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”

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

View as Single Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want Ginmar to stop!

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

To discover more on this issue visit:

Dealing with Internet Bullies

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

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

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

Who’s behaving badly? A culture of arrogance

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

______________

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

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

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”

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!”

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!”

The NEED to Edit – Part 4/6

The ideal audience for all authors is made up mostly of avid readers.

The National Assessment of Adult Literacy in the US (1992 – 2003) says 13% or 28 million adult Americans are proficient (can perform complex and challenging literacy activities) at the quantitative literacy level while 95 million are intermediate (can perform moderately challenging literacy activates), 63 million basic (can perform simple and everyday literacy activates) and 30 million are below basic (no more than the most simple and concrete literacy skills).

My literacy level is proficient but not perfect when it comes to editing. In other words, I am not an ARG.

Of the 123 million adult Americans that read at basic or above, few are experts at editing but many read books. A high literacy level does not equal a high editing level. It just means you have a higher vocabulary and understand what you are reading at a higher level.

In fact, my experience as an English teacher taught me that of the 29 million adult Americans that are proficient, only 2.8 million belong to the top echelon of editing literacy—the rare anal-retentive grammarian (ARG) with a photographic memory and instant recall that has memorized all 532 pages in the fourth course of Warriner’s English Grammar and Composition textbook.

Therefore, to be criticized viciously by one of the few ARGs (less than one percent of the adult population) is meaningless. What an indie, self-published author must strive for is to write at an editing literacy level that is adequate for the other 121 million readers that will not recognize many of the mistakes that an ARG will criticize.

In fact, here is a profile of the reading audience authors should cultivate. Sixty-two million Americans are considered “avid” readers who are “disproportionately buying books.” Source: Bookweb.org

Therefore, among avid readers, ARGs may make up at most only 4.5% of that segment of the population. Of course, it is up to the author which audience he or she wants to impress:

A. sixty-two million (39 million are female) avid readers (subtract for ARGs)

B. the 2.8 million ARGs (being an ARG does not mean one is also an avid reader)

C. adult Americans that read below basic literacy level

For an example of one ARG, in 2008, after my work earned Editor’s and Publisher’s Choice with iUniverse, was reviewed by the Midwest Book Review and earned a 5 out of 5 for grammar from a Writer’s Digest judge, I submitted my novel to a UK review Blog that counted mistakes as part of the review. The reviewer would stop reading once she found about a dozen mistakes (of any kind) and then write a scathing review.

I mistakenly believed I had a chance to earn a positive review from this Blogger, so I submitted my work but she failed it. After my work failed, I discovered that every book, except one, reviewed on this site had failed and the one that had less than a dozen mistakes was criticized for its plot, characterization and theme.

Not one self-published indie author reviewed by this one UK Blogger received a glowing review. The ARG bias was obvious.

Since the publication of my first novel in December 2007, I have given this topic a lot of thought, and I have concluded that an author does not have to satisfy the ARGs.

What an author must do is meet the traditional industry standards for editing as it is obvious that my work did.

This means that there cannot be so many mistakes that it distracts the average “avid” reader.

It is obvious that an ARG has a much higher standard than the traditional publishing industry (newspapers, magazines and publishers) does. A biased ARG may scream bloody murder for editing perfection in his or her one-star reviews on Amazon or Goodreads, but he or she is not going to find that perfection easily even among traditionally published books.

However, every indie self-published author, no matter what his or her editing skill level, may find editing tools to improve the work before it appears in the market place—even without hiring a skilled freelance editor.

To not take advantage of those tools and avoid editing is a serious mistake.

Continued August 10, 2012 in The NEED to Edit – Part 5 or return to Part 3

View this Six-Part Series as a Single Page

Note: My Blog posts do not go through the exhaustive editing process my novels do.

_______________________

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!”

The Secrets to Getting More Book Reviews—even if your book is already out

Note: reprinted with permission from “The Book Marketing Expert Newsletter.” (embedded videos on how to write book reviews have been added by Blog host)

We hear it all the time: “the window for reviews is shrinking,” and yet we still see reviews appearing everywhere. So how can you capture a share of this market? It’s true that often reviews from big-name bloggers go to equally big-name authors. Well, can you blame the blogger? If someone had a choice between reviewing Shades of Grey and one of my recent books, I’m sure Shades would win and I totally get that, but it’s hard when you’re starting out. You often get reviews when you get reviews, so the old adage of “media draws media” is very true. Then where do you start?

Years ago, when I was first in the industry, it was pretty simple. You could find a reviewer, send him or her a copy and that was that. Now, it’s a lot different. Bloggers get hundreds of books mailed to them by publishers on a monthly basis, while book review departments in newspapers have either shrunk or been removed entirely. It’s a whole new world. The good news is that there are still great opportunities to get reviewed, but you need to understand the new rules of exposure.

Blogger reviews: Blogger reviews are still great (even though bloggers are busier than ever) but in order to get your fair share, I recommend networking with the bloggers. How do you do that? By following their blogs and posting authentic and helpful comments on their posts – or by retweeting a review of a book that you particularly loved. Get to know the bloggers you’ll be pitching to. They will also appreciate that you took the time to read their blog, instead of just pitching them. It’s true with any kind of networking. You tend to go to the front of the line when you know someone, right? So get to know the bloggers.

If you have a series of bloggers you are following who are influential but don’t necessarily review books, you could ask them if they might let you guest blog or perhaps run an excerpt of your book on their website or you might coordinate a book giveaway with them. As a blogger myself, I love it when someone writes me for an interview and has actually read our blog. How do I know they’ve done this? Often they’ll weave that into their pitch. For example, “Dear Penny, I saw that you wrote about mobile marketing in January and interviewed Gillian Muessig in May, I think my topic would be a nice addition to your blog because -” See? Now that’s much better than: “Dear Penny, I have an idea for your blog I think you might like.” There’s a chance I will love it, but a far greater chance I won’t because the person pitching just spotted our website and thought: “They might like this.” It takes a bit more work to do it the other way, but your returns will be greater and you’re also building relationships as you go, making the tradeoff worth it.

Review other books: In order to get reviews, you might need to become a reviewer. I know this might sound crazy. Who has time to review books? Well, that’s how we got here in the first place, remember? Reviewing other people’s books (who write about similar topics to you) is not only a great thing to do for your industry but a great way to network. I review every book that’s appropriate to my market (on Amazon). People love peer reviews, trust me. Imagine if the person you’re reviewing reviewed you? See how that works? Make sure to send them the review when you’re done. It’s a boatload of great Karma that could help you get some reviews, too.

Media connections: With newspapers eliminating review departments, how on earth can you get some traction for your book? How about articles and write ups? And even when newspapers do reviews, it can still be a hard road to get them. Especially if your book is self-published, POD or eBook. With 1,500 books published each day, it’s tough to weave through the maze of authors out there trying to get attention for their book, too. Here’s what I recommend. Get to know the media in your market. Pick a series of newspapers in your immediate area or state. You can find a pretty good listing here: http://www.newslink.org. You can also select other areas, depending on your book, the reach of your topic or your business. Often smaller regions of the US will still have active review departments so be sure to check all appropriate papers for both reporters who write about your topic, and review department criteria (where they want you to send the book, etc.). By getting to know the reporters who write about your topic, you can network with them early (pre-release) by commenting on articles they’ve written, or offering them ideas or statistics for future pieces. Remember the networking piece for bloggers? That works here, too and it’s a great way to gain attention for your book and get a mention or review in a local or national paper.

Media Leads: I wrote an article on media leads, how to get them and how to respond to them. You can see it here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/penny-c-sansevieri/maximizing-media-leads_b_748574.html) and suffice it to say that the sooner you start with this (yes, long before the book is out), the better. It’s another great way to network with a reporter.

Amazon Reviews: We’ve all heard of the big, top ten Amazon reviewers, but like any big-name reviewers they get inundated, too. Amazon is a great portal to expand upon and you should do whatever you can to populate your page with reviews because rarely do readers buy books “naked” (this refers to the book page, not the state of dress). I highly encourage you to review the Amazon list of top reviewers (folks who do post reviews on Amazon) and then pitch the ones that are right for your market. The lure of the top reviewers is that they possess a certain clout, but because of that, the other folks who are solid, faithful reviewers tend to get overlooked. Consider your options with Amazon, and definitely do your research and find some reviewers: http://www.amazon.com/review/top-reviewers.

Social sites: Websites like Library Thing and Goodreads offer another great opportunity. First, these communities have millions of very active members and are a great place to garner reader reviews. Both sites have a great Reader Giveaway program that we love and use often; in exchange for handing over a free copy members (winners) are encouraged to post a review of the book. Very win-win if you’re looking to get the word out there about your book.

While the world has changed a lot in regards to reviews, there are still a lot of opportunities out there for getting to the right people and getting those people to talk about your book. Not only that, but building a strong community of media and blogger contacts will help you not just for your current book, but for future titles as well.

Reprinted from “The Book Marketing Expert newsletter,” a free ezine offering book promotion and publicity tips and techniques. http://www.amarketingexpert.com

____________________________

MORE ON THIS TOPIC from the Blog’s host

After watching the embedded videos, if you are still unsure of how to write a proper review, I suggest visiting Scholastic and following their five step plan. Before you know it, you will be writing better reviews than most media professionals.

In addition, the Midwest Book Review is a reputable source for reviews of self-published/indie authors in addition to traditionally published authors. However, be aware that the Midwest Book Review reviews less than a third of the books that are submitted. In addition, the reviews are often shorter than average.

For example: “Many nations adopted modernism in their own ways. ‘The Concubine Saga’ is a historical novel from Lloyd Lofthouse, following famed modernizer Robert Hart, a man who has contributed greatly to China’s advance in the nineteenth century, gaining much power and influence for a foreigner during the period. Drawing on heavily researched passages with great dramatization, ‘The Concubine Saga’ is a strong pick for historical fiction collections, highly recommended.” (68 word review) – July 8, 2012 Midwest Book Review

Note: Established in 1976, the Midwest Book Review is an organization that maintains several book review publications per month. It selects about 450 books to review out of the 1,500 submitted each month. The organization has a focus on serving community and academic library organizations located in California, Wisconsin, and the upper Midwest.

Make sure to also read and study the Midwest Book Reviews Submission Requirements and follow the directions.

_______________________

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!”