Monday, August 26, 2013

Reviews Versus Bullying

Recently, I did a post on author Pete Morin called, "Pete Morin: Moans And Groans". The intent of the post was to showcase the common beef these bullies seem to have, claiming that the authors they attack, they do so because the authors had complained about a bad review.

The truth is, the authors these bullies attack do not complain about bad reviews, but rather, bully reviews. So today I thought I would offer up actual evidence that contradicts the Goodreads bullies claims.

But first, this post was inspired by a readers comments on the Pete Morin post.

Thanks for the inspiration, anon. 

Okay, so let's begin with Pete Morin himself here. Now, Petey claims that he used to be a trial lawyer, so all of this evidence I present here in this post should be obvious to him why he is incorrect with his assumption that bullies are actual readers/reviewers. That there is no such thing as a bully review. And later in this post, I will debunk his theory (and that of Bully Nation) that authors complain about bad reviews and that the bullies (Pete Morin and his friends) do not give bully reviews. In fact, everything that Pete Morin, and his fellow bully pals claim, will be debunked in this post. 

In one of Pete Morin's Goodreads blog posts, he talks about the bad reviews he has received, and pretty much boasts about the fact that he didn't complain about them like all these authors he and his friends attack for allegedly that reason. Not realizing that there is a difference between an actual reader who gives an honest one star rating/bad review of a book they read compared to bully reviews that attack an author on a personal basis or rating/reviewing a book they never even read. In this first screenshot, we will see where Petey talks about a few of his reviews and what was said in those reviews. 

If you noticed, nowhere in those reviews he showcases does any of the reviewers attack him on a personal level. Nowhere do they call him a rapist, or pedophile or whatever. They keep their review of the book strictly targeted at THE BOOK! 

Speaking for myself, I have no problem with those book reviews. I'm pretty sure STGRB, their supporters and my supporters have absolutely no problem with those reviews. But now, let's just take  a peek at one of my reviews, shall we? You know, just to get this ball rolling. 

Do you see the difference? This review that "Nicole" gives is quite different than the ones Pete Morin describes. Now, I have posted in the past more horrible one star reviews of my books than this of "Nicole" and so many of you may be wondering why I chose to showcase this review. Well, to be quite honest here, it is for a couple very good reasons. First, "Nicole" (if that's her real name) obviously either didn't read the book or she is bullying me with lies. And how do I know this? very simple, she states in her bully review that ... "Gushy prose of 12 year old girl falls flat." ..... And guess what? The girl in the book is NOT 12 years old. She starts out at 15 years old and turns 16 in the book. So that right there tells me that "Nicole" either didn't really read the book, or is lying, and bullying me and my book in her review. 

Now for the second reason I used this review instead of one of the more nastier ones. Because "Nicole" isn't really "Nicole". You see, "Nicole" is a Jude Henderson sock puppet account. I know this because on the day that her and Bully Nation attacked me, Nicole suddenly appeared. The account was made the day of my attack. And "Nicole" made some comments at me and said some things that only Jude Henderson would have known at that time. I wish I could have captured those comments, but so it goes, while you may hold out reservations on my claim, I know for myself, and my own records, that "Nicole" IS Jude Henderson.

Jude Henderson knows this too.

Back to the point, that her review is not a "bad" one star review, but rather a "bully" review. And if Pete Morin really was a trial lawyer at one time, he would see evidence like this and know the difference. Unless he was a lawyer who defended child molesters and rapists and murderer's and got them off, sending them back on the streets to hurt more people. Then there is a chance he could have just sucked at being a lawyer. And another possibility could be that he lies about even being a lawyer. One of those options has to be the truth. 

Going through Petey's one star reviews, I also stumbled onto this one. It was made by someone called "Trina". And perhaps the worst of Petey's one star reviews. 

Again, "Trina" did not attack him in the review. She kept it aimed at the book.

Are we seeing the difference here? An honest bad review targets the book and only the book. A bully review targets the author and sometimes, the book and author together. Still, any review that targets the author in the process is a "bully" review, not a "bad" review. And any so called reader who does this and in the process, can't even get the age of one of the main character right, has either not truly read the book or is purposely lying just to bully the author. But I'm not the only one who recognizes this. In the "Nicole" review, I mean, Jude's bully review, there was a comment left by someone named "Squa". At the bottom of this next shot, you will see what she says. Check it out. 

You are correct, "Squa", it is a personal attack. Thanks for being so adroit.

Are we getting the picture here? Well, in the event that we're not, let's take a look at another "bully" review. This one coming from "Don Insixty".

Now, "Don Insixty" leaves a review of my book, "Year Of The Cat". However, "Don Insixty" didn't even read the book! And how do I KNOW this? Well, let's take a look at a portion of his or her novel long review, shall we?

On the surface, one would think that "Don Insixty" actually read the book, however, some key give-aways indicate otherwise. One of those would be, this review covers only the FIRST chapter! Which, by the way, is free to read as a sampler on Kindle / Amazon. In fact, not one thing said in this review covers anything else in the book. But let's slow down here and let's give him or her benefit of the doubt, shall we? because there is another thing of importance that stands out and tells me that "Don Insixty" didn't read the book he or she reviewed. Let's take a look at it and see if you can catch it, okay?

Did you see it? .... No? .... Well allow me to tell you. if you notice, "Don Insixty" mentions, ... "Finally, let's take a look at the cover. Remember, this is a book about a detective." .....

Still didn't catch it? .... Okay, you waited long enough, Here is the dead-giveaway that "Don Insixty" didn't read the book. It wasn't about THE DETECTIVE! .... It was about the mysterious girl he met. The whole concept of the story was about the GIRL! 

You would have to read the ENTIRE book to see this.

Yes, the detective is the leading male character and is told from his perspective, but the storyline and everything involved in it revolves around the mysterious girl. 

So you see, this review by "Don Insixty" is a fake review. It is also a "bully" review because he or she starts it out by saying, "Carroll Bryant is a boy." - A book review that attacks the author. (And to think, calling me a boy when these bullies go aorund claiming I'm a hundred and fifty year old elderly man.) LOL Get your lies straight! Am I a boy or an elderly man? Geesh.

So, at this point, I ask you, can anyone see the difference now between an honest bad review from a reader to a "bully" or "fake" review? 

Good! I knew you people would see it. It doesn't take a third grade education to know the difference. Which leads me to yet another question, did the bullies, including Pete Morin, ever make it past the 3rd grade level? ... Perhaps a question to be answered another day.

Oh, for shits and giggles, here is another "Nicole" rating, I mean, Jude Henderson rating on one of my other books. In fact, you'll see her rating all my books one star, but try finding any other rating on her GR account of other books. Here is a hint: You won't. (But maybe now you will after this post.) LOL  Gotcha, Jude! ..... Dumbass. 

Don't you just love how transparent these bullies are? I know I do. Speaking of which, let's take a quick glimpse at another dumbass. Some brainless twat named "Renee". Trying to take a shot at me for being friends with death metal / satanic metal rocker, Vincent Crowley, of the band "Acheron". (Of whom I opened up my "Pete Morin: Moans And Groans" post.)

"Renee" must be a "Christian". None the less, no, "Renee", I don't like Vincent Crowley .... he's my brother from a different mother! I love the guy! LOL ..... Twat.

But enough about me and my "full of myself" ways. LOL let's take a look at another "bully" by the name of Stephanie Sinclair, and her review of one of author Judyann McCole's books, shall we? You see, Judyann McCole was attacked by these bullies too. You can read about it over at STGRB. They just posted the story yesterday, I do believe. I will be covering it too in October. Take a look. 

The reason I call this a "bully" review, is because Stephanie Sinclair makes the assertion that Judyann used a sock-puppet to get Stephy Bitch to read her book. But notice how she fails to provide any evidence to back up this claim. A typical Goodreads bully thing to do. (Or not to do in this case) But hey, I ask you, does Pete Morin's one star reviews look like this? Of course not, which is probably why he is in cahoots with the Goodreads bullies, in so that his books do not get attacked like this. Or should I say, that HE doesn't get attacked like this. makes you wonder sometimes, doesn't it? Not to worry though, Pete's fan base resembles his bully participation. It's small. Which is a common theme among the bullies. Be it fan base, friends, Twitter followers, the most commonly related theme with these people is that nobody seems to follow them. Most of them have small numbers of friends, followers and fans. 

You think they would get a clue. 

Here is a bully rating / shelving of Judyann's book by some cootch stank named "Jordyn"

Now, I want to switch gears a little. Remember when I, and STGRB introduced you to author Sharon Desruisseaux, and the story behind the bullies attacking her? And if so, you recall why she was attacked? .... Her primary personal attacker was the 666 beast herself, Angela Horn. (Who has since been banned for her "badly behaving" ways) 

Well, one of the reasons for her being attacked was because the bullies, as they always do, cried that she "complains about bad reviews."

Well, let me shoot that Goodreads bully butt-hurt whine down right here and now. In this next shot, we see Sharon get an honest "bad" review. And we also get to see evidence that Sharon DOES NOT complain about it! Take a look. 

Did you see that? ... That is what we call in the real world as EVIDENCE!

"Exibit "A" your honor. Now, will trial lawyer, Pete Morin, like to rebuttal?"

(I like jabbing at him.)

Sharon started her response out with, "Thank you for bringing this to my attention." - Doesn't look like an author complaining about a "bad" review to me. Does it to you? So then why did Sharon get attacked? I mean, if these bullies are saying that it's all about authors complaining over bad reviews, where is their so called evidence to back these claims up? I don't get it. So far, all of the evidence suggests that the bullies, not so surprisingly, are nothing but a bunch of prom night dumpster babies crying and lying about nothing. You would think they would pinch their loaf somewhere else instead of Goodreads. 

And how does Sharon's conversation with her honest reader/reviewer go? Well, take a look.

Well, what do you know, it went quite well, didn't it?

You see bullies, this proves that you people are indeed bullies and not legitimate readers / reviewers. Are you taking notes? .... Well, you should. You might actually learn something. 

But I'm confused here. If Sharon wasn't attacked for complaining about bad reviews as Pete Morin would have you believe, and his bully friends, then why was she attacked? And while we're on the subject, why did bully "Susanna" leave this on Sharon's book?

There is no evidence to support that Sharon was "behaving badly". 

And yet, these bullies keep yapping that it's all about us authors complaining over bad reviews. And to this very date, they have failed to produce one shred of evidence which would indicate anyone has ever complained about a bad review. 

Yet more bully ratings and shelving of her books goes on. Here is a somewhat known bully, "Ade" putting in her brainless opinion. 

You all remember "Ade", right? If not, maybe this next screenshot will bring back your memory.

Talk about cootch stank and twats. She invented it.

So do you see the difference now Pete Morin? The difference between honest "bad" reviews and fake "bully" reviews? Wait! Don't answer numb-nuts, let's have the judge decide. "Your honor?"

"In the matter of "bad" reviews versus "bully" reviews, I find that Carroll Bryant has proved his case beyond a shadow of any doubt, and I hereby find Pete Morin, all the above mentioned perpetrators, and all members of the Goodreads Bully nation, guilty on all charges of stalking, harassing, bullying and posting fake reviews of books and their authors." 

 Case closed!

I'm Carroll Bryant .... and this is The Looking Glass.

Update 08/27/2013

The GR account of "Squa", mentioned in this post, was deleted by Goodreads. Just another bully day on Goodreads.

Also, shortly after this post, "Nicole" (I mean, Jude Henderson) took down the review of my book "Year Of The Cat", although, the "Nicole" profile is still there and so are the one star ratings of my other three books. It would seem that Jude Henderson, as it is with all the bullies, can't stand the truth because it hurts too much. LOL Nice try, Jude, but too late. You got busted! Ha-ha.

Things We Learned Today:

* Pete Morin should change his name to Pete Moron

* There is a huge difference between "bad" reviews and "bully" reviews

* The bullies are prom night dumpster babies

* Carroll said "twat" and "cootch stank"

* It's not about authors complaining over "bad" reviews

* The Goodreads bullies may or may not have made it past the 3rd grade

* Education is power!

 * "Ade" got another fifteen minutes

* Stephanie Sinclair is a liar

* Jude Henderson is "Nicole"

* Carroll said "rebuttal"

* Carroll likes jabbing at Petey Moron

* "Last Flight Out" is about a 15 year old girl turned 16, not a 12 year old

* "Year of the Cat" centers around the mysterious girl, not the detective

* There was a judge presiding over this post the whole time?

* What's a numb-nut?

* Squa got banned from Goodreads despite not having violated their ToS


  1. Pinch a loaf is nasty.

    1. LMAO! I should have put that at the end!

  2. Like anyone would pay Ade to read a book. I doubt she can even read. I'd pay her to go f#@k herself. I bet she does that for free.

    1. Now, now, let's not start up any rumors. I'm sure she gets paid well to go f@#k herself. LOL

  3. I don't think any of these people will ever realize how awful they are. They live in their own distorted world.

  4. Some of the words you used in this post should leave me somewhat offended, but I can't stop laughing long enough for that to happen. A bit in bad taste? Probably, but still hilarious. I will say that I would be disappointed in Jude if it turns out she really is Nicole. Not that I doubt your judgement, Carroll. I'm sure you have your reasons to believe it's her. I wonder at times also if authors who support these people do so because they don't want their books attacked. I'm also perplexed at the duck dynasty comment.

    1. We're all perplexed at the Duck Dynasty comment.

      Well, as for the Nicole/Jude account, she did mark all my books one star and only reviewed Year Of The Cat, the book everyone says is about her. O_o It's the little things that add up.

      You feel slightly offended at some of my words? I guess you won't want to read my "Miranda Koryluk" post then, on September 3rd.

      Sorry, don't mean to offend the wrong people. But sometimes, when it comes to these bullies, I just have to get it out.

  5. It drives me nuts that so many people can't quite grasp the difference between a critical review (an honest opinion of the book that shows why they did not like the book) and a negative (and usually fake) review (which generally exposes their own self-hatred and insecurity by their attempts to tear down other people). I actually did a guest post for another author talking about it in January, but have since seem much better written explanations. Why a seemingly intelligent person cannot see the difference himself completely confounds me.

    1. I have a post coming out on the 29th of August where I show a GR group who does understand the difference.

      You're not alone though, it drives me nuts too.


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