Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Jude Henderson (Elsa Hernandez) / Spike Lee

Something was recently brought to my attention. A post made by one of the hate blogs created in my honor. I am not going to name the blog because I already know the driving forces behind them. (Amanda Welling and Jude Henderson a.k.a. Elsa Hernandez)

Anyhow, this particular post on one of the blogs is titled: "Doc Dropping Is Not Cool: Part 2" and it reads as follows:

"I ran into another piece of information I wanted to share while researching another article. I've read other comments that Carroll Bryant has made in various places that he doesn't doc drop or that he believes it's wrong. As I stumble on these comments I will post them as references in this article. There is a lot of information to sift through. This comment he made on his personal blog appears to display otherwise."

Here is a screenshot of it.

Then they post this screenshot from my "Carroll Bryant Blog" where I make this comment.

 Will someone please tell me what this comment has to do with doc dropping? Or is it that Jude and Amanda think that by me potentially posting pictures of Jude, that is doc dropping?

First of all, doc dropping is the posting of personal information. NOT posting pictures that can easily be accessed from the internet and social websites. Posting pictures do not reveal ones address or phone number or social security number or anything of the sort. There is a huge difference. For example, this next screenshot from Amanda Wellings hate blog, "GenXpose".

You see, that is doc dropping. And yes, Amanda Welling practices this behavior.

However, the article about me doc dropping on this particular hate blog in my honor (run by Jude and Amanda and friends) seems to think that posting pictures is doc dropping, and they use that comment I made as their "proof" that I practice this activity and or endorse it. 

The article goes on, giving their reader(s) an update! Check it out.

The caption reads: "Update: Positive Proof." Then it shows a screenshot of one of my tweets @Spike Lee. 

Here is my tweet.

 As you can read from my tweet, I was very upset and angry at Spike Lee. But why? Well, here is the history behind that tweet. 

Remember the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin on the night of February 26th, 2012? Well, the shooter was a man by the name of George Zimmerman and this tragic shooting occurred in Sanford, Florida. It was all over the national news. 

Anyhow, the days following this shooting, someone tweeted an address that allegedly belonged to George Zimmerman. Spike Lee, the famous writer, producer, actor, saw the tweet that claimed to be George Zimmerman's address and phone number and took it upon himself to retweet it to the many millions of followers that Spike Lee has on his twitter account. 

In the days following Spike Lee retweeting that address and phone number, a few of the crazies came out of the woodwork and attacked this address by throwing bricks through the windows and calling the phone number listed and made death threats to the occupants.

Here is where the story takes shape. 

The address and phone number that was tweeted, then later retweeted by Spike Lee, did not belong to George Zimmerman. It didn't even belong to anyone in his family. (Not that it still would have been okay to tweet and retweet his address) But instead, that address and phone number belonged to an innocent elderly couple.

Do we get the picture here?

Now, back to this article posted by this hate blog in my honor.

So, this hate blog posts an article about me and doc dropping, challenging my stance on the issue to which I am absolutely against the practice, and the evidence they present to the world that I endorse doc dropping is me threatening to post publicly accessible pictures and a tweet of mine that condemns Spike Lee for retweeting an address and phone number that ultimately, placed the lives of an innocent elderly couple in danger? ........ Really?!

Is anyone as confused by this as I am?

The article concludes with the following: 

"I will state, at the time of writing, I have not found any posts of Carroll Bryant actually releasing personal information." - Then they post a link to the article on my blog that shows my comment they posted in a screenshot and a link to my Twitter account as "reference".

Here is the screenshot. 

Reference to what?!  Reference to me doc dropping? Not doc dropping? To what are they referencing? The article is about me doc dropping, which they conclude in admission that they have never found me to do. Yet they start the article out trying to make the claim that I do doc drop and or endorse it. And their "Positive Proof" evidence is my tweet to Spike Lee condemning him for retweeting an address and phone number. Wouldn't that actually prove that I really do stand against such practices?  

Is any of this making sense?

But then I sit and wonder when I see insane BS like this and ask myself: What is the aim for this post? What is the point? Then it hits me! Are they (Jude and Amanda) condemning me for condemning Spike Lee for what he did? And if so, what does that tell me about Jude and Amanda and their friends / supporters over at their hate blogs? That they support what Spike Lee did? That they have absolutely no problem with Spike Lee (or anyone) posting addresses and phone numbers that put people's lives at risk? (Like the poor innocent elderly couple that that address and phone number belonged to?)

Really? You bullies endorse the practice of doc dropping and the murder of innocent elderly couples and people in general?  Is that the message you are sending with this article? That you endorse and support hideous crimes against human beings?

Well, apparently they do. Here is "Positive Proof" that the bullies and their supporters do indeed endorse such criminal behavior. A screenshot of one of the bullies, (Mrs. Joseph) a member of the hate group "Badly Behaving Authors" on Goodreads in which Jude Henderson and Amanda Welling are members of, and Mrs. Joseph wishing me dead "Pulp Fiction Style."

Take a look. (Screenshots don't lie)

And why do I assume the bullies and their supporters approve of sick crimes against human beings? Because none of them have ever come out publicly to condemn that comment made by Mrs. Joseph. And by now, they are all more than aware of that statement. 

Silence really is golden, isn't it?

You people can take from this what you want. I know what I take from it. And these are the kinds of people STGRB and myself are fighting against. (And our supporters) 

You can clearly see that I am not "insinuating" anything. I am not foolishly rambling off at the mouth like these bullies do. I have provided you all today actual screenshots that speak for themselves. Am I entitled to my opinion about these people? (The bullies) Yes, I am! And guess what? So are you entitled to take this information and process it as you see fit and come to your own conclusion as to the mental stability and or lack of human compassion that these bullies carry inside of them and their actions. As well to their intentions not only against myself, but other authors, STGRB and anyone else they (the bullies) deem fit to be attacked, including our supporters.

And let us not forget that these are the same bullies that claim that no sexual role playing between adults and minors was ever going on over at Goodreads after I broke the story with clear cut evidence in the form of screenshots to show otherwise. Even after Goodreads community manager, Patrick Brown took evasive action to rectify the problem and "clean" it up by updating their ToS, banning all sexual role plays on Goodreads. (To which I applaud that effort) Oh no, that proves nothing to them. They (the bullies) still claim that it never happened, and that I fabricated the entire story.

So then, am I also to believe that the bullies endorse / condone sexual role playing between adults and minors as well?

It sends chills up and down my spine.

I'm Carroll Bryant .... and this is the looking Glass.

Things We Learned Today:

* Carroll does stand against doc dropping

* There is no evidence showing that Carroll doc drops

* The doc dropping post by the bullies makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever

* Carroll tweeted Spike Lee

* These bullies are UNSTABLE individuals



  1. Great post Carroll! I read that post and scratched the hair out of my head wondering what the point was. They imply in the beginning that you lie about your position regarding DDing then post a screenshot of you talking about posting pictures claiming that it's proof you DD. If that wasn't enough, they contradict themselves at the end by admitting they have never seen you DD.

    More confusing is when they posted your tweet condemning Spike for his actions which I agree with you, proves you are against such things. I couldn't figure out what their point was in that post. Do you think they just wanted to post one of your tweets for posting one of John Green's tweets?

    I'm not sure those people are all together right in the head.

    Those people lost all credibility with me when they tried to sabotage your interview with that rock band, when they started those two hate blogs against you ToB and CBLies, when they said your GR story was a lie.

    I do have a question for you though. I have been following this war from the beginning. I was there that day when they attacked you on GR. I have read the comments on your book Year of the Cat. Why haven't you ever ever addressed their accusations that you stole Jude's Likeness in that book?

    I read somewhere where you mentioned that she edited the Spanish in that book for you when you two were friends. I would think that if she had a problem with you stealing her name and likeness that she wouldn't have edited the book for you. As for stealing her name, there is no copyright laws regarding names. You would think these people would know that.

    I read that book, YotC and didn't see how you even stole her likeness. The girl described in the book in no way resembles Jude.

    If Jude was so concerned about you using her name, then why did she and these other people wait until a year after its release to bitch about it?

    1. Hhhmmm, posting my tweet in retaliation for posting that John Green tweet? You might be onto something there.

      Good point! If she had a problem with me using her name(s) (remember, I used her real one and her fake one) then why did she not mention it when she edited the Spanish for me? Perhaps you could ask her and her bully friends that question.

      I think I did address it somewhere. Would have to search for it. But you're right, there are no laws preventing the use of names. An author can use any name he or she wishes.

      You're right on another account - the girl in the book is in no way any resemblance to Jude Henderson on a physical level. (I mean, Elsa Hernandez) I know the bullies clamor about she should sue me, but if it ever went to court, she would be laughed right out of the courtroom. She and her bully friends know this. The judge would toss out the name thing right off the top. Once he read the book and looked at her physical build, he would shake his head and sigh and probably look at her and say, "In your dreams." Then he would ask her this question: "If you had a problem with it, why didn't you say something when you edited it for him? Better yet, why did you edit it for him?"

      Case dismissed! LOL

      You read the book? Awesome! Thanks. And thanks for the comment.

  2. Why did you put Jude's name in the title?

    1. Three reasons, but I'm only going to give two of them.

      1) Jude is behind one of (maybe both of) those hate blogs created in my honor.

      2) Jude is ultimately the reason why I got attacked.

  3. I think, in a overall sense, there's nothing wrong with Doc-Dropping. In fact I take offense to the term Doc-Dropping. It used to be called Keeping it Real and Standing Behind Your Own Good Name. Now it's called Doc-Dropping, as if I'm supposed to feel sorry for people who use fake Internet identities. And I want to know who these people are, and I don't care how they feel about Doc-Dropping. I don't care about them. Because the reality of it all is this: most good decent people don't lurk around the Internet with fake names and contrived identities. Most decent normal people don't pretend to be people they aren't. And I not only want to know their names, I want to see those names written big and bold in public. I only believe in freedom of speech if the person is willing to stand behind his/her own name. Anything less is not acceptable.

    1. Well, I am not fond of the term "doc dropping" either, but that's what the people call it.

      As for doc dropping, it consists of posting personal information such as address, phone numbers and social security number. (To name a few)

      While I have no problem in standing behind ones name, I do not agree with posting personal information such as phone numbers, addresses and social security numbers. It can only lead to potentially bad things. (Like the elderly couple mentioned above) And can put people in danger of harm or even death.

      I agree with you that most people do not lurk around with fake names and or multiple sock puppets. I think for the most part, more people than not will debate issues and such using their real names. But the majority of people who have been attacking me (Jude, Amanda, and friends) do in fact hide behind fake or no names at all.

      I guess then that is to say that they can not stand behind their convictions. (I.E. - the definition of what bullying, internet style, is all about.)

      And while these bullies believe in freedom of speech, they do so as anonymous names and only when free speech allows them to say things about others, (right or wrong) but not for others when they stand up for themselves against them or say anything about them. (Right or wrong)


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.