It’s not criminal to be sarcastic to a guy who’s apparently competing for the world’s biggest whinyass tittybaby.You claim you used to be a Marine? Were you like this then? Because, yeah, dude, you sure aren’t like any of the Marines I knew once upon a time—and the ones I still know.Oh and it won’t reach court. No decent lawyer would take such a case and if by some once-in-a-zillion chances it arrived in court, you’d be laughed out and assessed costs and fines. Once the judge sees the way you exaggerate other peoples’ words and actions, you’d be the one being judged–and fined to within an inch of your life.” (March 27, 2013 at 1:55:18 PM PDT)

9. Ginmar says: “It’s called free speech. If you put your work out there, you get reviews. And you know what’s SHOCKING?! People might watch and vote without commenting. People might decide to——-I know this is horrifying—— join in conversations they find here and there. Like it or not, but CALLING SOMEONE’S JOB because you didn’t like their sarcasm is not justified, acceptible, or reasonable.As for how I found this review…..you don’t know how the internet works, do you?You might also look up “libel.” If you actually do have a lawyer, they’re just screwing with you.Also…..”We shall see?” Really? You sound like Dr. Evil when you say overwroughtbstuff like that.Bottom line is, people have every right to review and comment on your books and the way you stalk people. I’d hate to be you uf the person you harassed at her job was as litigious as you are. (March 27, 2013 at 4:55:40 PM PDT)

10. Ginmar says: Nobody’s ever going to go to your website again, now that people know you track IPs and call peoples’ jobs. You don’t have a dictionary, do you? And I hope nobody’s stupid enough to go to your website, because then you’ll try and TRACK YOUR IP AND CALL YOUR BOSS. What kibd of Marine were you? I can’t imagine jarheads tolerating a guy who rubs to mommy every time somebody calls him on his whining. (March 30, 2013 at 12:14:14 PM PDT)

11. Ginmar says: “’DON’T GO to his website. HE TRACKS IPS and tries to get people fired.” (March 30, 2013 at 12:16:51 PM PDT)

12. Ginmar has rated my novel, Running with the Enemy” with 1-star on Goodreads and has allegedly not bought or read a copy of this book.

13. Found on Ginmar’s Goodreads page with a photo of the cover of one of my novels: “Author now trying to erase his campaign of butthurt from the internet, wherein he attacked every negative review he ever got, and deckared that people who did NOT visit his website were bullies. But if you go to his website, he tracks your IP and calls your boss to try and get you fired.” (Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:38 AM)

Note: I have never attacked every negative review of my work. Anyone that wants to find out, may do so. In fact, many of my comments are not attacks at all. Read them and find out for yourself. Number 13 is another example of Ginmar’s reckless and false speech that allegedly libels and defames me as an author and an individual.

I also have no problems with civil disagreements, but when people hiding behind anonymous cyber names call you a snob,a narcissist, bloviated, too stupid to get into 1st grade, a stalker—and that’s only part of it—then using an IP Lookup to discover where one of the most abusive anonymous alleged cyber bully’s might live, the context of that phone call changes. And I never attempted to get anyone fired.

In addition, an IP Lookup only has about an 80% chance of getting within 25 miles of an actual location.

I want Ginmar to stop!

Continued on April 3, 2013 in Ginmar: alleged Cyber Bully, Troll and Stalker? Part 4 or return to Part 2

To discover more on this issue visit:

Dealing with Internet Bullies

The Internet is not a Safe Haven for being Anonymous and Behaving Badly

Taking it Global: Online Freedom of Speech versus the 6th Amendment

Is this an example of Defamation?—not protected by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Who’s behaving badly? A culture of arrogance

Found Guilty because of Reckless and False Speech – based on true events

______________

Lloyd Lofthouse is the award-winning author of The Concubine Saga.

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

Lloyd Lofthouse

April 2, 2013

about books, crime, cyber bullies, Lloyd Lofthouse

Bullying, cyber stalking, cyber-bully, Cyberbullying, ginmar, Goodreads, Midwest Book Review, Stalking

6 responses to “Ginmar: alleged Cyber Bully, Troll and Stalker? Part 3/4”

Mahala

April 3, 2013 at 5:48 am

This may come as a surprise to you Lloyd but any drop in your sales can be tied to your own actions. Actions that you refuse to see in any other view than your own. But let me try again.

People, readers, are going to see this whole situation all over the internet because, for one, you refuse to stop talking about it. You are the one who is keeping this front and center.

One thing people will see is a man going after a whole bunch of women. That’s never good. Then they can read the man claiming to that he wasn’t looking for their real identities because he wanted to out them or call their employers to get them fired. Lloyd, I have to tell you that right here a whole segment of the reading public backed slowly away from you and will never, ever come back.

You can protest all you want but right here you pretty much guaranteed yourself to be known forever as that author who stalked women on the internet.

Don’t trot out your definitions of stalking, they are so much shit. IN THE EYES OF YOUR FORMER READERS YOU STALKED THEM. You tried to obtain their real names, you called what might be one’s employer. Don’t repeat your excuses for doing so, they don’t matter. What matters is the perception of the person reading this and a majority think of you as a stalker.

The fact that you are still chewing on all this like a starving pit bull on a meaty bone isn’t making anybody give you the benefit of a doubt.

Then you compound that career disaster by threatening legal action. Once again, stop with the lengthy reasons why you (think you) are right. Just listen for once and then think about what I’m saying not in terms of Lloyd being right but in terms of how Lloyd appears to the majority of people on the web.

So, a little insult and you begin to threaten and try to intimidate your non-admirers by talking of lawsuits. Are you not dealing with a full deck? Can you not see, no, guess not. Let me help.

People are now going to see the stalker author threatening legal action against a group of women who don’t agree with him. They see a man threatening women. Stalking women. Harassing, criticizing, belittling women.

They take their money to an author who doesn’t spend all his time on the internet telling everybody that a small group of women has tanked his career and he has tried to find out their real names, called their (maybe) employers, blogged about them numerous times, threatened them with legal action, all because, damn it, he knows he is right.

And he will make sure they will know it, too.

Stop thinking about what you believe, start thinking about what other people SEE.

Reply
1. Lloyd Lofthouse
  
  April 3, 2013 at 7:49 am
  
  Mahala,
  
  Thank you. You have now revealed that what started out as a little flame war on one Amazon thread may have been allegedly orchestrated by a few women mostly using anonymous names.
  
  How many women? I have no idea.
  
  How old are they? I have no idea.
  
  Where do they live? I have no idea.
  
  What are the real names of these women? I have no idea. I’m not even sure that Mahala is a real name.
  
  Who are these people? I have no idea.
  
  What is the agenda of this group of women? I have no idea.
  
  Are these woman all friends? The answer to this question must be YES, because you just told me.
  
  Why did these women—–who all may be friends as you have now admitted—–end up leaving comments in the same Amazon thread allegedly bullying me because of one comment I left for an Amazon reader review of the mystery, “Tough Cookie” by Ruth M. Myers? I have no idea.
  
  Here is that twenty-three word poorly written review by “nancy D. mendez (Is she one of your friends too?): “Too soft and expected situations with the most probable endings, could be written by the reader himself is they had read three novels.”
  
  By the way, I just checked and Ruth’s book now has ninety-six 5-star reviews, sixty-eight 4-star reviews and two 2-star and two 1-star reviews. The review that I left a comment for (my comment now deleted but copied in a post on this Blog) is one of those four, and I think all of the comments by your anonymous women friends are still there along with a few of my own that I did not delete and move to my Blog.
  
  In fact, until now, I thought Old Rocker (or is it Old Rockem) was a man who may live in Texas, and I wasn’t sure about the others because it is so easy to use any anonymous name and pose as a woman or man on the Internet.
  
  I have a question: Are you now going to accuse me of stalking Old Rocker because I said she might live in Texas?
  
  How do I know that Old Rocker might live in Texas? Because it says so on Old Rocker’s Amazon Review page. It clearly says “Location: Republic of Texas”, and above that is a photo of Tom the cat, who looks as if he wants to go outside and is waiting for Old Rocker to open the door.
  
  Then there is one of your friends that uses two names. We have already established that she is your friend because you told me when you sent me an e-mail asking me to take down her IP address from my Blog and I did take it down didn’t I? I even wrote that I was thinking about taking it down before you asked me, and I thanked you for reminding me.
  
  On Amazon this friend of yours is known as Anna Karenina and Zahra Cerise on Goodreads—–is this wrong?
  
  I had no idea who was a woman or a man because almost everyone in this little flame war—if not everyone—uses an anonymous name. That is except me who is transparent and easy to find on the Internet. I’m not hiding anywhere. No anonymous name for me.
  
  Lets see, from that Amazon thread where this all started, there’s KarLynP, Anna Karenina (aka: Zahra Cerise), Ginmar, Old Rocker/Old Rockem (maybe these are two women and not one) and of course you, Mahala.
  
  Is that it, or are there more women in this group that you have recklessly and falsly said I’m stalking?
  
  And Once again you have libeled and defamed me with your reckless and false speech saying, “People are now going to see the stalker author threatening legal action against a group of women who don’t agree with him. They see a man threatening women. Stalking women. Harassing, criticizing, belittling women.”
  
  Mahala, it is okay not to agree with the comment I left on that Amazon thread. It is an entirely different manner to take my opinion of that one review and say I’m stalking women.
  
  You see, on the Internet it doesn’t matter if we are women or men, because in reality, we are all equal. There is no advantage to being a man or woman on the Internet. But there may be an advantage to being anonymous on the Internet.
  
  And no, I’m not spending all my time on the Internet telling everyone that a small group of woman has tanked my career. I said my sales have dropped 30%. In fact, until that drop, I was selling more books each month than the average traditionally published author sells in a year, and when we count all sales from January 2008, I’ve sold more books than the average traditionally published author sells in a lifetime.
  
  But a sudden 30% drop in sales is still a drop and is it just a coincidence that this drop happened the same time that this little Flame War erupted on that Amazon thread and then spread to the Internet from Amazon?
  
  And of course, I may be responsible for that because I moved this little Flame War to my Blogs, which is what the advice says to do in case of being caught up in an Amazon and/or Goodreads Flame War.
  
  Then there is this reckless and false speech of yours: “Don’t trot out your definitions of stalking, they are so much shit. IN THE EYES OF YOUR FORMER READERS YOU STALKED THEM. You tried to obtain their real names, you called what might be one’s employer. Don’t repeat your excuses for doing so, they don’t matter. What matters is the perception of the person reading this and a majority think of you as a stalker.”
  
  Did I want to know who these anonymous people were that were calling me—–for example—–a snob, a narcissist, a troll, and then a stalker, etc. [there’s more]?
  
  Did I want to know who these anonymous people were that may be behind all the sudden overnight “YES” votes for the 1-star reviews of my work?
  
  By the way, I have never stalked any of my former readers—ever, and how would I know if one or more of your anonymous friends ever read one of my books. None of the retailers that sells my work has ever provided a list of the people that bought a copy of my work. I don’t think that is even possible. That would be a really long list with thousands and thousands of names on it from all over the world. In fact, I don’t even collect e-mails of fans as most authors do as the advice says authors should do.
  
  The answer is yes. But all I learned when I looked up a few IP addresses was that two lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, one lived in Ireland and one may work for The San Mateo County Office of Education. Information from an IP Lookup does not provide a real name or a real address or exact location. All it does is get you close. To discover any more information about these anonymous people would require a court order issued by a judge.
  
  If a judge issues a subpoena to discover who these people really are and summon them to court, would that be more evidence that I am a stalker?
  
  The correct and legal way of saying what you just said would have been “alleged stalker”. With your words, you have found me guilty and say that the majority of readers that read this will agree with you.
  
  Could that be true? I don’t know. Only time will tell and possible a court verdict if this issue reaches a courtroom, and it might if you and the others in your little group keep spreading reckless and false speech that I am stalking a group of [mostly anonymous] women who may live all over the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, the UK, etc.
  
  And I do not know if I am right but I’m willing to pay a lawyer and possible go to court to find out.
  
  How do I know that I may not be right? Because I keep using the world “alleged” when referring to any alleged reckless and false speech written by a member of this group. Only a court can decide guilt or innocence. Only a court may decide of your anonymous and helpless woman friend , ginmar, is a cyber bully, troll and stalker. What I think only matters to me.
  
  But you seem to know what the majority of people that may read this are thinking. After all, you said, “What matters is the perception of the person reading this and a majority think of you as a stalker.”
  
  And what you say might be true because on Sunday only 24 people visited this Blog; on Monday there were 30 people; on Tuesday there were 34, and today so far [at 7:41 AM] there have been 15. They could all be women and all be your friends as far as I know.
  
  In addition, your friends could be spreading the word to their friends who are not your friends. And when they spread this word, what do they tell their friends about this “stalker” of mostly anonymous helpless women? If enough of these friends keep spreading the word about this guilty “stalker” that needs to be punished, then they will come and they will judge.
  
  Reply
Anonymous

April 3, 2013 at 12:49 am

Wow, Lloyd, you seem to be able to simultaneously demand your right to free speech while denying mine. I don’t understand how you can rationalize your differences.

Peace Out
Montoya

Reply
1. Lloyd Lofthouse
  
  April 3, 2013 at 6:36 am
  
  Legal and illegal free speech depends on how one says it and only a court may judge what is a crime and what is not.
  
  And that explains why I keep using the word “alleged” when I refer to any reckless and false speech used by any member of the group you, ginmar and Mahala may belong to.
  
  How many anonymous women are in that group? Until Mahala said you are all women, I thought you were a man. Really!
  
  Reply
Anonymous

April 2, 2013 at 4:55 pm

Wow, just wow, Lloyd, buddy, don’t you think you are going overboard about a little criticism? Writing entire blogs because someone was mean to you?

We citizens of the United States have been shedding our blood for over 209 years to protect our rights to free speech. Chilling of free speech by intimidation is for left wing and communist countries. Remember the saying, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to do so.

Peace out
Old Rocker

Reply
1. Lloyd Lofthouse
  
  April 2, 2013 at 5:36 pm
  
  Old Rocker,
  
  It is obvious that you do not know what the 1st Amendment protects. You may want to read this information about the 1st Amendment to dispel your obvious ignorance of this issue.
  
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
  
  “The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference.”
  
  AMENDMENT I
  
  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
  
  ______________________________________________________________
  
  In addition, there is some speech that is not protected by the 1st Amendment. You cannot say whatever you want about someone else. There are limits.
  
  4. Does the First Amendment apply to private companies and organizations?
  
  No. The First Amendment applies to the government — to protect individuals from government censorship. While the text of the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” it means that no federal, state or local government official can infringe on your free-speech rights. A private company is not a government or state and therefore generally is not subject to the requirements of the First Amendment.
  
  That same principal applies to other citizens that are not elected officials. We can say just about anything we want to say about an elected official but we cannot say it about a private citizen who is not an elected offical.
  
  What are the limitations on 1st Amendment Protection of Speech?
  
  http://askthelawyer.info/what-are-the-limitations-on-first-amendment-protection-of-speech/
  
  Then there is Defamation and the 1st Amendment:
  
  Defamation refers to false statements of fact that harm another’s reputation. It encompasses both libel and slander. Libel generally refers to written defamation, while slander refers to oral defamation.
  
  Defamatory comments might include false comments that a person committed a particular crime or engaged in certain sexual activities. The hallmark of a defamation claim is reputational harm. Former United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once wrote that the essence of a defamation claim is the right to protect one’s good name. According to Stewart, this tort “reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being — a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.”
  
  http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/defamationandfirstamendment/
  
  Ginmar recklessly and falsely said I was a “stalker” (not an alleged stalker) more than once and that alleged libel and defamation has spread beyond Goodreads and Amazon without the correct contextual history that is behind that accusation that has damaged my good name and reputation causing the sale of my novels to drop more than 30% and may have stopped the sale of my new book before it had a chance to get started.
  
  This issue may only be resolved through the courts now. I am defending myself against reckless and false accusations and speech.
  
  Now, if we were to go back and look at my original comment that was the motivation for this flame war, we will see that I said nothing about the individual who wrote that review but only focused on the review. I did not libel the anonymous person that wrote that review. I only expressed my 1st Amendment rights to say what I thought about that review. I did not write that comment as a favor to support another author. I wrote what I was thinking and what I felt. If I did not honestly believe what I wrote, I would not have written it.
  
  Then later, I had a change of heart after I discovered and realized how dehumanizing the Internet has made speech where anonymous people libel and defame others without hesitation. That is why I deleted my original comment and replaced it with constructive criticism—not because I thought I had done anything criminal. The original is now in one of my Blog posts on this flame war so it isn’t gone.
  
  I know about the limitations of the 1st Amendment first hand. As a journalism teacher, I taught my students what this meant from a textbook written for high school journalists, and one year, a student reporter was accused of writing libel/defamation in one of the school paper’s opinion pieces. That incident went national, hitting the national media, and dragged on for months with lawyers on both sides slugging it out. In the end, the charges were dropped when a compromise was reached. The school paper was not guilty of libel and defamation and the person that felt she had been libeled was satisfied with the outcome too.
  
  I had a lawyer representing me through the teacher union. The school district had its lawyer. The student reporter had her lawyer from a nonprofit organization that protects student journalists in 1st Amendment cases. And the family of the student that thought she was libeled had a lawyer. This dragged on for months. No telling what the cost was for all those lawyers.
  
  I do not see any humor in this incident. I think that several of the others involved in this issue have gone way to far with their alleged fun.
  
  Writing is my passion and it is my business—a quarter of my income comes from my books. I have dedicated most of my life to learning how to write and writing. The last few years, I have spent literally thousands of hours building my reputation as an author slowly and painfully learning as I go and that includes writing more than 1,600 posts for one of my author platform Blogs. You see, I don’t publish Blogs to brag or show off. I do it because that is what is expected of authors. Ask an established literary agent what the odds are of representing an author without an Internet platform that includes Blogs, Websites, a Facebook page, etc.
  
  This is expected of an author. It is the business of being an author.
  
  The damage that Ginmar did with her reckless and false speech when she broadcast that I was a stalker may have damaged my business and reputation beyond repair.
  
  Why do you think I’m doing what I’m doing? Because I know the limitations of the 1st Amendment. What you said is true about defending the right of freedom of speech but that means defending citizens against the government—-not another citizen.
  
  Reply

Lloyd Lofthouse

Ginmar: alleged Cyber Bully, Troll and Stalker? Part 3/4

Like this:

6 responses to “Ginmar: alleged Cyber Bully, Troll and Stalker? Part 3/4”

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Ginmar: alleged Cyber Bully, Troll and Stalker? Part 3/4

Share this:

Like this:

6 responses to “Ginmar: alleged Cyber Bully, Troll and Stalker? Part 3/4”

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply