Category: GR Exiles


One of our blog readers mentioned in this comment that Miranda hasn’t been active in her normal bully circle for almost a week now:

I totally hear you, JBG. The woman doesn’t even have any friends left, the one’s commenting on her Booklikes thread are only there to enjoy the wank, not because they particularly like Angela. –No one– likes Angela.
I don’t think even Miranda herself likes Angela anymore, considering Miranda’s only posted once on the BBA Whisperer thread, posted one time in 4 days or longer.

This prompted another one of our readers to send us some new evidence that Miranda and Angela are actually the same person, as you can see in the comment I left for Cynical:

We were given new evidence that Miranda IS Angela. Check it:

Our blog reader said that when she put the link to Miranda’s Twitter account into Facebook and then did the same to Angela’s Bijou Hunter Twitter account, the same picture popped up.

Mirangela

Thoughts, anyone?

Angela H. of the BBA Whisperer has just recently been spanked by Google for posting private content that she acquired and published illegally on her blog, violating the DMCA and privacy rights:

GoogleEmail

When the posts were removed, she tried to put them back up again only to get spanked again:

GoogleEmail2

Angela H. has been one of our Biggest Offenders ever since the attack she led on author Sharon Desruisseaux last year.  She was also banned from Goodreads for her abusive behavior towards others.  In recent months, the psychotic munchichi let her obsessive hatred carry her a little too far when she broke into a private Facebook group and took screenshots of private conversations between members of the group that she proceeded to publish on her blog.  Then, she boasted about it on her Booklikes blog.  Ironically enough, she’s also labeled the members of this group BBA.

I know, right!

But guess what, folks!  Unfortunately for Angela, the publication of private facts is illegal:

DigitalMediaLaw

Not only was Angela in violation of the DMCA, she also violated privacy rights, which is punishable according to California Penal Code, Section 630-631:

630. The Legislature hereby declares that advances in science and technology have led to the development of new devices and techniques for the purpose of eavesdropping upon private communications and that the invasion of privacy resulting from the continual and increasing use of such devices and techniques has created a serious threat to the free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a free and civilized society. The Legislature by this chapter intends to protect the right of privacy of the people of this state. The Legislature recognizes that law enforcement agencies have a legitimate need to employ modern listening devices and techniques in the investigation of criminal conduct and the apprehension of lawbreakers. Therefore, it is not the intent of the Legislature to place greater restraints on the use of listening devices and techniques by law enforcement agencies than existed prior to the effective date of this chapter.

631. (a) Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 632, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, he or she is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) This section shall not apply (1) to any public utility engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts otherwise prohibited herein are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and facilities of the public utility, or (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility.

(c) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.

Since Angela lives in California and since Google is a California based company, the members of the group, whose private information was exposed, sought the help of a California attorney who contacted Google to inform them of the violation.  The result was the email from Google posted above and the removal of the illegal content.  We’ve heard from members of the group that they intend to file suit against Angela for damages.  More on that to come.

So, this should be a good lesson to any troll who thinks it’s okay to hack into a private group (or a private account) and publish people’s private information.  This behavior is illegal and will not be tolerated.  Ever.

Oh Linda

Oh Linda, Linda, Linda.

What am I gonna do with you?

Let me give readers a short summary of what I’m talking about:

1

This is your own account, taken from your blog. And this has you feeling angry, discouraged, demoralized and helpless. You’re also having trouble sleeping.

My response to you is:

Why all this drama llama, when so many worse things haven’t bothered you at all?

Take the recent events surrounding young author Gavin Who?

I noticed you kept your mouth firmly shut during that debacle.

Let me summarize said debacle for anyone who’s missed it: a young indie author, Gavin H., introduced himself to the gang of marauding reviewers that run wild on Goodreads and Booklikes (and sometimes, still, Amazon) by attacking another author deemed a BBA. For this he was praised and feted, until a bad fairy pointed out that Gavin had a ton (okay, twenty-two) obvious sock-puppet reviews, and another ton of very suspicious Twitter followers. Gavin went through the charade of contacting Goodreads to have them ‘look into’ the ‘fishy’ reviews, which he claimed had nothing to do with him. And Goodreads removed them. He also wrote a huge post explaining that the reason he had so many Twitter followers was because he does a lot of charity work.

So what did all the scourges of the BBAs – you know, Spare Ammo (Mahala), Grimlock, TinaNicole, Nemo Moonlight Library, Shelby, Barbara Lindt Ninja, etc. – do? They ACTUALLY PRETENDED TO BELIEVE HIM when he said he had nothing to do with those sock-puppet reviews! They COMMENDED him for doing the right thing in having Goodreads ‘look into’ them! They believed all that twaddle about his charity work!

To be fair (I don’t know if that’s really the word, but I’ll leave it for now) you were one of the few who stayed silent during all this. I have to congratulate you for not dignifying this appalling farce by joining the chorus of Gavin believers.

But if you can stay silent during the Gavin H. debacle, then you have to allow others the same privilege. You can’t demand that anyone else ‘speak out’ when something you consider wrong is being done. That means that nobody, not The Girl Who Loves Books, not any other blogger, should feel obligated to out the author you’ve been talking about in your last three posts.

For anyone who wants to read all about it, here are the posts I’m referring to:

BookLikes post

Whoever you are, I think you’re a chickenshit coward

Sucker Punched

You ask:

Has the credibility of every single review everywhere now been called into question?

Oh, please.

The credibility of reviews was called into question a long time ago, when you and your friends started 1 starring and fake reviewing authors who you’d taken a weird dislike to for whatever bullshit reason, or just because you were in a shitty mood that day. Or maybe because they wrote in the same genre as you, but were more successful, so you decided to one star them, just because. The credibility was totally destroyed when you and your friends defended the right of people to rate and review books you hadn’t read. In fact, credibility probably went out the window when Stacia Kane wrote her memorable blog post which you and your friends love to defend:

Readers have the right to say whatever the fuck they want about a book. Period. They have that right. If they hate the book because the MC says the word “delicious” and the reader believes it’s the Devil’s word and only evil people use it, they can shout from the rooftops “This book is shit and don’t read it” if they want. If they want to write a review entirely about how much they hate the cover, they can if they want. If they want to make their review all about how their dog Foot Foot especially loved to pee on that particular book, they can.

So don’t get your knickers in a twist over the credibility of reviews. They never had any, but it’s not for the reasons you think.

You say:

No author can call out a reviewer and say, “You’re dishonest; you protected a scammer,” without risking retaliation. And yet every author out there has been harmed by this, the good as well as the bad.

Oh, please. Nobody with any sense was harmed by the little incident in question. But you, on the other hand, are harmed when you let the hypocrites who defended Gavin make their hypocritical comments about honesty all over your blog post. Or you would be harmed, if you still had a shred of credibility.

I guess this is as good a place as any to call out these commenters, such as Spare Ammo, Grimlock, Barbara Lindt Ninja, and others, and say to them:

You’re dishonest. You protected a scammer.

What else is there to say?

Powered by WordPress & Web Design Company