In my post, I mentioned how Athena brought up the topic of a group that was going to sue Goodreads. I showed our email exchange discussing it. However, "Amused" makes mention that a lawsuit was filed against Goodreads and that it was settled out of court - but that the people involved with the lawsuit didn't want me to be a part of it because - and I quote - "They told her that AFTER you sent her the email asking if you could publish it on her blog. Why? Because of your habit of publishing information without other people's permission. They were wise not to trust you."
First of all, this shows even more evidence that private information you send to Athena via email doesn't always stay between you and Athena. (Unless Athena is "Amused".) Something many of you might be concerned about.
Secondly, the only post I ever made without permission was the "Lucy Flood" post (which was posted in the WIN group on Facebook by Athena, the secret keeper *sarcasm*), well after September 1st, 2013. (And well after this alleged "settlement".) Prior to sending Athena that email, I had never posted without anyone's permission. In fact, I could have posted at least a dozen more posts about people getting bullied, but did not because those involved asked me NOT to post it - and so I didn't. I also had no one ever contact me after I posted about them to complain that they wanted me to take it down. Thus, there was no habit of me posting without anyone's permission at that time, or ever!. This is a bold face lie by "Amused" and again, no evidence to support the claim.
Third: (And this is where the hypocrisy / stupidity shows by "Amused") The fact that I DID ask for permission first AND didn't post anything about the lawsuit after Athena said, "Not yet", clearly indicates that I don't post things without permission, nor ask for permission in the first place. (Because obviously I did ask FIRST and when Athena said "Not yet", I didn't post anything about it, did I?) Thus proving that I can keep a secret. (And that I do ask for permission first.)
So this lie from "Amused" beckons that what I posted about originally, that this lawsuit being a bluff, is true. There was no group and there was no lawsuit thus, no settlement.
Also, even if there was a "settlement" of the lawsuit, the lawsuit having been filed would still be made public, and would indicate that a settlement was reached, but the settlement would not be disclosed. So, my question is, was this lawsuit ever even filed in California? There would be public documents to show if indeed it was or wasn't because all lawsuits are made public, period!. (Just not always the settlement - if in event the settlement was to be withheld - as "Amused" indicates.) Still, the lawsuit being filed by itself would have been made public, and there would be a public record showing this. So, see if you can find it. I know I can't. But if this lawsuit was filed, wouldn't someone be able to find it? Wouldn't STGRB show this to be true?
So you see, until / unless evidence is at least shown that a lawsuit had been filed, as it would be a matter of public record, then my story is accurate when I say that it was all just one big bluff.
And as for "Amused" making claim that I had (or have) a habit of posting stories without other people's permission, this is false, as no evidence has been, or can be, presented to show otherwise. Unless "Amused" is referring to me posting about the bullies without "their" permission.
But let's assume for a moment that "Amused" is correct, and there was a group that filed a lawsuit against Goodreads and that it was settled "privately", having me on board would have only helped that lawsuit, seeing how I was attacked the worst of all the authors who were attacked. (Outside of maybe only Rick Carufel.) And let's face it, at THAT time, I was the STGRB golden boy. I was their poster child. That is fact! So any group assembled would have wanted me right there with it.
And one more thing, if there was a "settlement", then I am quite sure that even Amazon Forum Boards would be on the target next as that is the original nesting place for these bullies. And I'm pretty sure all activity of bullying on Goodreads would have been stamped out, but Rick Carufel has shown that it's not. (And I could show it too if you like.) In fact, I think I will.
Seems to me, if there was a settlement, ALL of the bullying would have been taken down.
Nice try "Amused", but no cigar. If you have proof that I posted stories without other people's permission, then do us all a favor and give it to STGRB and have them show it. Better yet, send it to me and I will post it right here on The Glass. This is how fair I am. And while you're at it, go to the public records online and take a screenshot of the lawsuit having been filed, because ALL lawsuits that are filed are a matter of public record. I can't seem to find it. And trust me, I tried - And I would have posted it had I found it just to prove myself wrong - even without your permission.
As for the claim "Amused" makes that this private "settlement" of this mysterious "lawsuit" - that no one can find proof of - by this "mysterious" group is what led to the current "changes" over at Goodreads, well, my suspicion is that the "changes" would have occurred in a matter of days, not months. Not only that, but I would suspect that this "mysterious" group would also pursue "Booklikes" in the same manner, being how the bullies defected to that website in droves. And or "Leafmarks". But we don't see that happening, do we?
The only "settlement" that I see here is the one STGRB (or Athena) made by herself with Goodreads.
Words are just words, "Amused", and we all know this much too well. (It's what we learned from the bullies) But proof speaks louder - much louder - than mere words. The question is: Can you (or STGRB) show with proof that your words have any merit? Time will only tell.
And time doesn't need permission.
I'm Carroll Bryant ... and the PROOF is still only in the pudding.