Authors and Writers
amanda_...@hotmail.com
hear your stories about the trials of writing (querying, agenting,
marketing) or about the novels you loved. My site is www.amanda-hurst-
writing.blogspot.com
See you there!
robert eggleton
Ironically, this is the most vicious group of people to ask the above
question. Some of them even posted fake and negative book reviews and
comments on the Mobipocket sits that is selling my first novel. They
said I'd spammed their conversations with self-promotion. They were
meaningless. Robert Eggleton
Gene Ward Smith
> Ironically, this is the most vicious group of people to ask the above
> question. Some of them even posted fake and negative book reviews and
> comments on the Mobipocket sits that is selling my first novel. They
> said I'd spammed their conversations with self-promotion. They were
> meaningless. Robert Eggleton
Eggy, I'm feeling your pain. Could you take a Tylenol, please?
Mike Schilling
"robert eggleton" <robe...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1170810089....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ironically, this is the most vicious group of people to ask the above
> question. Some of them even posted fake and negative book reviews and
> comments on the Mobipocket sits that is selling my first novel.
Liar. The only one who posts fake reviews there is you.
Sea Wasp
> On Feb 5, 6:09 am, amanda_hurs...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>For anyone who loves writing or reading fantasy novels, I'd love to
>>hear your stories about the trials of writing (querying, agenting,
>>marketing) or about the novels you loved. My site iswww.amanda-hurst-
>>writing.blogspot.com
>>
>>See you there!
>
>
> Ironically, this is the most vicious group of people to ask the above
> question. Some of them even posted fake and negative book reviews
No, the "fake" would be your own sockpuppet rave reviews of your own
book on Mobipocket. We're perfectly truthful that you're a spamtard,
and a particularly noisome and self-satisfied bloated toad of one,
too. (Sorry to all the toads in the newsgroup -- it's an expression,
not meant to insult any of you fine amphibians or imply in any way
that you are at all similar to Spammer From the Hollow.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Sea Wasp
To quote that noted sage Terry Austin, "Spammers lie".
Kurt Busiek
> On Feb 5, 6:09 am, amanda_hurs...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> For anyone who loves writing or reading fantasy novels, I'd love to
>> hear your stories about the trials of writing (querying, agenting,
>> marketing) or about the novels you loved. My site iswww.amanda-hurst-
>> writing.blogspot.com
>>
>> See you there!
>
> Ironically, this is the most vicious group of people to ask the above
> question.
She didn't actually ask a question.
I don't think she'll get many takers, because if she really wants to
hear from people about writing or the novels they loved, all she has to
do is hang around here, where people do that. She seems to want people
to go to her site to do what they already do here, which seems
counterproductive.
I didn't go to her site, but if she was doing what you were -- spamming
the group to try to sell your wares, rather than take part in what the
newsgroup is here for -- then she probably won't get a better reception
than you did.
> Some of them even posted fake and negative book reviews and
> comments on the Mobipocket sits that is selling my first novel.
This is apparently another of your lies -- you posted fraudulent
positive reviews. Other people posted negative comments about your
spamming proclivities, but did not review your book.
You then complained that those people were using that venue for
something other than its intended purpose, which was a delighful bit of
irony, since it's what you insisted on doing here. Hoist by your own
petard, hmm?
> They
> said I'd spammed their conversations with self-promotion.
And you agreed -- you defended your practice of self-promotion; you
didn't pretend it was something other than self-promotion. Until
later, of course, but that just made you a hypocrite.
> They were meaningless.
And yet, here you are, humping Terry Austin's leg.
kdb
Matt Hughes
> For anyone who loves writing or reading fantasy novels, I'd love to
> hear your stories about the trials of writing (querying, agenting,
> writing.blogspot.com
>
> See you there!
As the last sentence indicates, she wants people to come to her site
and talk about the craft and the biz. It's mild spammery. I tried to
follow the link to the site, but got 404'd.
Of course, if she keeps coming back, continually tugging on
everybody's coat sleeves for advice and blurbs while assuring us she's
just a beginner but everything she does is for a higher cause, people
will probably get annoyed at her.
Anyway, she probably wants rec.arts.sf.composition.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com/majestrum
robert eggleton
Point made.
T Guy
> Point made.
( T Guy):
Welcome back!
You forgot to try to flog us your 'award-winning' novel in this post.
Must try harder.
T G
David Dvorkin
wrote:
>As the last sentence indicates, she wants people to come to her site
>and talk about the craft and the biz. It's mild spammery. I tried to
>follow the link to the site, but got 404'd.
The 404 is probably due to her link being broken across lines. The
complete link is:
http://www.amanda-hurst-writing.blogspot.com/
And it does work.
David Dvorkin
http://www.dvorkin.com
Blog: http://eyeblister.blogspot.com
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>On Feb 5, 3:09 am, amanda_hurs...@hotmail.com wrote:
Nooooooooo!
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
robert eggleton
> On 6 Feb 2007 18:40:04 -0800, "Matt Hughes" <mhug...@mars.ark.com>
Thanks for the link. It looks like a cool place.
Our arguments were never about whether I had or had not self-promoted
Rarity from the Hollow. Of course I did. That's my job as an unknown
author. The argument was about whether or not such activity was
appropriate. Some here (most didn't get into it) called my self-
promotion spam and I said that it wasn't. I further argued that self-
promotional activities by individual artists were in the best
interests of cultural evolution given the monopolistic and
capitalistic values imposed within the structure of cyberspace. From
what I can remember, nobody here actually addressed this matter,
except by calling me names as if I was the only Black kid on the
school playground.
As to fake book reviews, the only ones on the Mobipocket site were
most likely written by people here and involved in the argument
described about about my self-promotion. I certainly have never
submitted one, as alleged -- another lie. You should at least be
honest with readers about how the Mobipocket rating system works. On
a five star scale, the score is entered before the comment.
Therefore, even if the offender only commented that he or she thought
that I'd spammed this newsgroup, and didn't mention the actual novel
(as was the case with several comments), it caused the rating of
Rarity from the Hollow to drop from five star to three almost
overnight.
Tell the truth!
Sea Wasp
> On Feb 7, 4:37 pm, David Dvorkin <d...@dvorkin.com> wrote:
>
>>On 6 Feb 2007 18:40:04 -0800, "Matt Hughes" <mhug...@mars.ark.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As the last sentence indicates, she wants people to come to her site
>>>and talk about the craft and the biz. It's mild spammery. I tried to
>>>follow the link to the site, but got 404'd.
>>
>>The 404 is probably due to her link being broken across lines. The
>>complete link is:
>>
>>http://www.amanda-hurst-writing.blogspot.com/
>>
>>And it does work.
>>
>>David Dvorkinhttp://www.dvorkin.com
>>Blog:http://eyeblister.blogspot.com
>
>
> Thanks for the link. It looks like a cool place.
>
> Our arguments were never about whether I had or had not self-promoted
> Rarity from the Hollow. Of course I did. That's my job as an unknown
> author. The argument was about whether or not such activity was
> appropriate.
There isn't any argument on this point; your self-deluded repetition
that it is doesn't constitute "argument" any more than a child's
denial that he was taking cookies when he was caught with his hand in
the cookie jar and cookie crumbs all over his face is considered to be
a valid argument.
Some here (most didn't get into it) called my self-
> promotion spam and I said that it wasn't. I further argued that self-
> promotional activities by individual artists were in the best
> interests of cultural evolution given the monopolistic and
> capitalistic values imposed within the structure of cyberspace.
No one cares about your self-justifying pretensions to philosophy.
This is a Usenet newsgroup. It has long-established basic rules of
behavior, which you refuse to even consider following. Commercial
promotion is one of the generally forbidden activities. As with any
group of people who share some common interest, one can earn tolerance
for some violation of these rules if you are perceived by the group to
bring something else to the group that in essence makes up for your
minor transgression. You haven't done anything of the sort.
Come here and post on-topic for, oh, a year without ever mentioning
your book (except in a direct answer to a question from someone else
about that specific topic) and THEN we will see.
But you won't. Because you're a self-justifying spammer.
From
> what I can remember, nobody here actually addressed this matter,
> except by calling me names as if I was the only Black kid on the
> school playground.
>
> As to fake book reviews, the only ones on the Mobipocket site were
> most likely written by people here and involved in the argument
> described about about my self-promotion. I certainly have never
> submitted one, as alleged -- another lie. You should at least be
> honest with readers about how the Mobipocket rating system works. On
> a five star scale, the score is entered before the comment.
> Therefore, even if the offender only commented that he or she thought
> that I'd spammed this newsgroup, and didn't mention the actual novel
> (as was the case with several comments), it caused the rating of
> Rarity from the Hollow to drop from five star to three almost
> overnight.
Other people demonstrated that at least some of the reviews on there
were from you, giving yourself five stars, WITHOUT attaching your name
to it. That's fakery right there.
Also, a rating of pure five stars isn't very impressive. The general
assumption with such books is that they ARE being given reviews by
either the author or the author's friends. No book that's widely read
has no negative reviews. Some EXCEEDINGLY popular books such as Harry
Potter have a sufficient number of enthusiastic fans that they can
push the rating up that high, due to their willingness to post rave
reviews exceeding the number of naysayers by a large enough margin,
but in general even very popular, well-liked works won't maintain five
star ratings throughout their lifetime.
T Guy
> Thanks for the link. It looks like a cool place.
>
> Our arguments were never about whether I had or had not self-promoted
> Rarity from the Hollow. Of course I did. That's my job as an unknown
> author. The argument was about whether or not such activity was
> appropriate. Some here (most didn't get into it) called my self-
> promotion spam and I said that it wasn't.
(T Guy):
And that would be... Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone? Because of
Austin's First Law, which states that... Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
Anyone? ...which states that Spammers lie.
(Eggy):
>I further argued that self-
> promotional activities by individual artists were in the best
> interests of cultural evolution given the monopolistic and
> capitalistic values imposed within the structure of cyberspace. From
> what I can remember, nobody here actually addressed this matter,
> except by calling me names as if I was the only Black kid on the
> school playground.
(T Guy):
You tried this argument-by-inaccurate-analogy last time and it didn't
work.
Oh, yes. Austin's second law of spammers.
(Eggy):
> As to fake book reviews, the only ones on the Mobipocket site were
> most likely written by people here and involved in the argument
> described about about my self-promotion. I certainly have never
> submitted one, as alleged -- another lie.
(T Guy):
No, the rule is 'Spammers lie.' That would be you.
(Eggy):
>You should at least be
> honest with readers about how the Mobipocket rating system works. On
> a five star scale, the score is entered before the comment.
> Therefore, even if the offender only commented that he or she thought
> that I'd spammed this newsgroup, and didn't mention the actual novel
> (as was the case with several comments), it caused the rating of
> Rarity from the Hollow to drop from five star to three almost
> overnight.
>
> Tell the truth!
(T Guy):
No, the rule is 'Spammers lie.' That would be you.
T G
Mike Schilling
> As to fake book reviews, the only ones on the Mobipocket site were
> most likely written by people here and involved in the argument
> described about about my self-promotion. I certainly have never
> submitted one, as alleged -- another lie.
Then it's a complete coincidence that several of them came from email
addresses at charter.net, just like yours? Tell us another one.
robert eggleton
wrote:
> "robert eggleton" <rober...@charter.net> wrote in message
Charter is a multi-state operation and the only high speed service.
The next down is DSL, followed by dial-up. I don't know how many
customers it serves, but it's got to be a million or more.
Mike Schilling
And all the ones who've read your book give it five stars and describe it
using similar words? Quite a coincidence.
Bill Snyder
Charter is actually a pilot project for wired distribution of
mind-control rays. No more expensive, risky satellite launches, fancy
lasers, etc. -- just use the legacy infrastructure, and get power
densities that go through tinfoil like a hot knife through butter.
The fact that it could make people report favorably, and in the _same
words_, on an abomination like _Dullity from the Dildo_ has produced a
lot of happy faces in Area 51 and at the secret Antarctic base. I
guess you could call them faces.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:10:54 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
><mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"robert eggleton" <robe...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:1171065680.6...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 8, 11:20 am, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "robert eggleton" <rober...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:1170929033.9...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> > As to fake book reviews, the only ones on the Mobipocket site were
>>>> > most likely written by people here and involved in the argument
>>>> > described about about my self-promotion. I certainly have never
>>>> > submitted one, as alleged -- another lie.
>>>>
>>>> Then it's a complete coincidence that several of them came from email
>>>> addresses at charter.net, just like yours? Tell us another one.
>>>
>>> Charter is a multi-state operation and the only high speed service.
>>> The next down is DSL, followed by dial-up. I don't know how many
>>> customers it serves, but it's got to be a million or more.
>>
>>And all the ones who've read your book give it five stars and describe it
>>using similar words? Quite a coincidence.
>
>Charter is actually a pilot project for wired distribution of
>mind-control rays. No more expensive, risky satellite launches, fancy
>lasers, etc. -- just use the legacy infrastructure, and get power
>densities that go through tinfoil like a hot knife through butter.
It was better than "Cats". I want to read it again and again.
David Mitchell
Anyone have a plain text version of the demo - anything which attracts
such bad reviews sounds worth at least having a look at?
(Not that I'd buy it though, even if it was any good. Mustn't encourage
the reptiles).
--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
=======================================================================
philos...@yahoo.com
<da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 05:07:52 -0800, T Guy wrote:
>
>> ("robert eggleton" <rober...@charter.net>):
>>
>>> Point made.
>>
>> ( T Guy):
>>
>> Welcome back!
>>
>> You forgot to try to flog us your 'award-winning' novel in this post.
>>
>> Must try harder.
>>
>> T G
>
>Anyone have a plain text version of the demo - anything which attracts
>such bad reviews sounds worth at least having a look at?
>
Let me put it to you this way... I skimmed one of the reviews that he
posted... one that was praising the book... and was struck by the idea
of "the planet that ruled the galaxy because they had invented
shopping". That's enough to make me give the story a wide berth.
Rebecca
--
I've moved!
Formerly r.r...@thevine.net
John Schilling
What, you mean decapitating the leaders of opposing factions *isn't*
an effective means of political control?
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Mike Schilling
"John Schilling" <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:hu9ss25ajs3mf21sl...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:41:44 GMT, philos...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:22:56 +0000, David Mitchell
>><da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Anyone have a plain text version of the demo - anything which attracts
>>>such bad reviews sounds worth at least having a look at?
>
>>Let me put it to you this way... I skimmed one of the reviews that he
>>posted... one that was praising the book... and was struck by the idea
>>of "the planet that ruled the galaxy because they had invented
>>shopping". That's enough to make me give the story a wide berth.
>
> What, you mean decapitating the leaders of opposing factions *isn't*
> an effective means of political control?
Not *c*hopping, *s*hopping.
David Mitchell
Yes, it looks really bad, bad enough, perhaps, that it's back round the
scale again, and is showing a tiny amount on the good side - Think Eye of
Argon,(?).
That bad.
And aren't you just a leeeetle bit curious to see _just how bad_ it is?
Sea Wasp
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:41:44 +0000, philospher77 wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:22:56 +0000, David Mitchell
>><da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Let me put it to you this way... I skimmed one of the reviews that he
>>posted... one that was praising the book... and was struck by the idea
>>of "the planet that ruled the galaxy because they had invented
>>shopping". That's enough to make me give the story a wide berth.
>
>
> Yes, it looks really bad, bad enough, perhaps, that it's back round the
> scale again, and is showing a tiny amount on the good side - Think Eye of
> Argon,(?).
>
> That bad.
>
> And aren't you just a leeeetle bit curious to see _just how bad_ it is?
>
I made that mistake with "Van Gogh in SPACE! ! !" and "Night Travels
of the Elven Vampire". Why, exactly, would I do that AGAIN?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Mike Schilling
"robert eggleton" <robe...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1171065680.6...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I have a few minutes free, so let's look at this in detail. There are 37
reviews on the Mobipocket page: 15 are 5/5, the rest are 1/5 (the lowest
rating). Of the positive ones:
- 5 are signed by Eggy himself.
- 1 more is obviously from Eggy ("I apologize ... my novel") even though
it's posted anonymously.
- 2 more are from charter.net. At least one smells eggy: "I checked it out
and it's true that he helps kids and profits go to prevent child abuse."
- 6 are anonymous. At least 1 is suspicious, as it's taken entirely from a
review that two of the acknowledged Eggy posts mention.
- 1 is from a hotmail address.
So there isn't a single positive review that comes from a verifiable address
other than charter.net. What a coincidence!
Kurt Busiek
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:
> I have a few minutes free, so let's look at this in detail. There are 37
> reviews on the Mobipocket page: 15 are 5/5, the rest are 1/5 (the lowest
> rating). Of the positive ones:
>
> - 5 are signed by Eggy himself.
>
> - 1 more is obviously from Eggy ("I apologize ... my novel") even though
> it's posted anonymously.
>
> - 2 more are from charter.net. At least one smells eggy: "I checked it out
> and it's true that he helps kids and profits go to prevent child abuse."
>
> - 6 are anonymous. At least 1 is suspicious, as it's taken entirely from a
> review that two of the acknowledged Eggy posts mention.
>
> - 1 is from a hotmail address.
>
> So there isn't a single positive review that comes from a verifiable address
> other than charter.net. What a coincidence!
And whenever Eggleton posts something himelf, he gives himself another
5 stars, which is triply unethical (first since he's the author and has
no business reviewing his own work; second because having unethically
reviewed it once, doing so multiple times is worse; and third because
when he simply posts to bicker and whine, those aren't reviews).
Subtract the anonymous reviews, the posts from him, the posts that
appear to be sock puppet posts and the negative posts from people
complaining about his spammery, and just count posts from
non-charter.net addresses who say they've actually read the book, and
the book's average is one star.
More than it deserved, I expect.
kdb