Dealing Badly With Bad Reviews

Bramblethorn said:

I believe you.



"the current generation"?

Klein mentions that he has had forty years of professional writing experience followed by another fifteen writing fiction, adding up to fifty-five. That would seem to imply that he's in his sixties at least, more likely seventies. Roughly your age or a little bit older, if I recall?

But don't let anything as petty as "facts" get in the way of beating on Kids These Days.



Uh... the reviewer is not a "he", and nowhere in the review did *she* describe his behaviour as "threatening". I'm not sure where you got that from.

I'm tempted to make an observation here about the form of entitlement that assumes one's uninformed and badly erroneous opinion is worth sharing, but I've got work to do elsewhere.

Click to expand...

FSA I am 60ish.

I don't think I am beating on kids. Pliny complained about the next generation before Christ was born. IIRC I said that older folk BOTH complain about and CREATED what we complain about. I wanted my kids to have EVERYTHING I did not growing up, I should have been more selective. Growing up we had good and bad, so my kids got bad and good...

Mea culpa for that, and mea culpa if my comments here are wrong, and mea culpa if I distressed you.

As stated in #9 the OPs link has pages of comments while not from the reviewer were posted online by the reviewers website. Many of those commenters labeled Mr. Klein's behavior as threatening. Just as Laurel can remove stuff I post should she think I am out of line, so can they (although not necessarily the reviewer personally).

I never said that it was threatening, just that some (online) said it was and that is a persistent and DISHONEST emerging strategy for dealing with critism from customers. Maybe I am wrong here I see Mr. Klein as being a customer. That means that even if he is TOTALLY WRONG you don't poop on him.

I am probably over sensitive, I realize that the current chicken-shit way to avoid responsibility is to be OFFENDED or GREATLY OFFENDED or THREATENED by those who simply ask you to do your job. I had a (currently unemployed) former server at a restaurant call the police because I dared demand to see a manager (I was THREATENING him, I am 5'6" 60ish he was 6'2" 25ish the cops had a big laugh but the chain's regional manager and the chain's attorney, WELL they for some reason they did not).

My comments were not about the original review, the type of fiction written by Mr. Klein does not interest me. I don't buy or read it, but I know others do. Just as I don't read 80 percent of the categories on Lit. I don't vote, comment or bomb that which doesn't interest me. That would just be mean. I don't think I offered a comment on Mr. Klein's book, just on the CHILDISH exchange put before us by the OP.

Maybe I am wrong, I make lots of mistakes in life, but I read the reviewers posts from AND ONLY FROM the link put up by the OP. THOSE POSTS BEING PUT ON THE INTERNET FOR THE EXPLICIT PURPOSE OF EMBARASSING AND RIDICULING MR. KLEIN and maybe, maybe not he deserved it...

Growing up my kids constantly tried to get Mom to intervene on thier behalf. I see that mentality in the reviewer, trying to get Mom, in this case public opinion to back thier position. Maybe the reviewer is right. But if she (again Mea culpa for wrong pronoun) is why push the issue. Maybe Mr. Klein was a PITA. I would be living in a cardboard box somewhere rather than in my fine home if I treated every customer I had like the reviewer treated Mr. Klein.

We just might have to agree to disagree but I see this as a tiff between two adults acting like children.

Love and Kisses

Lisa Ann

CuteSlaveLisa said:

As stated in #9 the OPs link has pages of comments while not from the reviewer were posted online by the reviewers website. Many of those commenters labeled his behavior as threatening.

Click to expand...

No, they didn't. This simply isn't true.

Out of two hundred-odd comments, there's only one that even uses the word "threat", and it's not describing Klein's behaviour. There is one that describes him as "scary" but it's very clearly tongue-in-cheek, reviewing his complaint as if it was itself a horror story.

People who only go to see the big budget franchises and complain about the quality of movies are like people who only eat at Taco Bell and say that there's no good food anymore.

Polyacrylate said:

In the relatively short time I've been active on Lit, I've seen a number of people who ask for feedback, and then take any less-than-perfect response to the mat, point by point. They're not looking for feedback, they're looking for affirmation. And the fact that so many people choose to be assholes to total strangers on the internet in defense of their ego drives me up the wall.

Click to expand...

This is why I don't start one of those feedback threads.

I assume the only reason you all aren't constantly talking about my stories in every thread on these boards is because you just haven't discovered them yet. If I put up a link and say "I'd appreciate your feedback," you'd realize what a gift my comedic secret agent porn is to the world. But I can't take the risk that one of you might take me literally and give me thoughtful critical feedback.

Bramblethorn said:

No, they didn't. This simply isn't true.

Out of two hundred-odd comments, there's only one that even uses the word "threat", and it's not describing Klein's behaviour. There is one that describes him as "scary" but it's very clearly tongue-in-cheek, reviewing his complaint as if it was itself a horror story.

Click to expand...

Sorry - my mistake. I recalled seeing more, but I could have just misread, or my phone could have refreshed oddly. Thanks for the correction.

I read many, though not all, of the comments about Mr. Klein's rant, and I didn't see anyone describe him as threatening. I did a search and the word "threat" appears only once in the entire thread, as part of "legal threat."

I think there's a legitimate question whether this Site's policy of making public complaints by authors that it deems to be "childish" is a good policy. If Klein truly were threatening legal or physical action, that would be one thing. I didn't read him as doing that, and I question whether it's appropriate to expose him just because he's pompous and delusional. On the other hand, the Site does have a policy, and Klein can't complain too much if he violated the Site's express policy.

Here's the Sci Fi and Scary policy in full:


PAY ATTENTION TO THIS!!!

Harassment or whining will absolutely NOT BE TOLERATED. Our reviews are honestly given, without bias, and we try our best to give constructive criticism. Sometimes these reviews are negative. We do not ‘have it out’ for you. We aren’t trying to crush the little man. We try our best to promote independent authors, but if we do not like your book, we are not going to lie and say that we did. We aren’t going to give a false rating to appease your ego or help your sales.

If you submit to this site, you are saying that you promise you will be an adult if you receive a negative review. You WILL not attempt to harass or coerce the reviewer about the review that you received. You will not contact them at all about the review that you received. IF YOU DO:

Your communication will not stay private. It will be posted on the site for the world to see, and shared to social media. Your whinging and/or harassing will be publicly displayed, as will any follow-up whinges about it being posted publicly.

If you act like a child, you will be treated like a child.



That seems pretty clear to me. And I think it's pretty clear that Klein's response violates this policy.

MelissaBaby said:

People who only go to see the big budget franchises and complain about the quality of movies are like people who only eat at Taco Bell and say that there's no good food anymore.

Click to expand...

Quite. But funny thang... I lived near an agricultural NorCal town with a string of superb Mexican eateries lining Gravenstein Hwy... and a Taco Bell that did more business than any. Food pervos, ay yi yi.

Another parallel: Read only James Patterson and Clive Cussler and similar airport paperbacks, then whine about no good books anymore.

Bramblethorn said:

No, they didn't. This simply isn't true.

Out of two hundred-odd comments, there's only one that even uses the word "threat", and it's not describing Klein's behaviour. There is one that describes him as "scary" but it's very clearly tongue-in-cheek, reviewing his complaint as if it was itself a horror story.

Click to expand...

There is an old saying that this reviewer apparently never heard: Don't ever try to argue with a pig. It makes you look ridiculous and it annoys the pig.

I reiterate that trying to embarrass a customer is a really bad business practice.

The reviewer placed Mr. Klein's (the pig's) e-mails on line EXPLICITLY* to embarrass him. She did not succeed because people like that DON'T GET EMBARRASSED. But she DID succeed in making herself look childish too. Maybe not as childish as Mr. Klein, but that is a REALLY high bar to meet.

He may be a "AAA asshole" "arrogant asshole" "idiot" "Attila the Hun" "condescending" "slimy" "grandiose" "mentally ill" and "self-delusional". His work might be "utter garbage" or "carefully crafted word vomit," although that strikes me as being hyperbolic.

* She said so but later the reviewer herself states that "I have to debug" the site because it DOES NOT ACTUALLY PRINT the warning she stated it did. But even if it did, is this the way to treat a customer NO MATTER HOW BOORISH he is.

If you are in business you have to put on the big-girl pants and put up with customers. Even the extraordinarily superbly annoying ones.

She takes both positions, that Mr. Klein does not suffer from a mental illness, and that he does and it does not excuse his behavior... AND THEN SHE RIDICULES OTHERS WHO HAVE ANXIETY "Anxiety sufferers unite! From a distance. And quietly with no eye contact." (If anxiety is funny, broken bones must just be hilarious.)

To your point in addition to your "threatening' and "scary" (2/200) I read a "browbeat the reviewer" "utter cowards who try to browbeat you" and a "attempt to intimidate (the reviewer)". Maybe 5/200 isn't "many," but it isn't 0/200 either.

I stand by my basic point, two grown-ups acting like children, maybe a two-year-old and a five-year-old. But when my children were growing up I often had to remind the older child not to engage with the younger sibling. No upside. If the older child wins that win means nothing, its expected. If the elder child loses, how embarrassing to lose to a younger sibling.

Love and Kisses

Lisa Ann

SimonDoom said:

...You WILL not attempt to harass or coerce the reviewer about the review that you received. You will not contact them at all about the review that you received. IF YOU DO:

Your communication will not stay private. It will be posted on the site for the world to see, and shared to social media. Your whinging and/or harassing will be publicly displayed, as will any follow-up whinges about it being posted publicly.

If you act like a child, you will be treated like a child.


That seems pretty clear to me. And I think it's pretty clear that Klein's response violates this policy.

Click to expand...

I am not defending Mr. Klein, i just called him a two-year-old.

HE CLEARLY VIOLATED THE POLICY

but...

Logic 101

If you attempt to threaten me I will post your e-mail.
I posted your e-mail.

Ergo: I felt you tried to threaten me.

So printing his (very very humorous) e-mails in and of itself brings the issue up.

"Can't have it all you know. Or can you. House and apartment, car and truck, dog and cat, men and women... Wait, will the forty make me bi?" -Colion Noir

Love and Kisses

Lisa Ann

CuteSlaveLisa said:

Logic 101

If you attempt to threaten me I will post your e-mail.
I posted your e-mail.

Ergo: I felt you tried to threaten me.

Click to expand...

There's a flaw in your syllogism.

Premise 1 doesn't imply that the ONLY ground for posting an email is the making of a threat, just that ONE basis for posting an email is the making of a threat. Premise 1 contains the possibility that there may be other grounds for posting an email.

So if Premise 2 is true, then there may be any number of reasons why the email was posted.

Therefore conclusion 3 doesn't logically follow.

Since Sci Fi and Scary has an express policy that allows posting the email in the event of whining, and since Klein's email is definitely whiny, and since the commenters on his email describe him as whiny, this is the more plausible explanation why his email was made public.

I think this thread has gotten very silly!

SimonDoom said:

...

I think this thread has gotten very silly!

Click to expand...

I agree. Just delete and move on. Not everybody will like your stories.

I'm going to somewhat defend Mr. Klein. Writing horror is apparently his hobby in retirement, and for a self-published author, he's had an amazing amount of success. He gets mocked for having noting his novel was on the shelf in B&N next to Stephen King, but I'd be pretty damn excited if my novel was ever shelved next to Stephen King in a B&N. He submitted his latest novel to a website that he had never dealt with before, fully expecting a glowing review because that's what he's gotten every other time he submitted his novel to a website for review. Yes, he's overeager about getting the review. But I get pretty antsy when I send a story to someone for feedback, and they don't respond right away.

Then he gets word that it's going to be a negative review. What would you do in that situation? A negative review is going to hurt his sales. He has dreams of becoming a successful writer, and a negative review would be a major setback to that. So he asks that the website either spike the review or do multiple reviews of his book. It's against website policy, but what's the harm in asking? It worked for him before with another website.

He does a terrible job of making the argument for spiking or multiple reviews. I think what he's trying to say is that his stories have been well-received in the past and this story is very likely to be well-received, so giving it a negative review will hurt him and also make the website look out of step with most horror readers. And on Amazon, the majority of his readers gave his novel a 5* review. But he never threatens, he never calls anyone stupid or says they have bad judgement. He tries to persuade, but fails miserably at it.

8letters said:

I'm going to somewhat defend Mr. Klein. Writing horror is apparently his hobby in retirement, and for a self-published author, he's had an amazing amount of success. He gets mocked for having noting his novel was on the shelf in B&N next to Stephen King, but I'd be pretty damn excited if my novel was ever shelved next to Stephen King in a B&N.

Click to expand...

I haven't read the basis for this discussion, but the B&N shelving question struck me. The last I was in the publishing consulting business, B&N's selection process for letting any books be shelved in a B&N were quite rigorous; were controlled at a regional headquarters, not the store level; and flatly rejected anything self-published. So, if Klein self-published his books and they were shelved anywhere in a B&N store, that would be/is a miracle right there.

This is a farcical discussion, but I am bored, at work, nominally the bossandd so being unwilling at 2:20 CDT to nap or mix mimosas at my desk. Because that might, but again might not, make a bad impression on the other employees.

JMO, Mr. Klein acts like a petulant two-year-old. The reviewer acts as if she is five. He cries and throws a temper tantrum. His stuff deserves better than a one.

Hmmm, tried to say this with my "Digital Underground" post, popular does not equal good. But then again, those earning hose briefcases full of Benjamin's couldn't care less what we peons think.

But she is just as bad. Her website says "Threaten me, try to harass me, I will embarass you."

One: ineffective, they don't care how many Rangers you send, under State control.

Sure. I get other reasons could exist for outing Mr. Petulent,, uhh Klein
Love and Kisses

Lisa Ann

This is a farcical discussion, but I am bored. I'm at work, nominally the boss and so being unwilling at 2:20 CDT to nap or mix mimosas at my desk, what to do. Oh surf Lit. Because at work happy hour might, but again might not, make a bad impression on the other employees.

JMO, Mr. Klein acts like a petulant two-year-old. The reviewer acts as if she is five. Admittedly an older and less rediculuous CHILD, but a child nonetheless. He cries and throws a temper tantrum. His stuff deserves better than a one. Maybe, didn't read it, don't care to.

Hmmm, I tried to say this with my "Digital Underground" post, being popular does not equal being good. But then again, those earning all those briefcases full of Benjamin's couldn't care less what us peons think. Really, why should they.

The reviewer, she is just as bad. Her bias based on his being a PITA dickhead is blatently obvious. Her website says "Threaten me, try to harass me, I will embarass you." Out, but maybe it doesn't " gotta work on that."

Even if it did, the only thing it explicitly says it will make private public is if you threaten or contact. Must be real fucking nice to live in a consequence free universe. Wish I did. Contact me I embarrass you. Klein is /was a boorish fucking neurotic PITA, that is a given.

The reviewer was a pompous bitch, that is also a given. Somone who should be fired for her poor interpersonal skills. Read her snarky BS half or two thirds of whkch does not even address Klein but other who did this that or the other. She could no more take criticism than him. They are both FUCKING PERFECT AND WITHOUT FAULT. They are 2 and 5 and need a timeout, maybe a diaper change and a nap. Babies pretending to be grown-ups.

Sure. I get that other reasons might exist for outing Mr. Petulent Baby Man, uh Mr. Klein, but your post lists just the one. If I were posting that x will equal y, yes I get z may also equal y but the person who challenged my interpretation said where does your belief that in the face of y. She felt x.

DUH!!

Love and Kisses

Lisa Ann

Hypoxia said:

Another parallel: Read only James Patterson and Clive Cussler and similar airport paperbacks, then whine about no good books anymore.

Click to expand...

An interlude to this thread thank God, and worth a thread of its own.

James Patterson sells more books than any other author says his publicity. The reason is because he sticks his name on stories written by other authors under the guise of having written them together. He takes the major part of the royalties, the actual author earns more by this arrangement than they would have done if it had just been in their name. But the Alex Cross books he writes on his own are good.

Clive Cussler found a good formula that has, along with its spinoffs, exceeded its shelf life. The Oregon Files, written with three co-authors to date, are the exception.

CuteSlaveLisa said:

I reiterate that trying to embarrass a customer is a really bad business practice.

Click to expand...

Generally true, but irrelevant to this discussion, because Mr. Klein is not "the customer". It's a non-profit review site staffed by volunteers. They don't charge authors for reviews (I'm not aware of any reputable reviewer who does, for reasons that should be obvious).

So the only thing they stand to lose by embarrassing Klein is the opportunity to review more of his books, and perhaps those from a few other authors of similar inclination. Apparently this is a loss they are willing to endure. It's not like there's a shortage of authors looking for publicity.

The reviewer placed Mr. Klein's (the pig's) e-mails on line EXPLICITLY* to embarrass him.

Click to expand...

It really, really would help if you'd read the thing you're opining about.

The person who reviewed Klein's book (Sian) is not the person who posted them (Lilyn). Lilyn is listed as the "site founder" - think "owner".

She did not succeed because people like that DON'T GET EMBARRASSED. But she DID succeed in making herself look childish too.

Click to expand...

I defer to your expertise here.

She said so but later the reviewer herself states that "I have to debug" the site because it DOES NOT ACTUALLY PRINT the warning she stated it did.

Click to expand...

This is false. The "I have to debug" comment (from Lily, not the story's reviewer) was in response to a reader who'd mentioned an issue with commenting on the discussion page. This was nothing to do with the review submission T&Cs, and I have no idea why you'd pretend that it is.

She takes both positions, that Mr. Klein does not suffer from a mental illness, and that he does and it does not excuse his behavior...

Click to expand...

This, again, is false. She qualifies Klein's anxiety as "supposed/self-claimed", but she doesn't outright reject it, and nor does she either take the position that it's true. Her point there is that even if he does suffer from anxiety, this isn't appropriate behaviour.

AND THEN SHE RIDICULES OTHERS WHO HAVE ANXIETY "Anxiety sufferers unite! From a distance. And quietly with no eye contact."

Click to expand...

Once again, you're seriously misrepresenting the context of a quote.

Near the top of the page, she mentions that she herself has anxiety and takes meds for it frequently. In the comments section, she and several other people who experience anxiety were commiserating about it. One of them wrote "I shall join you under said rock, but not too close because no-touchie!". The comment you quoted was in reply to that. She was joking about herself, not "ridiculing others".

(If anxiety is funny, broken bones must just be hilarious.)

Click to expand...

I've known plenty of people who made jokes about their own injuries. It's called "self-deprecating humour". It's a common coping mechanism.

To your point in addition to your "threatening' and "scary" (2/200)

Click to expand...

Not sure why you're trying to count the ones that I already pointed out weren't relevant to your claim...

I read a "browbeat the reviewer" "utter cowards who try to browbeat you" and a "attempt to intimidate (the reviewer)". Maybe 5/200 isn't "many," but it isn't 0/200 either.

Click to expand...

"Browbeat" doesn't automatically imply "threaten". There's a lot of overlap, but "browbeat" includes other pushy attempts at persuasion - when somebody gives you the hard sell, that's an attempt at browbeating.

So we're left with one comment ("attempt to intimidate") that can accurately be described as a claim of threatening behaviour. But that comment comes from somebody named "Mike G" who has no affiliation with the site, so it does not support your claim that "The reviewer... IS EQUALLY CHILDISH IN LABELLING THE AUTHOR'S EXTREMLY CHILDISH BEHAVIOR AS THREATENING".

Yet again, you're misrepresenting context.

CuteSlaveLisa said:

Logic 101

If you attempt to threaten me I will post your e-mail.
I posted your e-mail.

Ergo: I felt you tried to threaten me.

Click to expand...

Simon has already pointed out the syllogism here: "on Sundays, I don't go to work; I didn't go to work yesterday; therefore, it must have been Sunday". But also, the site policy doesn't even say "if you attempt to threaten me". Again, you're making up words and putting them into other people's mouths.

I don't know why you keep misrepresenting stuff like this - whether it's deliberate bending of the truth to avoid admitting that you were wrong about the reviewer alleging "threats", or just not bothering to check what the truth actually is. At this point I don't much care; if I have to check every single thing you assert to see how wrong it is, there's really no point in trying to continue the conversation.

CuteSlaveLisa said:

The reviewer, she is just as bad. Her bias based on his being a PITA dickhead is blatently obvious.

Click to expand...

It's okay to be biased against dickheads. It really is! If more people were willing to call out dickheads instead of letting them exploit a one-sided version of "politeness", the world would be a better place.

(Also, I think once again you're confusing the reviewer with the site owner. The review happened before the worst of his behaviour.)

Her website says "Threaten me, try to harass me, I will embarass you." Out, but maybe it doesn't " gotta work on that."

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the second sentence there is trying to say, but the first one is false. This supposed quote is a fabrication. What the site's review policy actually says:

Harassment or whining will absolutely NOT BE TOLERATED. Our reviews are honestly given, without bias, and we try our best to give constructive criticism. Sometimes these reviews are negative...If you submit to this site, you are saying that you promise you will be an adult if you receive a negative review. You WILL not attempt to harass or coerce the reviewer about the review that you received. You will not contact them at all about the review that you received. IF YOU DO:

Your communication will not stay private... Your whinging and/or harassing will be publicly displayed, as will any follow-up whinges about it being posted publicly.

If you act like a child, you will be treated like a child.

The word "threaten" isn't part of the policy. Obviously, threats would count as harassment, but "harassment" is a much broader term that covers lots of other stuff too.

He was warned that whining wouldn't be tolerated, that he was expected to behave like an adult, and if he broke his agreement his whinging would be publicly displayed. He whined and behaved like a child.

Even if it did, the only thing it explicitly says it will make private public is if you threaten or contact.

Click to expand...

As the above quote shows, this is false.

Must be real fucking nice to live in a consequence free universe.

Click to expand...

The agreement made it clear that public embarrassment would be the consequence of childish behaviour. You are the one arguing that Klein should not have to face the consequence that he agreed to.

The reviewer was a pompous bitch, that is also a given. Somone who should be fired for her poor interpersonal skills. Read her snarky BS half or two thirds of whkch does not even address Klein but other who did this that or the other.

Click to expand...

Once again, you seem to be muddling the reviewer with the site owner. The snark in that post comes from the site owner, who probably isn't going to fire herself no matter what you think of her interpersonal skills.

FWIW, she made absolutely the right call to back her reviewer. Volunteers are hard to replace; self-important blowhards with entitlement complexes are not.

8letters said:

He gets mocked for having noting his novel was on the shelf in B&N next to Stephen King, but I'd be pretty damn excited if my novel was ever shelved next to Stephen King in a B&N.

Click to expand...

I recommend deed poll. "Kingsley" should work ;-)

But he never threatens, he never calls anyone stupid or says they have bad judgement.

Click to expand...

I think it's pretty strongly implied: "That Sian could write a negative review... is, quite frankly, just mind-boggling." "The book features just described should be in Sian's review. Apparently they're not." Hard to interpret that any other way than implying that the reviewer sucks, especially when accompanied by his story about the time another reviewer Got It Wrong.

RubenR said:

I guess I'm on the same page with this.

I don't know the work of mr. Klein, not really interested in getting to know it better, but to me, he seems to provide a similar reaction as plenty of people regularly do on the AH, complaining about trolls, 1-stars, nasty comments, etc. etc.

Click to expand...

The reaction is similar, but the provocation isn't. Klein was responding to an email that said:

"Because I understand what it's like to have anxiety, I am going to tell you in advance that it is a negative (but constructive) review. It is not a mean review... but it is not the positive one you (or any writer) would hope for. Remember that reviews are subjective, and what she did not like another reader may love. I encourage you to keep working on your craft."

That's a pretty tactful and professional way to let the author know of a bad review, and a very long way from the kind of malicious crap that usually provokes AH venting.

Checking his work on Amazon, he seems to get reasonable votes (not too familiar with the star-rating on Amazon, but if it is similar to Lit...) The 1* given by the reviewer seems uncalled for, and might be considered trolling by someone who put his heart in this work.

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, he hadn't even seen the one-star rating when he wrote that long rant. From the posted correspondence, all he'd been told was that it was a "negative review". The site does warn that they rate hard and rarely give five-star reviews.

Hard to interpret the Amazon ratings. Most of his books only have a handful of reviews, and clearly Hell's Shadows has been dogpiled since the SF&F post went up, so the score on that one is meaningless now.

And I think a lot of this just goes to show that humor is the best way of dealing with this sort of negativity, both reviews and responses. Unfortunately neither site nor author seems to have much of a sense of humor.

Bramblethorn said:

Hard to interpret the Amazon ratings. Most of his books only have a handful of reviews, and clearly Hell's Shadows has been dogpiled since the SF&F post went up, so the score on that one is meaningless now.

Click to expand...

To be honest, when I read a bunch of the Amazon five star reviews, they all struck me as having the same voice. I wondered if the guy was promoting himself - just a little too much repetition, I thought. Still, that's the internet for you .

electricblue66 said:

To be honest, when I read a bunch of the Amazon five star reviews, they all struck me as having the same voice. I wondered if the guy was promoting himself - just a little too much repetition, I thought. Still, that's the internet for you .

Click to expand...

I did think more than a few of them had that style.. he is rather full of himself.

What kind of egotistical jackass fills the comments section of their own work with 'anonymous' praise for themselves? Who do they think they're fooling?

AwkwardMD said:

What kind of egotistical jackass fills the comments section of their own work with 'anonymous' praise for themselves? Who do they think they're fooling?

Click to expand...

Perry Mason says, "asked and answered."

Love and Kisses

Lisa Ann

As Merriam-Webster says,

Definition of rhetorical
1a : of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric
1b : employed for rhetorical effect
especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected

gift
/gift/
noun

pl. gifts

1. a thing given willingly to another without payment, or expectation of favor, a present.

Love and Kisses

Lisa Ann