Sunday, December 1, 2013

Goodreads Bullies Protest Wikipedia

Here we go, just another day in psycho land. In a recent development, it would appear that the Goodreads bullies have discovered Wikipedia. To make matters more insane, they are taking issue with what Wikipedia has posted in regards to the policy change over on Goodreads. Check it out.

It would appear that "Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship" has a problem with Wikipedia using the phrase "Anti-bullying" and "abusive" comments. But why? Why does she have a problem with this? This is exactly what GR explained when it "updated" and began "enforcing" their policy.

It's simple, a book review is supposed to be about a book, not about the person who wrote it. There are other places where a "hater" or "bully" can do that, and a book review is not one of them. Or at least, it shouldn't be. But these people just can't comprehend this for some unknown reason.

Another thing that bugs me about "Emma's" complaint is, how does she know that the Wikipedia article is talking about "her"? I mean, in no where on the GR Wiki page does it mentions any names or points any fingers. So why is she, and Bully Nation on Goodreads, so up in arms about it? Or is it like that old saying, when someone mentions a word, the person (or people) themselves automatically know that it is referring to them?  They know who "they" are?

I could understand if I used the word "bully", or if STGRB or any other person who has picked up the cause to fight cyber bullying and stalking used it, then everyone who has been keeping up with the situation would know exactly whom we are talking about. However, when a place like Wikipedia uses the word, how would these bullies know that Wikipedia was talking about them specifically? I guess the "bullies" know exactly who they are to think that an unbiased company like Wikipedia, when they use the word, would be referring to them directly.

Oh, the guilty mind always knows, doesn't it?

I'm not the least bit offended or outraged over anybody using the word "bully" because I know I am not a bully, and it is not talking about me, but check out some more comments to the Goodreads Wikipedia page, it gets more interesting.

"Thalia" seems to think that Wikipedia should be more objective. WHAT? How much more objective can Wikipedia be? It's only telling the truth, and I know for a fact that Wikipedia wouldn't put that on the GR page without GR's approval. They only put up what Otis Chandler approves. (Like I said, I know this for a FACT!)

I suppose if I used the phrase "stupid people" and someone was upset by it, then that person who was upset by it must think of themselves as "stupid"? Using this analogy, I can see why the "bullies" are so upset over Wikipedia using the word "bully".

"Karma Bites" must be upset that Wikipedia referenced Mercy Pilkington's article. 

Then "Emma" contributes some more bully wisdom in her comment by saying: "Even Goodreads itself didn't announce it as an 'anti-bullying' policy. It was a 'don't use review space to talk about author behavior' policy.

First of all, yes, Goodreads did announce it as an "anti-bullying" policy. In fact, they already had that written into their ToS before they "updated" it. It just so happens that they finally got around to somewhat "enforcing" it. Secondly, when you talk about someone's behavior in a "book review", then guess what? It is BULLYING! 

The reason it is perceived as bullying is because, why else would someone do that in the first place? People looking for a book to read don't care about an authors behavior. Not "real" readers anyway. They couldn't care less. Also, what does an authors behavior have to do with the book? .... Nothing! Not to mention, when the bullies do this, they claim they are doing the "world" a great favor, but when I, or anyone else, write about their "behavior" in doing it, they call it "bullying". 

You can't have your hypocrisy cake and eat it too! 

But it gets much better, check it out. 

"Emma" still wants to make it "fair and balanced". SMH It already is fair and balanced "Emma", it's just in your guilty mind, you know you're a bully. This is why in your mind it's not "fair and balanced". 

Take a look at some more of the responses.

This next shot is my personal favorite. Take a look.

Yes! Someone thinks I am a person of "repute", yet because of this, that person is obviously of a "partisan" view. 

As opposed to what, "Cruth"? A person like you who dislikes me doesn't have a "partisan" view? Really? I mean, what evidence do you have that shows I am not a person of "repute"? Do you have any proof that I ever complained about a legitimate bad review? Do you have any evidence showing that I stalked and harassed anyone? Do you have proof that I am a pedophile as so many of you bullies claim? Do you have any screenshots to provide us with that shows I am doing anything "wrong" or being "bad" in your "not so humble" opinion?

The answer to all of those questions is a resounding NO!

But this is the bully mentality. When they "hate" someone, it's not "partisan" or "biased" at all. But then someone doesn't agree with them or share the same sentiments, or better still, even "likes" me or places me in "repute", then obviously, it's a "partisan" view. 

That pretty much sums up the bully mentality right there. That and the fact that "they" (the bullies) have a problem with Wikipedia using the word "bully" or the phrase, "anti-bullying".

Here are some more responses.

(Pay special attention to "Fish Lips", I have a "shocker" for you at the end.)

Go already! ... All of you! ... Stop threatening and just do it for Pete's sake. Geesh.

And now, remember "Fish Lips"? Well, to understand this last screenshot of the post you first have to reflect back to all the times the Goodreads bullies accused me and people at STGRB and many others of using sock puppets, and in the same breath, claiming that they never do that despite the many times STGRB has proved them to doing it. Well, here we have some more evidence that these bullies do indeed use sock puppets. Check it out. 

Of course you're "Petra", "Fish Lips", and of course you're using a sock puppet. You're a bully. That's the bully way. Thanks for the disclosure though. 

(Roll. My. Freaking. Eyes.)

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

Things We Learned Today:

* The bullies are always offended by the word "bully" no matter who says it

* The bullies know who (and what) they are

* "Fish Lips" is a sock puppet of "Petra"

* Someone thinks Carroll is of repute

* To like Carroll or think he is of repute, is to be "partisan"

* Bully is as bully does

* Carroll said "hypocrisy cake"

* Wikipedia only writes what Otis Chandler approves

* The bullies do not understand how Wikipedia works

* Wikipedia only writes what can be basically proven or the facts

* A bullies work is never done


  1. Have you got the link to this Wikipedia article, mate? If Otis Chandler calls them bullies himself this I've got to see.

    1. I don't know if Otis calls them bullies, but I do know that if Otis has an issue with Wikipedia, he would correct them, and Wikipedia would make changes as to how they say something, or present it. One has to assume that if Wikipedia uses the phrase "bully" or "anti-bullying", that it was done so with the approval of Otis Chandler, Goodreads, and or Amazon.


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