ed2drobinski

I just saw this on another site. YAY! For some strange reason I couldn't copy  the beginning. 

"So, this is proof positive that Goodreads knows about the problems on their site and is clearly trying to cover everything up.

Well, we have news for them.  And not good news, either.  Because of the bullying and false reviews on the site, not to mention the libeling, defamation, and character assassination being done on authors or anyone who stands against the GR bullies, a HUGE lawsuit against GR is brewing right now.  What is unfortunate for GR is that they think by ignoring the problem and trying to cover it up, it will go away.  But problems don’t go away just because you ignore them.  On the contrary, this whole thing is about to get worse.

Much, much worse."

One of the most perverse things in this situation is that somehow many people have come away with the impression that the authors are a bunch of "flouncing speshuls" to quote one person. Personally, I never spoke to any reviewer about one of my own books, but here and there pointed out some inaccuracies or contradictions in their reviews of others. I'm so glad that the techies have not yet figured out a way to allow moisture to seep through computers, as my house would have been flooded. I kind of picture an irate toddler told that he had to go to bed. Christ, what crybabies.

You know if somebody honestly dislikes and one stars one of my books, my heart is not broken. If she had the interest to use a formal rating system my wife would have done that to a number of them; and she'd have reasons. What I object to is the farce which benefits neither readers or writers. I complained to GR only once and was graced with no reply. One reviewer's sock puppet stuck one star ratings on each of my books. Then another did the same, and included the identical "review" on seven of them. It said; "Worst book I ever read." I complained at that point on the grounds that each posted all 23 one star ratings on the same day; suggesting that this indicated a possible lack of actually having read them or a sickly masochistic person who likes to multiply their pain by 23 or 46. Last I checked they are still there, while the 300 higher ratings and reviews have been deleted. At the same time I started to get e-mails from this sock puppet calling me "faggot" and making 12th grade type comments about my mother. I kept copies of this stuff if no one believes me. I didn't want to post them because they are just gross. Worse, I had a local female friend who, despite being uninvolved, was deleted from GR, and received the same kind of stuff with the addition of death threats. In her case she brought this to the attention of the authorities, and is able to reasonably pinpoint which librarian-reviewer-shit writer sent the e-mails. I hope Bezos has not yet been allowed to buy this federal agency.

Speaking of Jeffy, did you all see how excited Wall Street got when Amazon reported a 19 cent profit per share last quarter. The stock went to $580 and Bezos sold off a bundle. I can almost understand the excitement over this company, as for 20 years now they have never been able to generate a consistent profit. But, come on guys. After you get through jumping up and down on the exchange floor, take the little hand held device out of your pants and do a little math. 19 cents per quarter equals 76 cents per year; assuming they can continue this surprisingly good performance, right? The average stock sells for about 16 times earnings. Even at $500 per Amazon share that equals 658 times earnings, right? What sophisticated calculation have I missed here?