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

There is no guarantee that being anonymous online offers a safe haven to be abusive to others.

Recently, I was in a scuffle with a flock of anonymous voices on Amazon and as I struggled to disengage from the issue, I was warned that I should apologize to all the anonymous voices hiding behind the masks, and I asked myself why do people do this in the first place?

Maybe this post on Standing in Your Power.com helps explains it better than I can:

“Did you know that up to 90% of our subconscious mind is filled with negative, counterproductive thoughts? That’s what Dr. Bruce Lipton reports, in his book The ‘Biology of Belief’. This negativity, if not reprogrammed, bubbles up as negative self-talk.”

And when our self-talk is dominated by negativity, how we interact with other people is often negative too. In addition, being anonymous on the Internet magnifies that negativity giving an individual a false sense of power that is explained by a behavior called disinhibition.

In fact, in the late 1980s, to change my life and rid myself of character traits that I did not like, on the advice of a close friend, I read a book called “What to Say When you Talk to Yourself” by Shad Helmstetter, and this book is still in print decades later. Reading that book helped me take charge of who I am so I could be a better person and chart my own course.

76% of 163 Amazon reviews rate “What to Say When You Talk to Yourself” with five stars (13% rate it with four stars). Only 4% rate it with one star, and this clearly says that not all opinions are equal.

When I read this book and followed Helmstetter’s advice, Amazon did not exist (Amazon was founded in 1994), and I am now planning to write a five-star review of the book because if I had not read it and followed the author’s advice in the 1980s, I’m sure that I would have continued to drift aimlessly through life letting the negative voices control me instead of setting goals to change what I wanted to change and achieve what I have achieved.

However, that doesn’t mean the battle is over. It never ends. Reading one book and following the advice of its author will not erase the negative voices that are always there tempting us to doubt who we are and to take the wrong path and make the wrong decisions in life—the same negative voices that I’m sure are the controlling factor in the behavior of all of the people I collided with on the Katherine Ashe and “Tough Cookie” Amazon threads where I struggled with a flock of mostly anonymous voices.

When we are aware of that negative voice in our head, and we discover it is a factor in something we said or did, then we have a choice to continue down the destructive path or change course.  In this case, I decided to change course.

But that does not erase the fact that some of these anonymous voices on Amazon have slandered me. For example the voice that called me an ”egotistical snob” for the whole world to see, and that was only one example possibly explaining the reason why the sales of my books that have held steady for several years suddenly—almost overnight—dropped by about fifty percent.

In addition, I think most of these anonymous voices have no intention of changing course and if that is true, then they may, inadvertently lead us all into court in a costly law suit that could possibly lead to laws that take away the privilege of anonymity on sites like Amazon and Goodreads. Anonymity is not guaranteed. It is a privilege that can be taken away by Congress or the courts if through slanderous abuse, enough people, who do not hide behind anonymity, are injured as I now believe that my hard-earned reputation has been damaged.

In fact, you can read about the wider picture of this issue in Finding and Identifying Perpetrators of Online Defamation on Dancing With Lawyers.com

Attorney Nicholas Carroll says,  “Positively identifying (and/or proving) the person or people who are defaming you on the Internet is one of the most difficult parts of fighting online slander (or libel, more accurately).

“It’s also one of the most useful – and perhaps the most important – elements in stopping online defamation, because online slanderers rely heavily on staying anonymous. When they get a cease-and-desist letter arriving through snail mail at their physical address, they get scared. With good reason, because now they are the hunted, not the hunter.”

And Carroll recommends a company called Cyber Investigation Services.com that specializes in tracking down abusers of anonymity on the Internet.

Here’s what Cyber Investigations Services says, “WE SOLVE INTERNET DEFAMATION – GUARANTEED”

“When most victims or their attorneys see internet defamation attacks, it is often their first time. For CIS, we see 100′s per month and have developed techniques and solutions simply not known or available to others. This is why we are often able to offer our solutions with a PAY FOR PERFORMANCE ONLY agreement.”

Attorney Nicholas Carroll is the author of “Fighting Slander”, “Law of the Blog”, and “Dancing with Lawyers” (all of which are on the shelves of law libraries at eminent law schools.)

In conclusion, I have one question to ask: How do you slander and ruin the reputation and life of an anonymous person?

You don’t. They do it to themselves.

Discover more on this issue by reading Dealing with Internet Bullies


Sue Scheff won an $11.3 million internet defamation lawsuit in 2006, when false statements were being made about her online.

The laws that cover Internet behavior are still evolving. Sue Scheff’s case is one example of that evolution and it cost the anonymous bully or bullies a lot of money. In fact, there is an Internet Defamation Law Blog.

dba oracle.com says, “Many people on the web think that privacy laws protect their anonymity, but that’s not the case when criminal charges are filed.  Google’s motto is ‘Do no evil’ and they are cooperating with law enforcement to help prosecute crooks by introducing their Google searches as evidence.”

To discover more about this issue visit:

Dealing with Internet Bullies

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

Ginmar: Alleged Cyber Bully, Troll and Stalker?

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

Other sites on this subject:

_______________________

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

Dealing with Internet Bullies

Update:5:30 PM on May 1st. After a rewarding conversation on Amazon with Mahala Burlingame, it seems we have resolved this issue peacefully without snarky, insulting comments, and this may offer evidence that the alleged bully comments found on Stop the GR (goodreads) Bullies.com are not accurate. In fact, I offer a standing invitation to the four that were accused by STGRB of being bullies to write a guest post presenting their side of that issue. To avoid revealing IP addresses, guest posts may be delivered via attachment to an e-mail. The peace making conversation is there for all to see on Amazon.

Update: I deleted the original comments I left on the Amazon thread where this all started and replaced them with a new comment that may be found here: May 1, 2013 at 3:23:49 AM PST

______________________

If you are a published author, or planning to publish a book, and/or write honest, well-written reviews and/or opinions on Amazon and/or Goodreads of the books you read, you may want to you read this to discover two sides on how to unmask and combat the hidden bullies and trolls infecting sites such as Amazon and Goodreads. You may also learn what not to do from what I did.

You may want to ignore these bullies, or you may want to call-them-out and risk starting a battle that you cannot win. That is your decision. I’m not going to tell you what to do, and I intend to offer you both sides to this issue with most of a copied and pasted Amazon thread where the alleged bullies came out to play and I, sap that I am, stayed.

I’ve written about this topic In Defense of Authors Perceived as Behaving Badly, and John Scalzi wrote about it in Bad Reviews: I can Handle Them and So Should You. Scalzi also links to three other opinions on this topic.

And we all have opinions, and yes, some are more valid than others.

Civil Liberties says, “The right to free speech is a longstanding U.S. tradition, but actually respecting the right to free speech is not.”

And Internet Bullies and Trolls are a perfect example of individuals that do not respect the right of free speech.

Proof of that is the abuse of free speech rampant on the Internet that is easy to find on Goodreads and Amazon where some bullies think that authors have no right to reply to mean spirited, negative reviews or opinions. There is a big difference between a proper book review and a mean spirited opinion.

But first, to understand what may drive an Internet bully to act as he or she does, it helps to know what “disinhibition” means.

“An individual experiencing disinhibition may not be able to disguise some of their emotional responses, sometimes at the expense of politeness, sensitivity, or social appropriateness. Individuals under the influence of alcohol, for example, exhibit disinhibition in view of the depressant effect of alcohol on the brain’s higher functioning.

“The online disinhibition effect helps to explain the vicious attacks people frequently engage in online. Mean-spirited blog comments, threatening e-mails, and other negative comments are often encouraged by this effect. Some people troll others on the internet even if they would never bully someone in real life.” Source: Six Causes of Online Disinhibition

For example, there was a two-star review of “Tough Cookie” by M. Ruth Myers—that said, “(Tough Cookie is) 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

Mendez could have stopped with “Too soft and expected situations with the most probable endings” and been okay with that opinion, but she had to add that last insulting phrase “could be written by the reader himself if they had read three novels”.

I wonder if nancy d. mendez was a he. Oh well.

If you aren’t sure what a real book review is, I suggest you visit Scholastic.com and learn from a pro how to write a proper book review. I even said as much in another comment after the first of the alleged bullies appeared, who clearly does not think I have a right to my opinion.

I also later said, “Some opinions are worth more than others. It’s up to each of us to decide the opinion we agree with.” As you will see, one of the alleged bullies only quoted the first sentence and ignored the second one changing the context.  At the end of this post, I have copied some of the conversation between me and the four alleged bullies.

It all started on Jan 20, 2013 at 2:09:42 PM PST, when I left a comment for mendez that 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-.”

Why did I post this?

Maybe because Myers’s novel had 54 five-star reviews, 39 four-star reviews and only one two-star and one one-star review/opinion. In addition, I’ve seen similar mean-spirited reviews for novels such as To Kill a Mockingbird, for example, and for many others books, but such mean spirited opinions always represent a very small minority.

I even spent time researching and crunching numbers to rate how many other readers might agree with mendez and discovered that about two-percent might agree — that means if 100,000 readers read “Tough Cookie”, the odds say that about 2,000 would feel as mendez does.

Now that I know what “disinhibition” means, I admit that I may be guilty—to some degree—of its use in my comment, but if it is any consolation, I was just fighting fire with fire, and there is an old saying that says if you can’t take the heat, don’t start fires.

Mendez never replied to my opinion of his/her opinion, but I did hear back from an alleged pack of Internet bullies and Trolls. In fact, I discovered that everyone in this flock of alleged Trolls is listed and blocked on Stop the GR (goodreads) Bullies.com (STGRB).

Note: if you read John Scalzi’s post you will discover that the four anonymous people behind STGRB allegedly use similar tactics against the people they identify as Trolls — like fighting fire with fire. There is an old saying that fits this situation: “two wrongs do not make a right,” that means “It is never right to wrong someone, even if they have wronged you first.”

If that is true, then I guess I’m guilty, but I have a defense. I’m a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran that lives with PTSD, and the Marines have another method of dealing with someone that does wrong to them or their country. So being a former Marine, I will not condemn the four anonymous people that host STGRB.

I’m sure that many have heard the phrase “birds of a feather flock together” and sure enough the flock of crows that came after me are all listed on STGRB.

  • KarLynP
  • Zahara Cerise on goodreads but Anna Karenina on Amazon
  • Old Rocker
  • Mahala Burlingame (her real name according to Amazon), who won the Amazon troll award from STGRB for the most psychotic comments.

In addition, I found an Amazon forum thread where these same alleged Trolls that came after me may gather to brag about their alleged infamous exploits.

In fact, someone called Amazing Grace said to Cerise aka Anna Karenina “Oh shut up and abandon your obsession with Marion. Get a hobby or something because Marion is a cool lady who writes intelligent posts. You are just…ridiculous and I am SO sick of you and those like you – bitter, obsessed trolls.” Source: An Amazon forum-thread called Is There Or isn’t There An Amazon Review Mafia?

What follows is the comment thread for the nancy d. mendez opinion of “Tough Cookie”. In hindsight, I probably should have never left a comment for that two-star review, but since I did, why not learn something from it.

 

###

10 of 16 people found the following review helpful
bla”””!!!, January 20, 2013
By nancy d. mendez
Amazon Verified Purchase(What’s this?)
This review is from: 
Tough Cookie (Maggie Sullivan mysteries) (Kindle Edition)

Too soft and expected situations with the most probable endings, could be written by the reader himself is they had read three novels.

Your initial post: Jan 20, 2013 2:05:00 PM PST
Last edited by you on Jan 20, 2013 2:09:42 PM PST

Lloyd Lofthouse
says:

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 fact, why not rate reviews?

In reply to your post on Feb 16, 2013 10:37:02 PM PST
KarLynP
says:

Fail dude, fail. You’re opinion matter more then others? I can read too, don’t worry about what I think. F- back at ya. Your comment makes me believe the neg review. Pass.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2013 7:32:38 AM PST
Last edited by you on Feb 17, 2013 8:02:08 AM PST

Lloyd Lofthouse
says:

 Some opinions are worth more than others. It’s up to each of us to decide the opinion we agree with.

And just like you, I said what I thought about your opinion that wasn’t a book review.

A real book review is much more. In fact, most of the reviews from one star to five stars are not really reviews. Most just express an opinion.

The best way to earn a passing grade is to learn what a real book review is and to do that I suggest you visit Scholastic and learn from a pro how to write a proper book review.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/writewit/bookrev/

It’s never too late to learn.

I decided to do a comparison between the four-and-five star reviews and the one-and-two star reviews.

We already know that there are more four-and-five star reviews. That is easy to see. No, what I wanted to know is how many reviews have these people written.

The 26 people that wrote the five-star reviews had written more than 400 between them And one of them wrote almost 200–an avid reader maybe?

The four-star reviews added up to more than 300 and one of them had 123 reviews—another avid reader I think.

The one-and-two-star reviews added up to five reviews for two people. That is not a lot of reading.

This tells me that the opinions of the one-and-two star reviews do not fit the average avid reader. Everyone that reads has different tastes. What one person will enjoy, another will not. That is for sure.

By comparing the reviews of 54 people and then checking how many reviews each group wrote, we come up with a better idea of what the average reader may enjoy and the results say the average avid reader would enjoy “Tough Cookie”.

And the results tell us the one-and-two star opinions, valid as they are for those two individuals, do not fit the norm. In fact, the results might tell us that these two individuals might want to consider therapy to find out why. Maybe what we have here are two people that may hate the world with a mind that lives in a dark place.

 In reply to your post on Feb 22, 2013 11:35:51 PM PST
Anna Karenina ~ Collecting Broken Hearts
says:

In fact, the results might tell us that these two individuals might want to consider therapy to find out why.

Perhaps you could consider therapy to find out why you think someone should consider therapy because they don’t fit a “norm.”

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2013 6:55:40 AM PST
Last edited by you on Feb 23, 2013 7:01:26 AM PST

Lloyd Lofthouse
says:

Can’t you do better than that? It’s okay not to fit the norm as long as it does not physically or financially hurt others. But it helps the normal person to understand that there are extremes and he or she doesn’t need to take the extremist that seriously. Basically, shrug, and think, it takes all kinds, and then move on.

Of course, read the extremist, and then decide if he or she has anything intelligent to say that adds to the conversation. I don’t believe in censorship. Everyone has a voice. It’s just that most people tend to ignore and stay away from mean spirited extremists avoiding him or her like the plague.

In reply to your post on Feb 23, 2013 9:53:51 AM PST
Anna Karenina ~ Collecting Broken Hearts
says:

“Can’t you do better than that?”

I could, if you had done better. Not my fault your post was faulty.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2013 2:06:14 PM PST
Lloyd Lofthouse
says:

You must be ten years old. Blaming someone else for your flaws is a common reaction among the young self esteem raised where nothing is ever the child’s fault.

In reply to your post on Feb 23, 2013 2:20:05 PM PST
Anna Karenina ~ Collecting Broken Hearts
says:

Oh, Lloyd, you are so unable to debate rationally that you must stoop to insults. How very sad that is for you.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2013 5:47:11 PM PST
Last edited by you on Feb 23, 2013 5:57:09 PM PST

Lloyd Lofthouse
says:

Oh Anna Karenina, before one can debate, there must be a topic worthy to debate. Your comments have only bashed me for criticizing a mean-spirited review that offered nothing constructive.

I have an idea. Let’s debate why so many people that write reviews or leave comments on Amazon use phony names to hide his or her identity—names like Anna Karenina. It’s so easy to be mean spirited when no one knows who you are. Are these people cowards?

In reply to your post on Feb 23, 2013 11:45:25 PM PST
Anna Karenina ~ Collecting Broken Hearts
says:

“Oh Anna Karenina, before one can debate, there must be a topic worthy to debate.”

Actually, before one can debate, there must be a person worthy of debating with. You don’t qualify.

post, in reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2013 3:09:11 PM PST
Lloyd Lofthouse
says:

Anna Karenina, your comments are perfect examples of “Disinhibition”. One shrink writes that there are six causes of Disinhibition.

Here’s the first one: 1. Anonymity—Online people feel they can’t be identified in the same way they can when they’re in public. It’s similar to going out in a costume at night with a mask on to cover the face (see research on deindividuation). That sense of disconnection from our normal personality allows new ways of behaving. People may even consider their online behaviours to arise from an online alter ego.

An individual experiencing disinhibition may not be able to disguise some of their emotional responses, sometimes at the expense of politeness, sensitivity, or social appropriateness. Individuals under the influence of alcohol, for example, exhibit disinhibition in view of the depressant effect of alcohol on the brain’s higher functioning.

The online disinhibition effect helps to explain the vicious attacks people frequently engage in online. Mean-spirited blog comments, threatening e-mails, and other negative comments are often encouraged by this effect. Some people “troll” others on the internet even if they would never bully someone in real life. The disinhibition effect of online culture also helps to encourage cyber-bullying and groupthink. This effect can cross over into real life. For example, a group of students might bully a classmate online and then feel emboldened to bully him or her in person. There have been several well-documented cases of online bullying leading to organized efforts to ostracize classmates, severe depression in victims, and even suicide.

Here are several sources on this topic:
http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/08/six-causes-of-online-disinhibition.php
http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/disinhibit.html
http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/online-disinhibition-effect

In reply toyour post on Feb 24, 2013 4:22:58 PM PST
Anna Karenina ~ Collecting Broken Hearts
says:

Lloyd, your comments are perfect examples of ludicrous nonsense. (Notice how I used my own words?)

http://s720.beta.photobucket.com/user/slightlytwisted/media/Nonsense.gif.html

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2013 4:45:56 PM PST
Last edited by you 22 hours ago

Lloyd Lofthouse
says:

Continuing our intellectual conversation about “disinhibition” and now adding the topic of Internet Trolls:

The Atlantic Monthly ran an interesting piece on Internet Trolls. I suspect an individual with acute “disinhibition” may be tagged as an Internet Troll, a person who must control the conversation as this piece says and ignore any attempt by the person being trolled to actually have a real debate/conversation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/what-an-academic-who-wrote-her-dissertation-on-trolls-thinks-of-violentacrez/263631/

In the ’90s, “to troll” was to disrupt a conversation or entire community by posting incendiary statements or stupid questions onto a discussion board. Regardless of why the poster was being disruptive — for his or her own amusement, or because he or she was a genuinely quarrelsome, abrasive personality — the poster would be branded a troller (later shortened to “troll”) and denounced accordingly. In these cases, “trolling” was used as a general, condemnatory, post-hoc descriptor of an online encounter. It was — and in many circles remains — something you accused someone else of being.

Trolling as described by self-identifying trolls is a game, one only the trolls can initiate and only the troll can win.

The goal is to eliciting strong emotional reactions from the chosen target(s).

Some trolls are very intelligent, and have extremely interesting things to say about trolling, while others have no real opinion about anything they do, other than the fact that it makes them laugh.

it is simply not possible to know what exists the anonymous troll’s heart and mind, for the very simple reason that there is no way of knowing whose heart and mind it is. There are of course some basic demographic indicators …

… the majority of trolls on the English-speaking web are, white, male and somewhat privileged … They have enough free time to sink hours and hours into their online exploits, and have access to the necessary technologies to do so.

As the author of the Atlantic piece argues, trolls are cultural scavengers, and engage in a process described as cultural digestion: They take in, regurgitate, and subsequently weaponize existing tropes and cultural sensitivities. By examining the recurring targets of trolling, it is therefore possible to reverse-engineer the dominant landscape.

In reply to your post on Feb 24, 2013 4:57:47 PM PST
Last edited by the author 21 hours ago

Anna Karenina ~ Collecting Broken Hearts
says:

Lloyd Lofthouse said: “Continuing Anna’s intellectual conversation and my too-long-to read nincompoopery about “disinhibition” and now adding the topic of Internet Trolls:”

Fixed it for you.

In reply to your post on Feb 24, 2013 5:04:15 PM PST
Old Rocker
says:

You said “Some opinions are worth more than others.”

Wow, just wow.

(Note: what I meant was taken out of context. Here’s what I said, “Some opinions are worth more than others. It’s up to each of us to decide the opinion we agree with.”)

Posted on Feb 24, 2013 5:14:51 PM PST
Rmahala Burlingame
says:

Not too interested but did Lloyd just describe himself as a troll?

(Note: Because I don’t Troll the Internet — as these four alleged trolls seem to do — looking for people to single out and insult, then by definition, no, I did not call myself a troll but that did not stop an alleged troll from putting words in my mouth.)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2013 5:29:28 PM PST
Anna Karenina ~ Collecting Broken Hearts
says:

I don’t know. If he can’t be bothered to use his own brain to think of something to say, I can’t be bothered to read what he copies.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2013 5:34:58 PM PST
Last edited by you 20 hours ago

Lloyd Lofthouse
says:

Amazing. My last comment was an experiment to see if what I learned from my research on “disinhibition” — that led to Internet Trolls—was true. The experts said if you mention the word “Troll” when a suspected troll is already part of a virtual conversation, that a gang of them will show up. Well, let’s see who joined Anna K.

There was Old Rocker and Rmahala Burlingame. I wonder how many more may show up. What do we call that, a trolling party?

That’s it for me. I’m going to stop feeding the trolls. You all are welcome to stay around and keep eating the cake you baked.

Note: This thread continued and may still be growing. There are plenty of links for you to click to visit if you want to join what I think is a trolling party.

What can be learned from this?  Well, that no one can win an argument with a Troll suffering from disinhibition.

In conclusion, everything I write and post on-line is posted under my real name with a link to my on-line platform.

To discover more about this issue visit:

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

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!”

In Defense of Authors Perceived as Behaving Badly – Part 3/3

In conclusion, an author should not argue with a negative reviewer by using the author’s opinions. Instead, the author should use positive reviews from reputable sources to counter the negative review. It is a fact, that some people will write reviews as if his or her opinion is the only one in the world that counts, but that is not true.

It also takes time to gather reputable, credible reviews. It took me four years to gather the credible and positive reviews that I have used to counter some of the negative reviews of my work.

Then after countering a negative review, I suggest that if a reader feels he or she might agree with the negative review, they take advantage of a free sample of the author’s work. For example, Amazon offers a free preview, and I offer free samples on my Websites/Blogs.

In addition, I reply to negative reviewers by saying that he or she has a right to his or her opinion and that a few may agree with that opinion, but there are other reputable opinions that do not agree and then quote from those reputable sources, because these opinions may be used as facts.

After all, they are not the author’s opinions, are they?

Now, how do you earn reviews from reputable and credible sources?

The answer is to write compelling fiction or non-fiction books and to do that, the writer must learn everything there is to know about the craft of writing. There will always be writers that are more talented who write more compelling work that sells more copies, and there will always be writers who write books that cannot compete.

For most of us, the craft of writing must be learned. For example, few, if any, are born with the knowledge and talent to be great wood workers, architects, engineers, inventors or scientists so why should this not be different for the craft of writing?

That’s why it is important to be a literate, life-long learner willing to read how-to books—in addition to reading for pleasure from those writers that have demonstrated what they are doing like Grisham, Hemingway and Paulo Coelho.

Every author, no matter how successful and talented, will have critics and reviewers that will not like his or her work, so get used to it, and disarm the damage they might do by using the opinions of credible sources that may be used as facts to prove that there are readers that enjoy what you write. Don’t use your friends, relatives, a neighbor, anonymous reviewers or paid reviewers or your own opinions to fight this war against negative reviews

As authors, we are not alone when it comes to attracting negative reviews, and I’m going to use a few examples to prove this point:

J. K. Rowling: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (Book 1)

  • Of 6,558 reviews on Amazon, ninety-five were one-star and 5,505 were five-star.
  • “I bought this book because everyone finished the entire series and all liked it. seriously I don’t like this book. no originality at all” – Wan
  • “This was the worst book I have ever read in my entire life. I have never read a worst book.” – mom

Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird

  • Of 2,377 reviews on Amazon, eighty-eight were one-star and 1,773 were five-star.
  • “I waited 52 years to read this book. I should have waited 52 more. A real snoozefest. I don’t see what all the fuss is about.” – Nick T. Francone
  • “Pretty darn boring, if it wasn’t required to read in English i would’ve burned it. This type of book isnt for everyone.” – Elizabeth A. Fager

J. R. Tolkien: The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings

  • Of 2,343 reviews for The Lord of the Rings, ninety were one-star and 1,867 were five-star.
  • “It was a piece of crap. This book was one of the worst books i have ever read.
    I read it once and could barely fumble through it. The charaters, as in some books, don’t lack depth, they DROWN in it. there are WAY to many PASSIVE sentinces. I mean, come on, each page is usually about 3/5 discribing the landscape and telling us useless information about what I care about and about 1/5 of the pages are used for ‘character devlopment’. This is good, and what i personally look for in the FIRST chapter, but this is used THROUGHT THE ENTIRE BOOK. I even fell asleep reading it. I mean WOW. …”  – phd_computer
  • “I’ll start by saying that I am a huge fan of Fantasy novels, but this ‘crux’ of Fantasy literature really disappointed me.”This book has a lot of faults. To begin with, it goes against the first basic rule of writing a book: show don’t tell. As you start the novel, it tells everything and nothing has been shown. Tolkein has just narrated almost everything, starting from the history to the setting, and this gives the novel a feeling as if a child has written it.”Secondly, the book is just too slow. I mean you just start the 1st chapter and you doze off after a couple of pages. The pace might have been fine for the 50’s but it’s just too slow for the double Os!”I don’t know why other people liked the plot so much, but I think the plot was really really weak. The causality in the story is almost non-existant and that is what makes the difference between a jumble of short stories joined loosely together and a good novel.

    “Lastly, the characters could have been much developed with more life in them than mere puppets bound to do the author’s bidding. The chracters are much more Archetyped than they should have been.

    “Overall, I think that it has gotten more attention than it deserved, perhaps because of the movies, and that people are liking it because of some trend or the like” – Minhaj Ali Shahid “Ibtehaj”

Did you notice that these three authors had 9,145 five-star reviews to counter the 273 (less than 3% of the total) one-star reviews? Why should the one-star reviews receive more weight than the five-stars?

Return to Part 2 of In Defense of Authors Perceived as Behaving Badly or start with Part 1

_______________________

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!”