ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

SJWs defending their turf

One of the people following my author page received this from Goodreads today:
Hi there

Your account was recently brought to our attention.  Upon review, we have decided to remove it from the site.  A CSV of the books you shelved is attached for your personal records.  You are banned from using Goodreads in any capacity going forward.

Sincerely,

The Goodreads Team
That's four banned already. As I said, for all the libertarian pretensions of the CEO, the company has been entirely converged. The purpose of Goodreads is no longer to simply read and review books, but to advance social justice ideals by building up SJW authors and attacking anti-SJW authors and anyone who supports them.

That is why Goodreads will go into decline and Amazon will eventually shut them down and replace them. The only way a converged business can survive is as a parasite, either with a government host or a corporate one.

Labels:

83 Comments:

Blogger Thomas Davidsmeier January 12, 2016 7:45 PM  

How blatant they are about it is amazing. They aren't even pretending to have reasons.

At least Amazon cares about their ratings and reviews on their own site. Those are useful.

Blogger Robert Elfers January 12, 2016 7:45 PM  

Well...I haven't been banned yet, and my rating still stands.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1494650745

26 likes so far. Screenshot just in case, yo.

Blogger Phillip George January 12, 2016 7:50 PM  

reality is an alcoholic waking up in a gutter in his own vomit broke homeless and with a distant memory of friends. If that doesn't help him nothing will. But trying to help the alcoholic before they make their way to that gutter can be fraught with danger. It's certainly thankless.

I usually say I’ll be on Twitter and Facebook but I’m not sure.
Between Charlie Hebdo and Cologne, I’m having trouble coping.
I guess I didn’t think this was what my life was going to be like.
Or more accurately, that if I was going to end up with special locks on the door and a shotgun beside my desk, all that would seem more… fun…
unquote.

Whether it's the multicultist, alcoholic who still has some money left in their pocket, gambling addict, or converged business, there's this ongoing unreality.

Bankruptcy will certainly help. Like the alcoholic's gutter experience, the wall must be reached. Logic hasn't worked. They need their wall.

Blogger jm January 12, 2016 7:54 PM  

I just closed my account.

Though I rarely used it, and so will not miss it much, it's the principle of the thing.

Anonymous Godfrey January 12, 2016 7:57 PM  

They're afraid and they're desperate. A sign we're making progress.

Blogger VD January 12, 2016 8:00 PM  

They're afraid and they're desperate.

As I've written, they are psychologically fragile and delicate individuals. They cannot take any heat for long. Once they attack, press them and stay on them. Most will quickly crumble.

Anonymous Ethan January 12, 2016 8:00 PM  

It's amazing how the front page of SJWs Always Lie nails them so completely with a serpent's tongue emerging from a smiley face. The tone shifts so completely, so quickly in this letter, it almost seems like the author is bipolar or something: An unthreatening "Hi there", concludes 3 sentences later with "You are banned from using Goodreads in any capacity going forward."

Blogger weka January 12, 2016 8:04 PM  

If it has function, it will rewritten.
If it has no utility, it will die.
And if has utility and the SJW ruin it, it will be forked.

Unless you manage GR, you have zero responsibility to its future. Unless you own shares in Amazon, you have no need to care about its future.

At present it is being used by SJWs to identify targets. They forget that if they think their enemy is in range, they also are.

Anonymous Mr. Rational January 12, 2016 8:10 PM  

Nothing to me so far, and I've rated Rachel Swirsky at a 1.  We'll see how long this lasts.

Anonymous Rolf January 12, 2016 8:12 PM  

I wonder how long I'll last before I get one of those letters. I'm still pretty obscure now, but that may change with time.

Anonymous Ezra Pound January 12, 2016 8:22 PM  

libertarian pretensions of the CEO

HaHa. That's fucking awesome. Say it ain't (pretended) so?
GoodReads is a Marxist Conformist pile of Shit. Collectivists, without a backbone or concern for the Truth.
There is No Room For Them in Our Future Society.

Anonymous Wm Pierce January 12, 2016 8:25 PM  

they are psychologically fragile and delicate individuals VD

Which is why they'll be turned in a JewYorkMinute when they're up against the wall.
See you in the NorthWest, friends.


Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 12, 2016 8:53 PM  

The SJW just need to say it louder.

Blogger Harry Spitz January 12, 2016 9:00 PM  

I guess this is the electronic equivalent of a book burning, the ultimate display of willful ignorance and closed-mindedness.
Castalia House shoule be proud of the enemies it has made!
Too bad they didn't actually have to pay for the books they 'burned.'

Blogger 1337kestrel January 12, 2016 9:00 PM  

I'm still pretty obscure now, but that may change with time. - Rolf Nelson

Yeah, I've never published anything, but in my mind I feel like I'm as famous as you are. But I'm not. You are That Guy That Wrote Those Books.

Blogger GK Chesterton January 12, 2016 9:04 PM  

Are we sure the CEO knows? I thought this was all skirmish so far. Its very likely at least two levels of SJW's have built up in the review process over time.

Anonymous KoranBurningFaggot January 12, 2016 9:15 PM  

libertarian pretensions of the CEO

He doesn't want to pay more for Latrina's 21 illegitimate crack babies, but he is happy for you to. The question is if Otis Chandler is using the money he saved to snort coke at Epstein island?

Anonymous Hrw-500 January 12, 2016 9:22 PM  

A bit off-topic, Amazon.com had removed a controversial book titled "Nobody died at Sandy Hook" while another much more controversial book is still online at Amazon.com and had fallen in the public domain.

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau January 12, 2016 9:28 PM  

I still have my account but I haven't rated many items yet. I like to give honest ratings even if SJW's don't.

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau January 12, 2016 9:28 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger LP999 S.I.G. Burnin' Up January 12, 2016 9:40 PM  

Overall, I strongly disprove of GOODREADS POLICIES and actions towards Vox and other writers here. The good is the required knowledge as to what goodreads allies/(worldviews) with.

Blogger Christopher Yost January 12, 2016 9:49 PM  

Any hints as to what those profiles/people were doin'? Like more than the usual "shenanigans"?

I reported many odd-assed reviews (started with SJW and spread from there outta boredom) and haven't received one reply back for 'em nor was anything done.

The reports stated the who, what, where and why.

I'm obviously being ignored and it's...annoying.

Anonymous Bryan January 12, 2016 10:07 PM  

I'm the one that was posting "how much percentage should be read" on the book review. Several of you called me a moron, etc. And argued with me.

I posted a 1-star scathing review, and because I've actually read the book, my review has only garnered a few comments.

On a recent blog post, Vox dealt with my "what if I can get him to read 25%" snark in a reasonable manner, and referenced the fact that I have read the book. And was very reasonable and calm. Patient even.

And I can observe behavior and make conclusions. Compare the consideration David Lambert got to what I've received. That tells me a lot about Vox's ethics.

So thanks for the peace. I extend it back. I will not set myself up as your enemy, nor act dishonestly on Goodreads, or cause harm by trying to skew ratings. My 1-star review stands, but I won't continue to comment argumentatively.

I haven't participated in getting anybody banned, nor have I flagged any accounts or reviews. I'm on Goodreads to read science fiction, and that's what I plan to continue doing.

While I thought I was being funny (and I still chuckle at the 25.21% post), many of you didn't find my arguments amusing in the least. Peace to you all.

(But check out my 5-star review for "Earth's Last Days" and see if I was more successful in humor there.)

Anonymous JI January 12, 2016 10:09 PM  

I've been used Goodreads or even been to the website (although I guess now I'll check it out). How does one avoid being banned from that site?

Anonymous 165 January 12, 2016 10:12 PM  

I guess GR has changed their minds, at least once, since Sept. 2013:

"In an announcement HERE, Director of Customer Care “Kara” makes the announcement that author attacks will no longer be allowed on Goodreads. Users are welcomed and encouraged to continue posting their honest feelings about books, but remarks, shelves, and posts about authors themselves will be deleted. This is welcome news to groups like StopTheGRBullies.com and a host of other authors who emerged during this recent news to share not only their stories of bullying, but also screen shots to back them up."

http://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/goodreads-modifies-user-terms-to-prevent-author-bullying-reviewers-outraged

Blogger LP999 S.I.G. Burnin' Up January 12, 2016 10:13 PM  

I disapprove of SJWGR's absurdities for 2016? Shame!!

Vox is ethical and honest, He has proven such through time.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 12, 2016 10:13 PM  

Same here:
From:Goodreads support@goodreads.com via freshdesk.com
Hi there,
Your account was recently brought to our attention. Upon review, we have decided to remove it from the site. A CSV of the books you shelved is attached for your personal records. You are banned from using Goodreads in any capacity going forward.

Sincerely,
The Goodreads Team

my reply:
To: Support@goodreads.com
Fair enough. You've chosen sides in the culture war. Remember this in a couple of years when your company is gone and you're wondering what happened.

Blogger Amaryllis January 12, 2016 10:17 PM  

LOL. I just went on there today to review a few more books, and I was banned as well. Same e-mail. No explanation of why. All I did was post reviews, none of them broke any rules, and most of them had nothing to do with SJW (in fact, "Dinosaur" was the only SJW story I reviewed, although I was planning on reviewing NK Jemisin at some point).

Where is that guy who was promising all would be well if only there was no attempt at collective action?

Blogger TheRedSkull January 12, 2016 10:18 PM  

Bear in mind that God banned SJWs from heaven first. So it's a bit unfair to claim they started it.

Blogger Thucydides January 12, 2016 10:18 PM  

So we will have to create our own site. Vox's 400+ VFM's, the various Ilk and hangers on can be impressed into service by reviewing books and media, and the traffic alone will make the site visible while it is being built, attracting more readers and users.

Since the vast majority of people are "severely normal" and have little interest in Gamergate, the Hugo's or Open Source Coding, the attractiveness of a site which actually reviews books and is evenhandedly moderating accounts should be attractive. So long as the moderators use and understand the "Code of Merit" as discussed in another thread, and SJW entryism is rejected, then the alternative should grow and thrive.

Blogger J Van Stry January 12, 2016 10:19 PM  

Now I'm worried that I'll have my account closed, just because I flagged a few 1 star comments for attack the author and not the books!

And I've been on there for years, and I'm an author with quite a few books there and a fairly active presence.

Yeah, the goodreads bullies are back.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 12, 2016 10:22 PM  

22. Christopher Yost
Any hints as to what those profiles/people were doin'? Like more than the usual "shenanigans"?

Well, first I flagged several reviews where the review had either admitted he never read the book or that were entirely about the author without reference to the book.
When nothing happened, since reading the book is obviously not a requirement for rating and reviewing a book on GR, I rated several books by SJWs, notably the trans-phillic and homosexual fantasy musings of Sean O'Hara. I couldn't bring myself to review them without reading them, but seeing what they are, I had no problem giving them one star.
I called out the most obviously dishonest reviewers I ran across, and I replied in kind when insulted and mocked.

Those were my "shenannigans".

Anonymous No January 12, 2016 10:24 PM  

Good readance.

OpenID turk187 January 12, 2016 10:25 PM  

I hadnt heard of goodreads before this started but now im getting pissed off.

Blogger ray January 12, 2016 10:41 PM  

You are banned from using Goodreads [the sentence]

in any capacity [redundant]


going forward. [dubble redundle]


Can't compose a sentence but demand authority over what's good to read and permissible to write. Also, note standard outpouring of spite. You are banned, we hates you we hates you. Stole their Precious.

Par for the crooked course.

Blogger Aeoli Pera January 12, 2016 10:50 PM  

Mine's still up. I was following you but I wasn't in any of the groups, so we'll soon find out if they're reading these comments.

Blogger Aeoli Pera January 12, 2016 10:51 PM  

Only flagged one fake review. I'll try hitting one from one of the people you've mentioned on the blog.

Blogger Jon M January 12, 2016 10:51 PM  

@19 "I still have my account but I haven't rated many items yet. I like to give honest ratings even if SJW's don't."

Likewise. Although now that all the cool kids are getting banned...I feel like I'm missing out. Might be nice to add "Banned By Goodreads" to my uniform as a badge of honor.

Blogger Mint January 12, 2016 11:08 PM  

I still have my account. I rated so few books, though. I have flagged a number of reviews which attacking authors/and of no value to new readers seeking help to know what the book all about. One very polite comment on a 4 star review of "If You Were a Dinosour, My love".

Maybe they are looking at comments and connect them with Vox's list of followers as a reason for ban.

Blogger John Wright January 12, 2016 11:25 PM  

I just closed my account.

I complained about the same SJW review criticizing an article unrelated to my fiction writing which has been hanging at #1 on my JUDGE OF AGES page, and I was informed that they needed to investigate.

Bugger them with a corkscrew. Seeing even one letter where a person is tossed with no explanation is absurd beyond belief. But three? More?

Blogger Groot January 12, 2016 11:30 PM  

They just want to suck the joy out of everything. I only signed up when Vox asked us to, but I've actually been having great fun going over books I've read over the centuries. Badfun, I guess. They won't ban Mint. She's too cute (hi, Mint!). Forking, though... what a concept. Something this inherently fun should be easy to benefit from in some parallel forum. Competition is fruitful.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 13, 2016 12:02 AM  

Maybe they are looking at comments and connect them with Vox's list of followers as a reason for ban.

Nope. My account was created after Vox was banned.

Anonymous TimP January 13, 2016 12:10 AM  

They haven't banned me yet either. I'm feeling left out too. Maybe we should start a Goodreads group? "Not yet banned from Goodreads for Badthink"

Oh well, as well as flagging a bunch of obviously fake one-star reviews a few days ago, I've also "liked" a bunch of one-star reviews of Scalzi's books a few hours ago. Maybe that will be enough to get me on their radar?

Anonymous TimP January 13, 2016 12:21 AM  

>> Maybe they are looking at comments and connect them with Vox's list of followers as a reason for ban.

> Nope. My account was created after Vox was banned.

They are a social networking site, so they could follow the chains of "friends" and "likes" to figure out who is part of the Puppy network. If you wanted you could probably roll up a fair chunk of the network in one go, since they're not doing that I'd guess that this is a piecemeal process:

One of your comments or reviews was seen by someone who hated it, and they either are a mod, or could contact a sympathetic mode, and you got banned.

This likely means that it isn't Goodreads as a whole that's banning you, but rather a small group of mods (or even a single one), so trying to escalate your bad to the mod team as a whole, or Goodreads corporate may be helpful. While the best case scenario (the good mods are numerous enough and aggressive enough to kick out the idiots and clean up this ridiculous SJW mess) is exceedingly unlikely, forcing it to be open to the entire Goodreads mod team is likely to have a positive effect on some of the moderates.

Blogger Were-Puppy January 13, 2016 12:30 AM  

I'm not banned yet, maybe they will get around to it. I wonder if they are banning people were in the group?

Anonymous Ain January 13, 2016 12:48 AM  

"Might be nice to add "Banned By Goodreads" to my uniform as a badge of honor."

If Vox had gamer-style achievements, that would certainly be a good one. At least you can blurb it.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit January 13, 2016 1:34 AM  

@Vox, have you thought about contacting your favourite blonde-haired Breitbart journalist about this? It sounds right up his street (no pun intended).

If more people see what is being done there would be more of a backlash. At the moment the GR mob are singling out individuals and banning them, hoping to cover up their sickness from public (sound familiar?).

So far my complaints and flagged reviewed have been ignored and I can't decide between upping the ante and risking the banhammer or just deleting my account and leaving the obese pedos to their polyamorous grooming circles.

Blogger Ahazuerus January 13, 2016 1:44 AM  

The war will not be televised.

The war will be gamified.

Anonymous Wyrd January 13, 2016 2:01 AM  

The war will not be televised.

But it will and does have corporate sponsorship.

Blogger Ahazuerus January 13, 2016 2:16 AM  

Aye. But like SJWs themselves, those fuckers blow in the wind. They will change sides as soon as the wind changes.

Blogger VD January 13, 2016 3:49 AM  

I called out the most obviously dishonest reviewers I ran across, and I replied in kind when insulted and mocked.

A pattern emerges. Was one of them Aaaah?

So thanks for the peace. I extend it back. I will not set myself up as your enemy, nor act dishonestly on Goodreads, or cause harm by trying to skew ratings. My 1-star review stands, but I won't continue to comment argumentatively. I haven't participated in getting anybody banned, nor have I flagged any accounts or reviews. I'm on Goodreads to read science fiction, and that's what I plan to continue doing.

Fair enough. I don't object to one-star reviews from people who read the book and didn't like it. That's what one-star reviews are for. I object to people using reviews as ideological weapons; it's my personal opinion that one should never write a review or rate a book one has not read in full.

If I abandon a book because I dislike it, or for any other reason, I don't review it, I don't rate it, and I don't include it on my reading list. CGW had a policy when I was a professional game reviewer that you were not allowed to review games unless you had completed them. And you were not supposed to use cheat codes either. It could be brutal; I had to play through Heretic in 18 hours straight so that I could write the review in time for the monthly deadline.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit January 13, 2016 4:52 AM  

I think it's time for someone withba clean goodreads history to start a Goodreads experiment ala the Israeli / Pakistani one on Facebook.

Tactical note: use your public library's free computers.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit January 13, 2016 4:53 AM  

My apolgies, that should be Palestinian

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2016 5:38 AM  

"I don't object to one-star reviews from people who read the book and didn't like it. That's what one-star reviews are for. I object to people using reviews as ideological weapons; it's my personal opinion that one should never write a review or rate a book one has not read in full."

Precisely. You can find one star reviews on Amazon where I've waxed fulsome with praise on the reviewer, because it was obvious he'd actually read the book. You can find five star reviews where I've told the reviewer to make it a one star, since he'd obviously _not_ read the book. It's the dishonesty I hate.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit January 13, 2016 7:05 AM  

@53. Tom Kratman
It's the dishonesty I hate.

Alas, that is the rallying banner and chief weapon of our enemy.

Anonymous DarthWheatley #2415 January 13, 2016 7:13 AM  

@23: Bryan - I got a chuckle out of the 25% comment. All the SJW's in that thread, however, are boorish at best.

I haven't been banned yet, though I haven't really tried, either.

Meh. I've got some time to waste, we'll see.

Blogger El Borak January 13, 2016 7:20 AM  

I woke up this morning banned, though I never interacted with any SJW on the site, nor was my reading history tilted that way. My two offenses were, it seems, a) being part of the Rabid Puppies group, and writing a brutal review of "If you were a Dinosaur, my Love."

My guess is that they are preemptively nuking everyone who was a puppy. In the name of inclusion, of course.

Anonymous DarthWheatley #2415 January 13, 2016 7:23 AM  

I can tell more than 4 have been banned... my 1-star-review of "IYWADML" is still up, but the "likes" dropped from 26 down to 20.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2016 8:05 AM  

Sur:

Yes, I know.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2016 8:05 AM  

Sur:

Yes, I know.

Blogger shinso January 13, 2016 8:55 AM  

@25

That was the case for a while, but they started going a tad overboard where someone would have a 7-8 paragraph long review, then insult the author for being a insert negative word here because of X in their books and suddenly ban. The rule of thumb seems to be use common sense. It's not allowed if it's boo I dislike this person so 1* even though I havn't read the book. But it's generally allowed to bash the author during an actual review of the book. That being said there are plenty of reviews that do exist that do blatantly violate this standard.

Anonymous KoranBurningFaggot January 13, 2016 9:11 AM  

JI How does one avoid being banned from that site?

Send them a picture of you snorting cocaine off a 15yo boys genitalia at Epstein island next to Otis Chandler.

Blogger Dave January 13, 2016 9:17 AM  

It could be brutal; I had to play through Heretic in 18 hours straight so that I could write the review in time for the monthly deadline.

That's craaaazy; who selected the games for review and what was the criteria? Did you ever not finish a game or a game was so bad you couldn't bring yourself to complete it?

Blogger kaflick January 13, 2016 9:35 AM  

@51

Download the TOR browser.

Use it thoughtfully.

Blogger Were-Puppy January 13, 2016 10:26 AM  

I only have a couple friends over there.
Is there a big friend network that I am unaware of over there?

Anonymous DarthWheatley #2415 January 13, 2016 10:36 AM  

@62: Did you ever not finish a game or a game was so bad you couldn't bring yourself to complete it?

No, he just read the title, insulted the developers, and gave it 1 star.

Blogger Sevron January 13, 2016 10:42 AM  

Seconding getting Milo involved. Imagine how many poor rabbits at GR would hang themselves?

Blogger Were-Puppy January 13, 2016 10:59 AM  

I don't even want to put an effort into putting an actual review when the account may be banned for no apparent reason.

I'll stick with star ratings.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett January 13, 2016 11:17 AM  

@51 (and anyone else)

I created a GR acct when the call went out last week, but haven't used it at all. Its completely clean. The Dark Lord has my email, so if anyone wants to propose some good clean mischief, I'm on board.

I await instructions.

Blogger RobertT January 13, 2016 11:41 AM  

SJWs and establishment elites are winning the battles waged in their living rooms, but the battle waged for the minds of the people is being won by the insurgents.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/13/twtr-lol-twitters-stock-price-crashing-down-nearly-5/

Blogger RobertT January 13, 2016 11:41 AM  

SJWs and establishment elites are winning the battles waged in their living rooms, but the battle waged for the minds of the people is being won by the insurgents.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/13/twtr-lol-twitters-stock-price-crashing-down-nearly-5/

Blogger Jon M January 13, 2016 1:10 PM  

Having thought about it for an evening, I'm going to let my presence on Goodreads coast along for a few months. I'll write the occasional review, build up a longer history and 'street cred' there, but hold off on anything brash until the next Hugo season rolls around. Then the forces of truth and light will at least have some presence there. Even if the enemy holds the high ground, it's worth having a few partisans lurking in the brush.

Anonymous tublecane January 13, 2016 1:47 PM  

@50-I don't see what's wrong with reviewing a book you haven't finished, so long as you say so.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 13, 2016 2:37 PM  

A pattern emerges. Was one of them Aaaah?

yes.
I will also note, that the account under my real name did the same things, but not involving Aaaah, last week. It's still there.

Evidently Sean O'Hara doesn't have as much pull

Anonymous Bz January 13, 2016 3:15 PM  

I think Goodreads can also be viewed as a good, clear example to business owners and community managers. In this specific case, the SJWs ruin Goodreads by actively killing off other viewpoints and closing off the user base, and by purposefully allowing garbage reviews that destroy whatever knowledge has been accumulated by the Goodreads community. We see roughly the same thing happening in so many places, from open source projects to social networks to churches, but perhaps not quite as brazenly.

Once the SJWs are in charge, they will ruin your service or community or organization for their political goals. They have no interest in preserving or growing it as such. It is a tool which can be discarded when worn out. They didn't pay for it. They didn't build it either. You did.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 13, 2016 6:01 PM  

So has anyone else noticed that it's the middle-aged Canadian faccots you don't dare cross on GR? Feminists and Lesbians (but i repeat myself) can only complain. Sean and David can ban your ass.

On behalf of Canadian Villains, I can only ask for your sympathy. this and Dudley are what we have to put up with.

Blogger James Dixon January 13, 2016 9:08 PM  

Mr. Whiplash, since you've finally graced us with your presence (I assume you're interested in starting a northern division of the ELoE, but I digress) I have to ask: Is Dick Dastardly in fact your long lost brother?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 13, 2016 10:14 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 13, 2016 10:16 PM  

Mr. Dixon,
Richard, that handsome fellow, is in fact my nephew, the Son of my Beloved sister Fannie and her Husband Nigel. I recently had a rather Interesting and Unexpected Visit from Richard which I will write about in my Log Book tomorrow

Anonymous Bukulu January 14, 2016 2:19 AM  

GK @ 16,

"Are we sure STALIN knows?"

FIFY.

Blogger newanubis January 14, 2016 7:14 AM  

By employing rightthink. What's that you say? Depends on the day you ask.

Blogger Eric Mueller January 14, 2016 11:43 AM  

I haven't been banned yet. I've been on Goodreads for 4 years or more, but I don't interact much. Amazon has another site, Shelfari, that could be utilized.

Amazon itself seems to be mostly amoral. They'll sell pretty much anything.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2016 4:46 AM  

> Richard, that handsome fellow, is in fact my nephew,

Thank you, Mr. Whiplash. The family resemblance seems obvious, but the details have never been made public before now (to my knowledge).

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts