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 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

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… 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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.”


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!”