Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Nathan Bransford Gets It

Okay, maybe this is just one mad man picking up on the vibes of another mad man. Us evil scientists can read one another like an open book that way. I see what is going here and by the end of this post, perhaps you will see it too.

Meet author Nathan Bransford. A good looking young man if I do say so myself. (And I mean that in the most heterosexual of ways, of course.) Not that there is anything wrong with the other kind of sexual way. A persons sexual preference is nobody's business but their own.








Anyhow, Nathan Bransford wrote an article on his personal blog titled: "The Bullies of Goodreads". (It has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?)

In his article, he makes some very fine points. It is apparent, after reading it, that Nathan Bransford gets it. He understands the difference between a bad review and a bully review. One of his examples of which he points out is a review by "Shoujo" who left a review on another authors book where "Shoujo" says the following: "After reading multiple reviews and passages from the book .... no." Here is a screenshot of "Litchick's" review of one of Nathan's books where she clearly shows us a screenshot in her review of the "Shoujo" review of this other authors book. (Keeping up so far?) LOL




To quickly recap so far, Nathan Bransford writes an article about the bully reviews he sees on another authors book and "Litchick" writes a "book" review of one of Nathans books where she shows a screenshot of the bully review that Nathan mentions in his article that shows what a bully review kind of looks like.

Now, "Litchick" thinks she's caught an author (Nathan Bransford) complaining about a bad review. But here is the thing, she didn't, and I'll tell you why. (If you haven't already caught it)

The review Nathan showcases isn't a review of one of his books. It's a review of another authors books. So basically, Nathan ISN'T complaining about a bad review. He makes his comment of the review given by "Shoujo" from a "reader's" point of view. (Aha! Authors CAN be readers too!)

Secondly, it isn't a "bad" review given by "Shoujo", it's a "fake" review given by "Shoujo". (Have you caught it yet? Well, I'll explain.)

You see, I think the point that Nathan was trying to make is the same thing I saw when I read "Shoujo's" "fake bully" review. That thing is ..... "Shoujo" NEVER READ THE BOOK!

Very clever Nathan, you mad scientist you. Spotting the obvious I see.

By "Shoujo's" own confession, he or she rated the book one star based on "other people's review" (who read the book) and from a PASSAGE in the book. Thus, making "Shoujo's" review a "fake" or "bully" review. The point being that "Shoujo" is not a reader. "Shoujo" never "bought" the book therefor, by the laws of Bully Nation where they claim that a reader is a customer and thus, allowed to review a book as they see fit, "Shoujo" is not entitled to rate or review the book. (Because "Shoujo" didn't buy or even read the book.) By the laws of commonsense, you can't have bought a book you never read, can you? Or am I missing something here?

And because "Litchick" uses this as her so-called evidence that authors complain about book reviews, she is actually making the case that they don't because she presents her evidence in the form of a review by someone who never actually read the book in which "Shoujo" reviews.

I'm confused a little bit here too.

But in her haste (and bully hate), "Litchick" (and the other bullies) fail to recognize this small little tidbit. 

Now, let's just take a small peek at some of the comments made by the bullies on the review that "Litchick" posted on one of Nathans books, shall we?



Now, some bully by the name of Andrea asks "is it bad?" then proceeds to snort after reading it. (Consult an Otolaryngologists for that snorting problem, Andrea.) 

And then "Litchick" responds: "I don't know how those ten words are in anyway bullying or a personal attack on the author. But what do I know?"

Well, "Litchick", I can answer both of your questions right now. First, you don't know anything because you're not very bright. Secondly, it is an attack because "Shoujo" NEVER READ the book. And isn't this what I and STGRB and others have been saying? That we stand against book reviews that attack authors and or are NOT real reviews? That we also stand against fake ratings and reviews from people who do not read what they rate or review? 

I'm pretty sure we've said that before.

"Zelda" replies: "I think the guy was objecting to the name of the shelf."

That may be true, "Zelda", but I also believe he may have been objecting to the fact that "Shoujo" never read the book. Or maybe he objected to both of those things. You would probably have to ask him. 

Now while I somewhat agree with "Litchick's" follow up response and that of someone simply known as "S", that it may not be a review that "demeans or dehumanizes" the author, but it does demean the system of rating books when you rate and review a book you never even read in the first place. Correct? And then from that we have to ask the question: "Why did "Shoujo" even bother rating and reviewing a book he or she never even read? What would even be the point? Then to announce in the review of your fake rating that you never even read the book, isn't that more or less, "Shoujo's" way of saying: "I'm a big fat liar!"? 

But while we're on the subject of book reviews that are "demeaning and dehumanizing" of authors, let's take a look at one that covers both of those words, shall we?




And some comments posted under those reviews, shall we?







So, as we can plainly see, bully reviews do exist. And by the evidence that "Litchick" herself provided, so do "fake" reviews exist. And since there's no reason for either of them, I'd tend to agree with Nathan that this kind of thing is bad and needs to stop. 

Wouldn't you agree?

Now let's take a look at some more comments left under "Litchick's" so called review of Nathans book, shall we?





I want to focus on the comment made by "Morgan" where he or she says: "Jesus, why are some authors so thin-skinned?"

Well, "Morgan", Nathan isn't "thin-skinned" as you put it because, and I can't stress this enough to you, he didn't complain about a bad review on his book(s), he mentioned a bad review on another authors book. So my question to "Morgan" is: "How can somebody be "thin skinned" about a review of some other authors book?" - It doesn't make any sense. My next question to "Morgan" is: "Did you sniff glue a lot when you were a kid?"

Stupid is as stupid is, I guess.

Now let's take a look at "Pixie's" so called book review on one of Nathans books, shall we?





Oh, where to begin with this one? LOL

You see, what "Pixie" is referring to in this "book" review is, that Nathan had previously posted a link to STGRB in his article. Then, he must have heard some misleading information about STGRB because he later went back in and deleted the link. He also made mention of this also in his post. It wasn't like he was hiding the fact that he did it. 

However, "Pixie" makes it a point to not only mention this, but ridicules Nathan for ever having posted the link to STGRB in the first place. It's the same sad story of the bullies never being satisfied with anything anyone does. You're damned if you, you're damned if you don't, and you're damned if you do and then try and make the corrections. You're pretty much damned period by the bullies. They forgive nothing. It's kind of like the way when some authors they have victimized who later turn around and apologize for something even though they probably hadn't anything to apologize for and the bullies never accept apologies or corrections. They will constantly hold everything against you. Kind of like the Rick Carufel story. The bullies like to harp on and on about the past mistakes of those they hate and never look to forgive people when they think they made a mistake of some kind. We have seen this way too often with the bullies.

"Pixie" also makes the claim that "reviews" aren't about the author. They're about the book. But didn't I just show you a screenshot earlier that contradicts her claim? I think I did. Let me double check.

Yep, I did. Sorry Pixie, but you lose. 

Then she ends her so called "book" review of Nathans book (where ironically, like with "LitChick", her "review" of Nathans book had absolutely nothing to do with Nathans book) she says she wanted to insert a "gif" to her review (A typical 13 year old thing to do as we see the bullies practice this type of thing on a regular basis, mostly on their hate blogs) but that she doesn't want to "offend" anybody.

That ship sailed a long time ago, "Pixie" when you lied in your "book" review that "reviews" are not about authors and only about books. I find that offensive. And let's face it, "Pixie", the review you left for Nathans book (and the one "Litchick" left as well) has absolutely nothing to do with Nathans book but rather, everything to do about his post. Proving yet again, that you do not have to complain about a bad review to get attacked by the bullies on Goodreads, oh no, all you have to do is write an article on your personal blog about the bullying going on on Goodreads and mention STGRB in the process and THEN you get bullied. 

I just thought of something .... in order for the bullies to prove that there is no bullying going on on Goodreads is for someone to write about bullying that is going on Goodreads and mention STGRB and then they bully you for it. It's kind of hard for the bullies to show that no bullying is going on on Goodreads when they actually go and bully someone for writing about the bullying going on on Goodreads, right?

Oh dear, I went cross-eyed again. 

*** FACE PALM ***

I think what I meant to say was, you can't disprove bullying by bullying. (Or something to that effect)

Now I want to share some screenshots of comments left on Nathans blog post regarding the bullies on Goodreads. This first one is an eye opener. Check it out. 





Did you see that? Someone left a positive "fake" review of a book that the bullies attacked with bad "fake" reviews and Goodreads deleted it! Sounds a lot more like Amazon Forum Boards now, doesn't it? Way to go Patrick Brown, Kara Erickson and or Emily Finley. Way to go indeed. Don't you just love it how those three "protect" the bullies? I know I do.

This next comment was removed by Nathan. Must have been a bully comment. They love to "invade" people's spaces though. Check it out. 





I really want to know now what she said. LOL

This next comment come from "Michelle". Notice how she lies about STGRB posting personal information of people like big time bully GenX does on her GenXpose blog. (Of course, as usual, Michelle, like GenXpose blog, doesn't supply any proof of this. I guess it's really hard to show any evidence when evidence doesn't actually exist.)






 This next comment is a shocker. It comes from "anonymous". (That's the shocking part) LOL Okay, that was also sarcasm. The most famous name for the bullies is "Anonymous". Ha ha. Anyhow, anon claims that STGRB doxxes too. Again, failing to lead us to any evidence to support the claim. 





Here is one of the bullies, Elyssa Patrick, trying to explain the same thing the previous bullies made claim to, and that STGRB doc drops people without showing any proof. She also tries to explain that the bullies don't attack authors in their book reviews and that they only address the book. Meanwhile, I showed evidence that says otherwise, didn't I? Not just with screenshots of my book reviews, but "Litchick's" and "Pixie's" book review of Nathans books that never even address the book.




And so, that's pretty much what you will see in the comments section of Nathans article about the Goodreads bullies. Now I want to end this post of some screenshots of book shelves that showcase the bullies attacking Nathans books for his books writing the article in the first place.

Wait! I mean, I want to show you some screenshots of the bullies book shelves of them attacking Nathans books for HIM writing the article about the Goodreads bullies. Because as we have all come to know is that the price you pay for having an opinion that doesn't agree with the Goodreads bullies is that your book gets shelved by them in nasty, author attacking book shelves. Correct?

Hey, Carroll, there's no bullies on Goodreads. WTF?

Oh hell, I went cross eyed again.

*** FACE PALM ***
















But it is good to see that some of the more successful authors out there like Nathan, not only see that there are bullies on Goodreads, but also are willing and daring to write about it. Of course, all the bullying he has received by those who differ with him proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no such thing as bullying on Goodreads. 

Damn it! I went cross eyed again!

WTF?



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



Things We Learned Today:


* Nathan Bransford gets it

* Nathan was attacked by the bullies for his article

* Nathans books was attacked by the bullies for him writing his article

* Goodreads are now deleting "fake" good reviews but leaving the "fake" bad reviews

* Goodreads is now officially Amazon Forum Boards


* It took bullying to prove that bullies don't exist on Gooodreads

* Wait! WTF? I went cross eyed again

* Carroll needs to see an optometrist


18 comments:

  1. Hilarious post, Carroll. I had to read it ten times to figure it out. Not that you didn't do a good enough job explaining it, but trying to keep up with these people and how they think. The moral of the story is, don't try and get into the mind of a troll, you'll only enter into the dark regions of your insanity. I think you tried to get into their minds again. :)

    I also saw the new comments on the miranda koryluk post. I think those comments made by anon there demonstrates exactly what you are trying to relate in this post that these people constantly contradict themselves and cant seem to keep all of their lies straight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I did try to get into their minds again. My bad.

      Oh yeah, the Miranda Koryluk post comments. Good reference.

      Delete
  2. Now I'm cross eyed. Thanks a lot Carroll it's all your fault! lol

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let me get this straight, for the bullies to prove they aren't bullying they went to Nathans books and bullied him just because he wrote an article about the bullies on GR?

    Oh to hell with it, I give up. Great post.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Classic! The bullies had to bully to prove they don't bully. So funny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By Joe, I think you gots it too.

      And yes, it is very funny. What's not funny is the loss of nearly a thousand I.Q. points I suffered by writing this post.

      Delete
  5. So you point out fake 1 star reviews but how about fake 5 star reviews bc those do exist. Don't like Goodreads go somewhere else. There are other alternatives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did mention fake 5 star reviews. I mentioned that it got deleted by GR staff yet left the fake one stars. I am opposed to fake 5 stars too. But I do understand people giving them to counter the fake one stars left by the bullies. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

      I don't have an account on Goodreads. So yeah, I do go somewhere else. LOL

      Delete
  6. If Nathan didn't get it when you wrote this piece he sure gets it now. The troll have shown why Badreads is a hate forum, nothing more. Nathan's book September Girl has been trashed and not a single revenge review is by a person whose read it. That right there is proof the site is corrupt and unmodded and in violation of FTC regulations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nathan didn't write "September Girls". Bennett Madison is the author of "September Girls".

      Delete
    2. So the trolls trashed this book just because Nathan liked it?

      Delete
  7. Basically, the bullies tried to justify their behavior in the comments on Nathan's blog, but then proved them selves wrong...damn Carroll, it's like watching a Three Stooges movie, where they are always smacking themselves and each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Couldn't have said it better. The 3 Stooges? I'll have to remember that.

      Delete
  8. Are my eyes playing tricks on me or has this post already made it in your top ten?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your eyes are fine. It seems to be a popular topic. I have five other posts from the past couple of weeks knocking on the top ten door. The Glass exploded in August. A lot has happened the past few weeks. The bullies have been busy.

      Delete