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

View as Single Page

What does Ginmar and others say about her?

1. Ginmar says: interests: “Cutting through bullshit and refusing to make nice with cowardly assholes.”  about me: “I swear a lot. I don’t have tact. And I don’t have patience for assholes, of whom I’ve encountered rather a lot lately. I especially don’t like passive aggressive people. Don’t expect tact. Hell, don’t even hope for it.” Source: http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/6804123-ginmar

2. A comment about Ginmar: “More Steve Irwin wank: Ginmar is not sorry: Well, it had to happen. Ginmar weighs in on Steve Irwin’s death. And again, a few minutes later. Discussion, disagreement, and trolling ensue, along with yet another demonstration of ginmar’s mad debate skillz. Mainly, I’m impressed by her ability to deconstruct any situation to make it into an example of patriarchy in action.” Source: http://www.journalfen.net/community/otf_wank/466962.html?thread=29182226

3. Some of you may know that I’ve gotten involved in some pretty long and heated discussions about female sexual dysfunction over in ginmar‘s journal. She has since locked the original post, saying that people were misreading her, but I’ve obtained a copy of it from Friday noon, several hours before access was restricted. I will post it in its complete and unedited form below (so there can be no charges of selective editing), behind a cut-tag, so people can judge it for themselves. Source: http://cheshyre.livejournal.com/29224.html

4. Ginmar says: “Certain Goodreads members are not harassing authors. Some authors have been having temper tantrums over bad reviews and now they’re stalking reviewers. Get your facts straight, because all you’re doing now is making excuses for these people.

“You’re defending these people. You’re entitled to your own opinion—-but not to have it treated as a fact. And what you present is not the facts.” (July 22, 2012 at 7:43 PM)  Source: http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/6804123-ginmar

5. “Well, this is definitely a first. We have a typical response from Ginmar and it’s about the standard response one could expect from an obsessive, dysfunctional, female supremacist, a feminist. I have had the displeasure of trying to point Ginmar in the right direction over the past decade or so, all without the appropriate affect, unfortunately..

Ginmar is one of those human beings who refuses to look at any issue and compare the pros and cons. As far as she is concerned, she has her opinion, everyone else is either a liar, some type of sycophant to some radical theory or doctrine or they are just way too stupid to see her point of view because of their  inability to reason coherently.

Sound familiar Ginmar. You accuse people of doing exactly of what you do yourself.

6. Number four on the list explains her conditions and her medication including her suicide attempts. Those confession vindicate the article previously posted right here. Ginmar claims to have served in the forces and from the look of it it may well be the case but we only have her word for it (and she does have an ability to tell stories). I am loathed to believe anything she says or states and the reasons are that she has an intense hate of all men, generalises like all radical, male hating, feminists do and refuses to accept any other facts otherwise or maybe she just enjoys it..

Meanwhile, I have had a gut full of this obnoxious female and prefer to just ignore it but the challenge was there and here is her information(some of it) and the original demand stands..

7. As I expected, I received an abusive email from Ginmar which was to rude and obnoxious to post here. This is the standard response we can expect from feminists, as we continue to expose their hate doctrine.. (Posted January 22, 2012)

Source for numbers 5, 6, and 7: http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2012/01/ginmar-and-her-version-of-reality.html

8. Yohan says: “No idea, for sure Ginmar is delivering her men-hating statements already since about 8 years or longer – I noticed her the first time, when she was writing hateful comments against men married with a foreign wife at Ampersands, long before VAWA-IMBRA in 2005, she was somehow connected to this Tahirih Justice Center.

At that time she was doing something for Russian female immigrants, I do not recall any statement from her about Iraq or army at that time.

Her comments were never ‘normal’ and full of hate and scorn. – I think, Ampersands banned her around 2003 from his feminist blog.

Maybe she was in the US-army, but for sure not always in combat in Iraq, more likely most of the time somewhere in USA in a military related office, doing some social services for immigrants as a volunteer in a women’s shelter during her time off. Something like that…

For the first time I noticed Ginmar on the internet when she was writing hate-comments against a marriage-introduction company for Russian women which had its office in Australia. I think it was 2003 (January 25, 2012)

9. Christian J says: “Unknown is ofcourse Ginmar as we can read. Too cowardly to include it’s real name.

Ginmar, you have now achieved a warning level. Even I who would generally allow just about any any level of abuse thru ,have reached saturation level. Unlike feminists site’s, we do actually allow commentary but I do beleive that your level of abuse is way past what I woud have thrown into the bin. I wanted people to see what type of lunatic you really are and here you have done exactly that..

Excellent, well done..

Continue with the abuse level and I will kick your worthless arse to the rubbish bin where it belongs..

Last warning (January 25, 2012)

10. Ginmar says: “Apparently I’m the Alpha Femibitch, which tells me that:

  1. Christ, your standards are pathetic if you think I’m too feminist;
  2. Where’s my back pay, bitchez?

Seriously, why do some assholes always accuse some women and doing this? And by ‘assholes’ I mean ‘other alleged feminists’ because their feminism seems awfully directed at sucking up to men. The whole ‘fe’ prefix is important. It’s not like men don’t have the whole fucking world at their disposal. …[Note: there is a lot more to this journal entry]

But anyway, if I’m the Alpha Feminist, I want my back pay.”

Source: http://ginmar.livejournal.com/profile

Once again, I want Ginmar to stop!

Return to Ginmar: alleged Cyber Bully, Troll and Stalker? Part 3 or start with Part 1

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”

Advertisements

Ginmar: alleged Cyber Bully, Troll and Stalker? Part 1/4

View as Single Page

This is my response due to Ginmar’s alleged reckless and false speech that may have libeled and defamed me mostly on Amazon.com but also on Goodreads, and I want Ginmar to stop. Another reason I’m writing this series of posts on-line is because I want everyone to know what is happening. I also plan to send a link to the local county district attorney.

Ginmar says: “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)

My response: There are only a few literary contests that do not charge a fee, and the competition is stiff.  The more prestigious the award, the tougher the competition and the higher the odds are of placing.

Writers Views.com lists seventeen literary contests that do not charge a fee. When something is free, more people will enter and the odds of placing are that much higher.

The odds of placing are like buying a lottery ticket and most of the poets and authors that enter contests that are free or come with an entrance fee do not win or place.


Document Everything!

Poets & Writers Magazine lists many reputable contests that charge fees and for decades I have paid the fees and entered some of those contests often not placing.

In addition, the literary contests that I have placed in are not listed on Winning Writers list of Contests and Agencies to Avoid. Source: Winning Writers.com

In fact, I have entered Writer’s Digest Magazine’s contests several times and the fee is $100 each time.  I have never placed but with that $100 fee comes a judge’s detailed commentary and score that authors may quote from for promotional purposes—that is if the judge says anything nice about the book. There is no guarantee.

What counts is not the fee but if the contest is juries. There is nothing wrong with a literary contest that charges a fee that goes toward the costs of running the contest and a cash prize for the grand prize winners.

Everyone does not have a foundation or grant to pay the costs or running a literary contest. Writer Beware says, “Is the contest free? If so, you probably have nothing to lose by entering–though be sure to read the fine print. If you’re a poet, be aware that a “free” contest is one of the major warning signs of a vanity anthology scheme.

“Is there an entry fee? Contrary to popular belief, an entry fee does not indicate a questionable contest. Many legitimate contests charge a fee to cover processing expenses (which sometimes include an honorarium to readers) and to fund the prize.” Source: Writer Beware ® Blogs!

Why do poets and authors enter contests?  Answer: to establish the fact that what he or she writes may be worth reading.

When poets and authors place in a reputable, unbiased literary contest, why do they publicist it?  Answer: Because if they don’t, who will? Published authors and poets are responsible to promote his or her work.

Continued on April 1, 2013 in Ginmar: alleged Cyber Bully, Troll and Stalker? 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”

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

PBS.kids.org says, “Online bullying often called online harassment is a serious issue, and it’s getting more common.”

In fact, no one on the Internet—especially those that are transparent—is safe from an anonymous online bully, who uses the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution as a shield to abuse the character and/or reputation of individuals that are not anonymous online. For example, authors, who may also be publishers, often find their reputations as authors/publishers damaged by the comments of anonymous online bullies.

I have been doing extensive ongoing research on this issue due to my own run-in with a pack of these anonymous bullies recently (and a few years ago), and I have discovered that this is a problem that permeates Amazon (in addition to other sites such as Goodreads) affecting possibly hundreds and even thousands of people due to the fact that Amazon cannot, at this time, police itself efficiently or adequately to protect transparent people—mostly authors—that have become victims of alleged malicious and obviously premeditated attacks by anonymous people that demonstrate by their own words alleged sociopath-narcissist tendencies.

I have also come to the conclusion that we cannot blame Amazon.com for this toxic environment. Amazon is also a victim due to the “freedom of speech” dilemma. However, the 1st Amendment does not offer total protection from abusers.

1st Amendment Text: “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.”

Study these 1st Amendment words carefully. Nowhere does it say in the 1st Amendment that a private sector business and social network like Amazon.com cannot limit freedom of speech on its site. The key words are “Congress shall make no law …”, and Amazon.com does not make the laws.

In addition, The Freedom Forum clearly says that the First Amendment does not say anyone can say anything at any time, and the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.

The Supreme Court has ruled regarding libel and slander: “Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.” Source: Freedom Forum.org

The virtual world is a new legal arena and the courts are dealing with hundreds of libel law suits monthly and, true to form, legislation at the state and national level is moving slowly as this hot button issue over “freedom of speech” gives cause for caution. Our elected representatives do not want to be smeared with accusations that they are limiting freedom of speech so they must tread cautiously or lose votes.

However, there is another side to this issue that I haven’t seen expressed yet.  Freedom of Speech is only one of the rights/protections that the US Constitution offers its citizens. What everyone seems to have overlooked is the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Confrontation Clause has its roots in both English common law, protecting the right of cross-examination, and Roman law, which guaranteed persons accused of a crime the right to look their accusers in the eye. In noting the right’s long history, the United States Supreme Court has cited Acts of the Apostles 25:16, which reports the Roman governor Porcius Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: “It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges.” It has also cited Shakespeare’s Richard II, Blackstone’s treatise, and statutes.

By allowing people to hide behind an anonymous identity on the Internet and allowing them to write negative reviews/comments and even level ad-hominem attacks against easy to identify individuals who are transparent, the 6th Amendment rights of these transparent people have been violated because one cannot look his or her accuser/s face-to-face and eye-to-eye.

After all, how can any author, for example, who is transparent and working under his or her real name, defend against alleged anonymous bullies on Amazon.com (and similar sites such as Goodreads)—that leave negative reviews or even YES votes to support those anonymous, negative reviews/comments—and have a chance to defend his or her damaged reputation by facing his or her critic face-to-face and eye-to-eye?

In this example, knowing the history of your critic might be vital if it is discovered that an anonymous person leaving negative reviews/comments has a hidden history of this sort of behavior on the Internet spreading criticism, lies and ad-hominem insults in addition to using what is known as SockPuppets to gain an unfair advantage thus establishing premeditation—the law says that premeditation is the contemplation of a crime well enough in advance to show deliberate intent to commit the crime; forethought.

In conclusion, because going to court to resolve this hot button issue may be too costly and beyond the average citizen’s ability to pay for justice, this issue may be open to a lawyer or law firm to take pro bono or as a class action suit on a consignment and/or contingency basis. The defendant in this sort of class action case might be a consumer, social networking sites such as Amazon.com—an online community similar to a town, city, state or nation and therefore held responsible to uphold the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution to its Internet citizens.

In this case, a transparent victim online, such as an author or other individual, should have the right to demand knowing who his or her anonymous critic/accuser is that may be smearing his or her good name and/or product. After all, the online environment has created a court of public opinion that if unchecked may damage the reputation and well being of an innocent victim.

Of course, there may be a simple solution to avoid having this issue reach and be defined by the United States Supreme Court: When a transparent person claims his or her 6th Amendment rights when confronted by an alleged online anonymous bully, Amazon.com—for example—automatically provides an online form that the anonymous person may fill out revealing his or her real-life name, location and information leading to his or her online history that could then be verified before publication, or the anonymous person may decide to delete his or her review/comment and remain anonymous. If the anonymous person refuses to cooperate, Amazon may refuse to offer them a forum on its site and remove every review/comment made by that anonymous individual. Eventually, even the SockPuppets an anonymous person may have created might be revealed and vanish under such a policy.

To discover more about this issue visit:

Dealing with Internet Bullies

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

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

Ginmar: Alleged Cyber Bully, Troll and Stalker?

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!”

Death by Competitive Capitalism

Today I went out-of-my-way to order a book at the local Barnes & Noble bookstore and had to walk about a mile from a distant parking lot, because a few days earlier I was told by a B&N employee that the store would match Amazon’s price. But I wasn’t ready to buy then. I wanted to check out Half Price Books first.

Today, I was ready, but I had not learned all the details. After walking that mile, I was told that to get the same discount that Amazon offered, I had to become a Barnes & Noble member with an annual cost of twenty-five dollars.

B&N was even willing to automatically renew my membership each year. I wouldn’t have to worry about that.

I have changed my mind. Why should I be loyal to Barnes & Noble, because the Amazon giant is driving them out of business?

We have been through this sort of thing before but back then it was the independent bookstore being pushed out by the big chains like Barnes & Noble. We heard the same sob story then too but not from the chain stores.

Highbeam.com gives us a snapshot of this history. I pulled a couple of quotes to give you an idea.

“The retail bookstore industry in the early twenty-first century was dominated by several large chains, including Borders Group, Inc.; Barnes & Noble, Inc.; and Books-A-Million. The rest of the market was shared by about 10,000 independent bookstores. Chain stores, many of which opened during the 1970s, were generally located in shopping malls and usually carried between 15,000 and 20,000 of the most popular titles targeted for a broad consumer market.” Source: Highbeam.com

Highbeam.com says that “Barnes & Noble is the largest bookseller in the United States. In 2006 the company operated 793 bookstores in fifty states, including stores under the names Barnes & Noble, B. Dalton, Doubleday, and Scribner’s, as well as barnesandnoble.com. The company posted $5.26 billion in sales in fiscal 2006. Its superstores accounted for approximately 86 percent of sales. The company is credited with introducing the superstore concept (which Borders embraced) and has also established a significant online presence. Barnes & Noble was founded in 1873 by Charles Barnes & began as a used book business.”

There was even a movie that tells the story.

The movie was called You’ve Got Mail (1998). In the film, Tom Hanks is the son of the owner of a clone of Barnes & Noble that is spreading across the country like cancer, and Meg Ryan owns a small, warm, loyal, independent bookstore struggling to survive in the shadow of the so-called evil giant. In the end, Ryan loses her store, but ends up with the character Hanks plays and our two fictional heroes live happily ever after.

However, the real reason Barnes & Noble is in trouble is because it has to service a huge debt of $465.65 million with total cash on hand of $470.99 million (as listed on Yahoo Finance on February 9, 2013). Most of the cash must be from borrowed money.

Imagine what the payments and interest are for almost a half-a-billion-dollar loan. I suspect that loan came from the cost of adding more stores, and the pressure to grow came from being a publicly traded company on Wall Street. Bad decisions by management also landed B&N in this fix.

It is a challenge to compete on a level playing field when you carry such a heavy burden. That is the brutal curse of Wall Street style capitalism where the true meaning of survival of the fittest comes into play.

Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble’s competition, has a much better debt-to-cash ratio. Amazon.com carries a total debt of $4.28 billion but has $11.45 billion in cash and the operating cash flow was listed at $4.18 billion when I checked. Source: Yahoo Finance

That’s probably why Barnes & Noble has to charge a $25 annual membership fee before a customer can get a discount similar to the one offered at Amazon.com. B&N must use every trick in the book to earn money from loyal customers.

When I walked away from the special order desk at Barnes & Noble today, I thought this book seller’s days are numbered just like so many of those independent bookstores were when Barnes & Noble was the evil giant driving them out of business.

Barnes & Noble may never learn that if you want to compete and win, you have to offer a better deal and/or service than the competition, and the brick-and-mortar shopping experience may not be enough, because we can get the same fix from a library if all that’s needed is hanging out with books on shelves.

I wonder what will come along to kill off Amazon as the survival cycle continues. After all, millions of years ago the dinosaurs ruled the earth and humanity’s ancestors were hairy, monkey like creatures hiding in trees or holes in the ground.

Discover An Authors Bane—the negative review

_______________________

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!”

How to Rate the Reliability-Odds of an Amazon Book Reviewer

How reliable are Amazon book reviewers?

Because most are anonymous and some are Trolls with a goal to only spew negative reviews—because Trolls are Internet bullies—finding an answer to this question may not seem possible.

However, while reading the reviews of another author’s first novel, I thought, there must be a way to rate the reliability of Amazon reviewers and I conducted an experiment that I think works. With no computer program to do the work for me, it took time to gather the data—all easily available on Amazon—and use a hand-held calculator to compute the odds.

I focused on one Amazon review of a book I have never read. In fact, I have never read any of Mirella Sichirollo Patzer’s novels, and she has published five. Before today, I was unaware of this author or her work.

Patzer’s first novel was The Blighted Troth: A Novel of New France, and the Amazon reviewer that I focused on wrote the only one-star review of the 19 reviews for this novel. There was no two-star review. There were 6 five-star; 9 four-star, and 3 three-star reviews. The average of those 19 reviews was 4 of 5 stars—a good average.

I have to thank Kindlefan (an anonymous name for this Amazon reviewer), because he or she inadvertently gave me the idea for this post. Click here to see Kindlefan’s profile on Amazon.

My dad was a gambler. He loved to play the horses and knew how to compute the odds in his favor long before there were computers.  In fact, one time, my dad picked eight winners out of eight races at Santa Anita in Arcadia, California. Then later in life, I became a card counter in Vegas and tried that out for a few years before giving it up. I discovered that it was hard work with long hours, and it was not stress free.

What I did was handicap—as my dad taught me—the odds of Kindlefan being a reliable reviewer for the tastes of the average reading public. To do that, I focused on only his or her one and two-star reviews and compared them to the four and five-star reviews of fifteen of the thirty-five books reviewed by this one anonymous Amazon reviewer.

Kindlefan’s reviews:

  • 10 one-star
  • 5 two-star
  • 7 three-star
  • 4 four-star
  • 9 five-star

Of course, it would be impossible to rate someone with only a few reviews on Amazon. In fact, alleged Trolls often only leave one/two poor reviews and then never review again, and I think that these reviewers cannot be considered reliable. In addition, anyone that only leaves mostly one/two star reviews cannot be trusted, but Kindlefan’s balance between 1 and 5 star reviews reveals an alleged non-biased reader expressing his or her own opinions.

Of the fifteen books that Kindlefan rated with one-or-two stars, there were a total of 421 reviews spread between 1, 2, 4 and 5-star reviews. Sixty were 1 or 2 star reviews and three-hundred-and-sixty-one (361) were 4 or 5 star reviews. I did not count the three-star reviews.

With that said, Kindlefan’s reliability rating as a reviewer compared with average reading tastes earned a 14% rating out of 100% (once I crunched the numbers). On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, Kindlefan scored a 1.4—pretty low.

That doesn’t mean Kindlefan’s reviews are invalid but that they only apply to a small minority of the reading audience telling us that his or her reading tastes do not match the average reader. We also learn that “The Blighted Troth” would probably appeal to 84% of readers that enjoy this genre.

If a reader still has doubts, there is always the free Amazon preview of a book to read first. If a reader likes what he or she sees, then he or she may buy the book—or not.

In fact, maybe Amazon might consider using a similar method to automatically rate a reviewer’s reliability as an average reader. If Amazon averages the reviews of an author’s work, why not rate the reliability of reviewers based on his or her reviews compared to reviews for the same books reviewed?

Amazon provides links to all the information needed to rate an Amazon book reviewer. Each reviewer has a link to all of his or her reviews and each review has a link to the books reviewed where it is easy to discover how many reviews there were for each book as I did. If you try this and have trouble finding the links, leave me a comment and I’ll see if I can help.

Discover Authors Finding Readers

_______________________

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!”

An Author Lost in Amazon.com’s Rainforest

Guest Post by Katherine Ashe

Let me admit at the outset that I have, from birth, had a problem with identity.  When asked what my name was to be on my birth certificate, my father blurted out my mother’s name then, as an afterthought, tacked on Junior.

Now that might be troubling enough, but my mother’s name was Ann Frank. We both heard more than our fill of very sick jokes. I suffered but supposed I would marry and the problem would go away. I reached my 34th year still thinking that.

As a writer of art books the name Ann Frank had posed no problem for me, though Barnie Rossett of New Directions commented, “When did yuh change yer name t’ Anne Frank, when yuh thought yuh’d sell more books?”

So when I did begin to write in a general way, circa 1976, I recognized the necessity of changing my name. I took my nearest cousins’ name of Ashe, and because I liked the scene in “Henry V” where Katherine de Valois is learning English, I opted for Katherine, changing my name legally to Katherine Ashe. Even my family was relieved. My Ashe cousin offered to trade his daughter Penny to my father in exchange, except that Penny Frank would sound like a one-cent hot dog.

Everything went well. I embarked upon my 34 year project of writing the Montfort series, and also wrote plays, screen plays and radio drama, all as Katherine Ashe.


Simon de Montfort

Then two years ago all that changed. A KathArine Ashe appeared—writing bodice rippers. Now I had been offered a contract for Montfort (sample and outline) as early as 1977—from Playboy Press, and had turned it down because my intention was to write a novel that was serious history. With the first draft done by 1985, I was offered a contract by Random House—provided I turned the book into a romance. I turned that down, and another from Crown, and another from Simon and Schuster—and so on, until 2008 when my agent, Jacques de Spoelberche, no longer could get anyone to even look at the manuscript since I refused to make a woman the central character.

So I went the tough route of self publishing, with Booksurge. Montfort The Early Years was the first manuscript to pass through the process as Amazon bought Booksurge and it became Createspace.  That was the winter of 2009.

Now, in 2010, here was a KathArine Ashe with the formidable promotion machine of Rupert Murdoch owned Harper Collins, publishing exactly the sort of trash I had refused contract after contract for in an effort to have the name Katherine Ashe known for historical integrity.

Friends in publishing told me I could do nothing, but not to worry—she would probably soon disappear. She hasn’t disappeared. In fact, since Harper Collins can outsell me any day of the week, and since this mistress of the bodice ripper churns out two to three books a year, the algorithm at Amazon hijacked my name and referred all searches for books by Katherine Ashe to her.

By last month, two years into the publishing existence of KathArine Ashe, it had become impossible to find my work through a search of KathErine Ashe.

I wrote raging emails to Amazon via Author Central—threatening to tie up at least one member of their legal staff in a courtroom in rural Honesdale PA, with a hostile judge and jury and a claim for damages.  And friends pitched in on line! The independent Authors Guild, English Historical Fiction Authors and Facebook friends, and friends of friends hit the “like” button for all four volumes of Montfort. A ruckus was raised!

And today Amazon, after numerous emails that they could do nothing about the search procedure, capitulated. Though a book search for KathErine Ashe still first turns up KathArine Ashe’s “Swept Away by a Kiss,” a picture of me comes up second with access to all of my books. On a Kindle or amazon.co.uk search of my name, I come up first.

Sword rattling or the power of friends—or both? I think it’s been the power of friends and the “like” button! And I’m very, very grateful—and renewed in faith in the power of people.

If you enjoyed this guest post about challenges with Amazon, you may also want to read Amazon’s Jungle Logic, an Op-Ed piece by Richard Russo that appeared in The New York Times on December 12, 2011.

_________________________________

Katherine Ashe (with an “e”) is the author of: Montfort: The Early Years 1229 – 1243, Montfort: The Revolutionary 1253 – 1260; Montfort: The Angel With the Sword 1260 – 1264, and Montfort: The Founder of Parliament: The Viceroy 1243 – 1253

Follow this Blog via Email – see upper left hand column for “Follow” link.

Ginmar: alleged Cyber Bully, Troll and Stalker? (Viewed as Single Page)

This is my response due to Ginmar’s alleged reckless and false speech that may have libeled and defamed me mostly on Amazon.com but also on Goodreads, and I want Ginmar to stop.

Another reason I’m writing this series of posts on-line is because I want everyone to know what is happening. I also plan to send a link to a local county assistant district attorney.

Ginmar says: “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)


Document Everything!

My Response: Would it surprise you to discover that there is an entry fee for the two most prestigious literary awards in the United States: it’s $50.00 for the The Pulitzer Prizes, and it’s $135.00 for the National Book Awards? If you don’t believe me, click the links and read the evidence for yourself.

Poets & Writers Magazine lists many reputable contests that charge fees, and for decades I have paid the fees and entered some of those contests often not placing, and the literary contests that I have placed in are not listed on Winning Writers list of Contests and Agencies to Avoid. Source: Winning Writers.com

I have also entered Writer’s Digest Magazine’s contests several times and the fee is $100 each time.  I have never placed, but with that $100 fee comes a judge’s detailed commentary and score that authors may quote from for promotional purposes—that is if the judge says anything nice about the book. There is no guarantee.

What counts is not the fee but if the contest is juried. There is nothing wrong with a literary contest that charges a fee that goes toward the costs of running the contest and a cash prize for the grand prize winners.

Everyone does not have a foundation or grant to pay the costs or running a literary contest. Writer Beware says, “Is the contest free? If so, you probably have nothing to lose by entering–though be sure to read the fine print. If you’re a poet, be aware that a “free” contest is one of the major warning signs of a vanity anthology scheme.

“Is there an entry fee? Contrary to popular belief, an entry fee does not indicate a questionable contest. Many legitimate contests charge a fee to cover processing expenses (which sometimes include an honorarium to readers) and to fund the prize.” Source: Writer Beware ® Blogs!

Why do poets and authors enter contests?  Answer: to establish the fact that what he or she writes may be worth reading.

When poets and authors place in a reputable, unbiased literary contest, why do they publicist it?  Answer: Because if they don’t, who will? Published authors and poets are responsible to promote his or her work.

Ginmar has accused me of stalking more than one person in her alleged reckless and false speech, and I want Ginmar to stop.

To set the record straight, I have not stalked anyone, and I have not at any time wanted (or asked) to get anyone fired from his or her job—ever!

If someone ended up fired because I made a phone call in an attempt to identify an anonymous person who was allegedly stalking and bullying me, it would only be because he or she may have committed a crime or violated workplace rules.

For the details of that one-time incident, I suggest clicking on the following link and reading my side of this issue instead of the reckless and false accusations that are being spread across the Internet.

Found Guilty because of Reckless and False Speech

Before my third point, I want to make it clear that there is a difference between investigative journalism and stalking. A journalist researches an issue/topic and gathers facts and then writes about it for publication.  And I am a journalist.  My BA is in journalism, and I taught an award winning journalism class for several years that was recognized regionally, nationally and internationally.

Extra! Nogales newspaper a five-time winner: Scroll earns top honors in country

To discover the difference between a journalist and a stalker, the following definition may help: Criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person.

Stalking is a distinctive form of criminal activity composed of a series of actions that taken individually might constitute legal behavior. For example, sending flowers, writing love notes, and waiting for someone outside her place of work are actions that, on their own, are not criminal. When these actions are coupled with an intent to instill fear or injury, however, they may constitute a pattern of behavior that is illegal.

The motivations for stalking are many. They include the desire for contact and control, obsession, jealousy, and anger and stem from the real or imagined relationship between the victim and the stalker. The stalker may feel intense attraction or extreme hatred. Many stalkers stop their activity when confronted by police intervention, but some do not. The more troublesome stalker may exhibit a personality disorder, such as obsessive-compulsive behavior, which leads him to devote an inordinate amount of time to writing notes and letters to the intended target, tracking the victim’s movements, or traveling in an attempt to achieve an encounter.

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

The following list may establish Ginmar’s state of mind and offer evidence that she has allegedly been stalking me on Amazon and Goodreads while making reckless and false speech that may libel and defame 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!

What does Ginmar and others say about her?

1. Ginmar says: interests: “Cutting through bullshit and refusing to make nice with cowardly assholes.”  about me: “I swear a lot. I don’t have tact. And I don’t have patience for assholes, of whom I’ve encountered rather a lot lately. I especially don’t like passive aggressive people. Don’t expect tact. Hell, don’t even hope for it.” Source: http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/6804123-ginmar

2. A comment about Ginmar: “More Steve Irwin wank: Ginmar is not sorry: Well, it had to happen. Ginmar weighs in on Steve Irwin’s death. And again, a few minutes later. Discussion, disagreement, and trolling ensue, along with yet another demonstration of ginmar’s mad debate skillz. Mainly, I’m impressed by her ability to deconstruct any situation to make it into an example of patriarchy in action.” Source: http://www.journalfen.net/community/otf_wank/466962.html?thread=29182226

3. Some of you may know that I’ve gotten involved in some pretty long and heated discussions about female sexual dysfunction over in ginmar‘s journal. She has since locked the original post, saying that people were misreading her, but I’ve obtained a copy of it from Friday noon, several hours before access was restricted. I will post it in its complete and unedited form below (so there can be no charges of selective editing), behind a cut-tag, so people can judge it for themselves. Source: http://cheshyre.livejournal.com/29224.html

4. Ginmar says: “Certain Goodreads members are not harassing authors. Some authors have been having temper tantrums over bad reviews and now they’re stalking reviewers. Get your facts straight, because all you’re doing now is making excuses for these people.“You’re defending these people. You’re entitled to your own opinion—-but not to have it treated as a fact. And what you present is not the facts.” (July 22, 2012 at 7:43 PM)  Source: http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/6804123-ginmar

5. “Well, this is definitely a first. We have a typical response from Ginmar and it’s about the standard response one could expect from an obsessive, dysfunctional, female supremacist, a feminist. I have had the displeasure of trying to point Ginmar in the right direction over the past decade or so, all without the appropriate affect, unfortunately..

“Ginmar is one of those human beings who refuses to look at any issue and compare the pros and cons. As far as she is concerned, she has her opinion, everyone else is either a liar, some type of sycophant to some radical theory or doctrine or they are just way too stupid to see her point of view because of their  inability to reason coherently.

“Sound familiar Ginmar. You accuse people of doing exactly of what you do yourself.”

6. “Number four on the list explains her conditions and her medication including her suicide attempts. Those confession vindicate the article previously posted right here. Ginmar claims to have served in the forces and from the look of it it may well be the case but we only have her word for it (and she does have an ability to tell stories). I am loathed to believe anything she says or states and the reasons are that she has an intense hate of all men, generalises like all radical, male hating, feminists do and refuses to accept any other facts otherwise or maybe she just enjoys it..

“Meanwhile, I have had a gut full of this obnoxious female and prefer to just ignore it but the challenge was there and here is her information(some of it) and the original demand stands.”

7. “As I expected, I received an abusive email from Ginmar which was to rude and obnoxious to post here. This is the standard response we can expect from feminists, as we continue to expose their hate doctrine.” (Posted January 22, 2012)

 Source for numbers 5, 6, and 7: http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2012/01/ginmar-and-her-version-of-reality.html

8. Yohan says: “No idea, for sure Ginmar is delivering her men-hating statements already since about 8 years or longer – I noticed her the first time, when she was writing hateful comments against men married with a foreign wife at Ampersands, long before VAWA-IMBRA in 2005, she was somehow connected to this Tahirih Justice Center.

“At that time she was doing something for Russian female immigrants, I do not recall any statement from her about Iraq or army at that time.

“Her comments were never ‘normal’ and full of hate and scorn. – I think, Ampersands banned her around 2003 from his feminist blog.

“Maybe she was in the US-army, but for sure not always in combat in Iraq, more likely most of the time somewhere in USA in a military related office, doing some social services for immigrants as a volunteer in a women’s shelter during her time off. Something like that …

“For the first time I noticed Ginmar on the internet when she was writing hate-comments against a marriage-introduction company for Russian women which had its office in Australia. I think it was 2003” (January 25, 2012)

9. Christian J says: “Unknown is ofcourse Ginmar as we can read. Too cowardly to include it’s real name.

“Ginmar, you have now achieved a warning level. Even I who would generally allow just about any any level of abuse thru ,have reached saturation level. Unlike feminists site’s, we do actually allow commentary but I do beleive that your level of abuse is way past what I woud have thrown into the bin. I wanted people to see what type of lunatic you really are and here you have done exactly that..

“Excellent, well done..

“Continue with the abuse level and I will kick your worthless arse to the rubbish bin where it belongs.

“Last warning” (January 25, 2012)

10. Ginmar says: “Apparently I’m the Alpha Femibitch, which tells me that:

  1. Christ, your standards are pathetic if you think I’m too feminist;
  2. Where’s my back pay, bitchez?

“Seriously, why do some assholes always accuse some women and doing this? And by ‘assholes’ I mean ‘other alleged feminists’ because their feminism seems awfully directed at sucking up to men. The whole ‘fe’ prefix is important. It’s not like men don’t have the whole fucking world at their disposal. …[Note: there is a lot more to this journal entry]

“But anyway, if I’m the Alpha Feminist, I want my back pay.”

Source: http://ginmar.livejournal.com/profile

Once again, I want Ginmar to stop!

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 a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran,
who taught in the public schools for thirty years (1975 – 2005).

 ON SALE - Cover with Blurbs

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