A Monster Hunter Nation Opinion Piece: Mike Glyer is a Scumbag

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the seedy underbelly of fandom, File 770 is a garbage gossip column website run by a scumbag named Mike Glyer. His whole shtick is to be a news aggregator for the sci-fi/fantasy business and collect links from people who actually create things for a living. He play acts at being an impartial journalist, but in reality everything he does is slanted to screw over anybody he doesn’t like.

He chums the water for his horde of psychos so they can go about forming internet lynch mobs, boycotts, and black ballings. But then he pretends to be all impartial and above the fray. If you ever want to lose all faith in humanity, read the comments there. His regulars range between basement dwelling goons, creepy weirdo stalkers, and angry rainbow haired social justice warriors.

If you are in any writer’s groups with conservative or libertarian authors in them, then you’ve inevitably heard about this shithole website. We mostly call it Vile 770 or File 666. At one point or another that page has tried to start shit with every author who gets on Glyer’s bad side. Because when you are ever the nail that sticks up, the File 770 crew are the hammer that wants to knock you back down. Luckily, they’re about as effective as a Fisher Price squeaky hammer. So mostly we just mock them.

No matter how big or small you are, if you write something that draws their ire, Glyer will link to you, write some passive aggressive misleading bullshit, and then his little minions will go out of their way to slander you. You are evil and their side is all goodness and light. Usually the slander is about how insignificant and unimportant their foes are, and how they totally don’t even know who you are, which is ironic coming from comments that are bizarrely fixated with your personal details. Across the board they are jealous, spiteful, and really kind of pathetic.

I drew his ire several years ago with my campaign to show that the Hugos were biased. Since Glyer has like 40 something Hugo nominations he took that personal. Go figure. (Sadly, I wish I was exaggerating that number).  He’s been linking back to me constantly ever since, always muck raking and shit stirring. He’ll usually post some passive aggressive thing about look how evil I am, his flying monkeys get riled up, and then he acts all innocent and says he was just reporting the news.

Since I’ve got nothing but contempt for the two faced bastard, I just delete his track backs and move on. I still come up a lot over there . My guess is he really hates me because unlike most authors I don’t dance around with fake politeness. They love fake politeness. They screw you over with impunity, and when you fight back, then they are all about “tone”.

I can’t stand to read the smug bastards, but I’ve got some fans who are gluttons for punishment, so they lurk over there and collect the most psychotic comments for our amusement. Some of those folks need serious help.

Then yesterday I saw a post on Facebook about how sci-fi author Jon Del Arroz was getting screwed over by File 770 (his problems started when he came out as a Trump voter). Not my story to tell, but short version, after a series of events where Glyer did his typical shifty, backstabbing, half-truth “reporting” about Jon getting black balled from a con, Jon wasn’t allowed to defend himself, because of the usual “Tone” and “You Sound Angry” (well, duh, normal people get angry at lying scumbags).

So Jon was lamenting this situation about how the 770 vultures were prematurely dancing on his grave. Glyer had already shown up elsewhere in the thread, doing his little passive aggressive dance, where after helping to fuck over an author’s career, he pretends like he was in on the joke, and it was all in good fun.

Then the following subthread occurred. Once it got rolling a lot of people were chiming in, mostly beating Glyer like a tetherball, but for this post I cut all those out so it is just me, him, and the pertinent bits we respond to. Here is the whole thing if you’d like to read it all and judge for yourself. https://www.facebook.com/jondelarroz/posts/10208023731544306

Larry Correia Trust me. Nothing infuriates the morons on that idiot page more than your continued success. One of the main reasons I love to post about any of the good things that happen in my career is that it pisses them off to no end how after years of pronouncing my career irreparably ruined I’m still working and selling.

Mike Glyer It’s good to hear Larry’s career was not irreparably ruined

(Now I was just going to make that one comment to try and help another writer ignore the haters trying to drag him down, and then get back to work. Only Glyer had to go and respond. Several years of dealing with him have left me with zero patience and a whole lot of contempt. )

Larry Correia Go fuck yourself, Glyer.

Mark H Wandrey I can only wish for a fraction of the ‘Failure’ Larry Correia is experiencing in his career.

Dan Humphreys Mark H Wandrey amen to that, brother!

Mike Glyer Mark H Wandrey I predict you will have no trouble achieving that fraction of failure.

Dan Humphreys Well, that’s just a little passive aggressive.

Mike Glyer Psychological warfare? Medic, I’m hit!

(And there is nothing more obnoxious than when a guy who has gone out of his way to screw people then jumps in and acts like you are buds. “Ha ha, it’s so funny all those times I deceived others and portrayed you as something you are not in order to rile up my mob of psychos. Wasn’t that a hoot?” These assholes thrive on fake civility. I wasn’t in the mood. So screw it. Let’s go. )

Larry Correia I don’t do passive aggressive like Glyer. I do active aggressive. Which is why I will clearly state that Mike Glyer is a worthless chunk of human garbage, who spends his time chumming the water to entertain a bunch of basement dwelling has beens and never weres. He’s a pathetic, fundamentally dishonest, sack of crap who plays to an audience of petty, jealous, dipshits.

I keep seeing writers trying to honestly engage with Glyer. It’s a trap which will inevitably fail. At some point he will fuck you over for the amusement of his pack of idiots. He’s at best a high school mean girl stuck in an old fat Santa Claus looking body. There is no such thing as honest discourse with somebody that inherently pathetic.

Don’t waste your time. Just tell him to fuck off and get on with your life. When he links back to your blog desperately seeking controversy to drive his shitty traffic, just delete it and move on. There’s no point in engaging with him or the oddly fixated weirdos like Camelstraw Fepeldouche, the brigade of interchangeable rainbow haired harpies, or whatever Clamps is calling himself this week.

Fuck ’em, Jon. Go write books, entertain your fans, and get paid. Vile 770 is fandom’s sewer.

Mike Glyer Whereas Larry Correia is the thinnest-skinned author in sff.

Larry Correia If by “thin skinned” you mean I refuse to coddle liars and fools, sure. Why not?

But that was just another You Sound Angry. Naw. I can say with complete dispassion that you are scum. Try again, you predictable fuck.

Mike Glyer You’re also incapable of telling the truth, too. You just saw my name and started obscenely frothing at the mouth.

Larry Correia I’m telling the truth. In this case you are such trash that I can’t covey it without using obscenity.

A further example of what a lying piece of shit you are, how now you play all innocent, like my animosity for you comes out of nowhere. As if this one thread on the internet exists in a vacuum, and you haven’t already proven yourself as trustworthy as gas station sushi.

Jon is merely discovering the truth about your despicable nature. A lesson many of us have already learned.

So scamper off back to your den of idiots. They’ll believe you. Outside of that cesspool people can see you for the fucking two faced scumbag you are.

(At this point, Jonathan LaForce pointed out that he really didn’t like me when we first met, I was a lot of bad things, but dishonest wasn’t among them. After Glyers’s next comment about me lying in this very thread he got about twenty requests for a cite. None was forthcoming until today on his stupid webpage, which is what caused me to compile this blog post. But I’ll get to my supposed lie at the end.)

Mike Glyer Jonathan LaForce What a silly statement to make. He lied right here in this thread.

Larry Correia I lied right here in this thread? Yeah. I was being charitable when I said you were a high school mean girl trapped in a fat old Santa Claus body. That was completely unfair to Santa and high school girls. But you are just such a sack of shit that it is hard to come up with human comparisons.

Eric Haley This is the reason Larry Correia is one of my favorite authors!

Mike Glyer Eric Haley Because he has an uncontrollable impulse to rave obscenely?

Larry Correia Awwww… the passive aggressive character assassin is upset I use bad words in a thread about how he and his gang of clowns is trying to fuck over the career of yet another writer.

Lick my balls, Glyer.

Mike Glyer Larry Correia As soon as you graduate high school you’re going to find out there’s a lot of people who aren’t impressed by that.

Mike Glyer You guys just keep huffing and puffing, because Larry desperately needs your help reinflating his leaky ego balloon.

Mike Glyer I hope you can get that IQ transfusion you seem to desperately need.

Larry Correia So the lying character assassin thinks I’m mean and immature because I won’t accept his bullshit.

Fuck you. Insults are all you deserve, cur.

Normally when I argue with people online there is some verbal sparring and attempts at humor. Not with Glyer. With him I’ll speak plainly. He is scum.

His band of psychos is the reason my kids can’t use their real names on the internet. He feeds their asinine jealously and spite through a passive aggressive and highly biased “reporting”, all while he plays at being impartial and honest.

He’s the lowest form of liar. He follows a pattern, pick a target, “report”, usually in the most biased, shitty, sleazy way possible. Knowingly painting people as things they aren’t, then riling up the mob to destroy their reputation.

Like in Jon’s case, if the author unwittingly tries to set the record straight, Glyer will act all impartial and nice, all honey and sweetness, but he’s a viper. And as soon as it helps his shitty pathetic traffic, he starts the process over again.

I’m in author groups. He does this to everyone naive enough to buy into his act.

Even though he knows I think he is lower than whale shit, he routinely links to my blog simply because he knows it will rile up his psychos.

Then when the psychos are attacking your rep and threatening your business, he acts all nice, like oh I’m just a guy with a fanzine that reports the news, as he tosses another bucket of blood in the water.

I just delete all his trackbacks. Honestly, his blog traffic is so pathetic that on any given day he doesn’t even make the top 10 in my referrers list.

Glyer is doing his pathetic little dance here now because he can’t stand someone having his number. He likes to play at being a journalist, but he’s just a petty, sad, little man.

Now he is reduced to arguing like a little kid, trying to get the last word in, with feeble little jabs, because he simply can’t handle being exposed for the snake that he is.

And once he gets done poisoning the well against Jon, he will move onto the next author who gets out of line.

Because Glyer isn’t even a bully. He’s something worse. He’s a ring leader. He doesn’t even have the balls to be a bully. He’s a worm tongue, whispering lies, and stirring up bullies.

Mike Glyer is a piece of shit.

Larry Correia You have to understand, Glyer is a parasite. He doesn’t create anything. He has made a “career” out of aggregating information about people who do. At some point he discovered he could feel like a big man if he muck raked and screwed over some creators for the amusement of his tribe.

His one claim to fame is that an inbred circle jerk has given him like fifty awards for having a website that became obsolete the day Google was invented.

And just think, this pathetic weasel is talking about when I grow up. But in the real world I’ve done things and created things. So your useless opinion is duly noted, you wretched parasite, and I’ll just reiterate my initial response. Fuck off.

##

And as of this morning, Glyer is still over on that Facebook thread trying the “neener neener I smart you dumb” school of argument against my fans, who are having a gleeful time seeing what caliber of human being he truly is.

But anyways, apparently Glyer took my advice and scampered back to his lunatic asylum. The reason for this blog post. In one of the aforementioned writer’s groups, somebody shared this.

Glyer

So… I’m a liar because his blog has more traffic than mine does? Hmmm… Okay, let’s break this down, because it is a fantastic example of the fundamental dishonest nature of the parasite we are dealing with. He’s also a great example of Brandolini’s Bullshit Asymmetry Principle, in that it takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than to create it.  

  1. I did not say that my blog had more traffic. Since I’m a novelist who blogs occasionally when I feel like it, and the only thing he does is blog, I’d certainly hope he’d win a race that I’m not even entered in.
  2. However, my blog is still decently popular. And he does link to me quite a bit, always looking for conflict and clicks because he knows I am a topic that riles up his dimwitted and perpetually offended audience.
  3. I never said I was the only source of his traffic, and quite the contrary, have pointed out that it is his MO to post half-truths against any writer, big or small, as long as it feeds his horde of idiots. I saw during yesterday’s tether ball match where several small time bloggers and writers talked about how biased reports about them had shown up on Glyer’s page. He’s an equal opportunity douchebag.
  4. I hardly ever look at my blog stats. Jack takes care of all my web stuff for me. I’ve only ever looked at my Alexa rankings once before that I can think of, and that was back in 2015 when we switched to a new server and had to get the stats. I was surprised to be in the top 50,000 websites in the US at the time, and according to the search engine on this blog my only remark on the topic was: “According to the Alexa ratings somehow my blog is up in the top 50k of all the websites in America (and considering there has to be like 40,000 porn sites ahead of me, that’s pretty good!)”
  5. However to be fair, I did assume that File 770’s traffic was weak, mostly because during Glyer’s frequent track back pleas for attention (seriously, I think he got really sad when I quit bothering to argue with him), so few people clicked through from there that I never really noticed them. When I did check my stats he never even cracked the top 10 list of referrers, and that’s all WordPress displays unless you drill down.
  6. My blog content is way down over the last year. I’ve got a ton of paying writing out the door recently (check the last update post!) and blogging cuts into paying writing time. So I blog when I feel like it. If I actually gave a damn about my blog traffic, then I would simply write an article about gun control every week.
  7. I haven’t seen this myself because I don’t care enough to research it, but somebody in the writing group went through Alexa and did find months where I beat him and even posted the dates into the Vile 770 comments. So if anybody made false statements, it was that messed up Santa looking fetcher, not me.

So in conclusion, Glyer reports I’m a liar because he refuted something I did not say (and from #7, possibly fucked that up too) and all the things I did actually say are correct, and worst case scenario I assumed #5, yet he still managed to paint a picture of my obscene, profane, outraged, hatemongery for his idiot followers. Well, huh… It’s almost like Glyer’s post this morning did exactly what I said his MO was. I wasn’t kidding when I called him a predictable fuck.  

But wait, there’s more! Glyer is the disingenuous gift that keeps on giving. Here are the screenshots he posted this morning displaying where he courageously refuted that nefarious thing I didn’t say.

Stats MHN

Notice anything wonky with this next one?

Stats File 770

Maybe I assumed his traffic was garbage because none of his legions of Chinese fans ever bothered to click his many links to my page? Maybe my problem is that my page is written in English? 😀

 

EDIT: This was just pointed out to me (didn’t notice because the print was so small), but zoom in on the bottom right corner of his Alexa stats.

His rank in the US is 337,508.  Mine is 108,792. So in the actual country which we reside in and write for I’m 230,000 websites ahead of him. 

That’s awesome. So once you take all the Chinese bots out of the equation, you screwed up your own point with evidence that you presented!  😀 HOLY SHIT, GLYER! YOU SUCK AT EVERYTHING! 😀

You had one job, Glyer! Just one job! 😀

 

EDIT 2: It keeps getting better. Now he is deleting all the comments that point out his entire post was utter nonsense since most of his readers are imaginary spambots, so–

Mod warning

 Understandable. I’d need to provide a Chinese translation for 92% of his readers first. 😀 

BOOK BOMB! The Longest Con by Michaelbrent Collings
Update Post

358 thoughts on “A Monster Hunter Nation Opinion Piece: Mike Glyer is a Scumbag”

  1. Well,nice to know that he can beat you in China! Even if he’s 230,000 some places behind you in the US.

  2. Mike Glyer is to Science Fiction and Fantasy, what loud accordion music is to a successful deer hunt.

    As for Larry, he’s my friend, he’s stood by me when I needed it, and I’ll be damned if I don’t return the courtesy, one friend to another.

    1. and that thread is the reason I will be buying your book my next payday, well that and the fact that it looks cool as hell.

  3. Yeah, he has great traffic stats, you have great income… and a mountain. This is not a difficult call to make.

    1. Larry has his own mountain?!? Dang, now I’m really jealous.
      (And I came here from Sarah’s overnight link on Instapundit.)

  4. I wonder if Glyer’s ad providers know that his blog traffic is 92% bots. That would be an interesting little revelation, I think.

  5. Man I was thinking last week there hasn’t been a frisk or rant in a while. I started twitching since this is one of the 6 sites i check regularly. Im now satisfied

  6. Mike Glyer looks like the kind of guy who offers to pay his ex-wives alimony even when they don’t demand any in the settlement because he thinks they’ll eventually “wise up” to what a nice guy he is and leave their new husbands to return to him.

      1. They’re spread out through multiple posts/threads. I’m too lazy to compile them all, since they were fire-and-forget anyway.

  7. Here’s my question: how on earth is File 770 that popular in China? I mean, we could go with the obvious joke about birds of a feather, but I really think that comparing Chinese people to Mike Glyer might be racist by anyone’s standards.
    Seriously, what gives?

    1. Here’s my question: how on earth is File 770 that popular in China?

      Veterans of the Cultural Revolution reliving their glory days and finding apt pupils to teach?

    2. Heh, I wonder if we could fix that by posting about Tienanmen Square, organ harvesting, or Falun Gong (especially Falun Gong) on his site. Bet that traffic would dry up real quick once the CCP catches wind of all the “unhelpful” posts at that little backwater.

  8. … China? An English language blog about western writers and he’s huge in … China.

    China… which also happens to be the home to a lot of spam-bots and cracker probes.

    We’re all very impressed. *eyeroll*

  9. Larry, I’ll second Eric Haley’s statement: this is why you are one of my favorite authors. Well, that and you write awesome fiction and you seem like a stand-up guy I’d love to hang out with. This gives all of us not toeing the “acceptable” political/religious line a necessary shot in the arm. I don’t typically advertise my views or beliefs in a professional setting, but neither do I hide them, nor do I want to hide them. I shouldn’t have to, and neither should anyone else. At the end of the day I just want to write entertaining fiction, the same kind of fiction that I want to read. Is that so much to ask?

    Well, we all know the answer to that, at least in some circles. Seedy underbelly, indeed!

  10. Larry’s rants are like heroin. So, so good… but you’re always chasing the next one, hoping to get back to what that first high was like.

    Disclaimer – I have never done heroin.

    1. Never done that either. But if it’s like this, I kinda can see the attraction.

      Something like a Meme with Lindsy Lohan talking about drugs… but subtlety different.

      “Rants? No I don’t do Rants. Why? Do you have some?”

  11. Not gonna lie, this kind of sucks. I used to read the posts on File 770 on a fairly regular basis as a kind of one stop shopping in the SF&F genre. Found some interesting things across the year or two I had it on my RSS feed. I stopped checking the site not because of anything I recall reading, but simply because I’ve put myself on a bit of an internet diet and figured that his place was one I could drop fairly easily. But if I’d not seen this post I’d likely have not had any idea things were this awful.

    I pretty much immediately realized that the commenters on the site were a collection of mouth breathing loons, but figured they were HARMLESS mouth breathing loons. (Had no idea stalker extraordinaire Clamps was a regular, to cite one case.) FWIW I doubt I checked thread comments more than once a month or so, and then simply for confirmation that they were still as wacky as the last time I checked them. They always were.

    Too bad in a way, since done right an aggregator site for genre fiction would be helpful, at least for me.

  12. What’s morbidly fascinating is Glyer’s decision to invite ongoing public humiliation by presiding over a perpetual clown funeral, when professional dominatrices can provide the same service in the privacy of his home.

    And unlike Larry, they have safety words.

    1. But, Mr. Niemeier, you don’t get it–he thinks he’s winning. He’s not a masochist, he’s just delusional.

    2. I so want to use “Perpetual Clown Funeral” for something. A punk cover band, a short story, something. That’s so evocative.

  13. Wow, File770 has 92.1% of the visitors from China. I call shenanigans on his site. Seems to me like lots of bots.

    Whereas Larry’s site has 91.4% of the visitors from the US of A.

    I’m not one to laugh or jeer at others, but when someone like Glyer goes out of his way to jeer at Larry’s stats and screws up so mightily and shows it to be the opposite of his narrative, that’s not just laughable – it’s pathetic.

    1. It truly is beautiful. As a former auditor, stats that bad are like watching a beautiful sunrise. 😀

      1. On that lying with stats thing, Glyer should oughta know better. IIRC, his day-job-career was with the IRS. [I forget if he was an auditor or accountant or what, but something where he got to look at your taxes. Now retired.]

        (I know him in Real Life. Witty and sharp, but with an edge of glee at others’ expense. One of the SMOFs of Los Angeles fandom.)

        1. Obviously not that sharp and witty. And just because he works for the IRA (Internal Revenue Agency…terrorist joke…get it?) doesn’t mean he’s adept at anything other than polishing the knob of the department head.

          1. Mike, I had an accounting teacher who once worked for the IRS. I once said “When you were working for the IRA … Sorry, I meant IRS. I always get these terrorist organizations confused.” He was not amused, but didn’t hold it against me.

      2. I laughed when I saw that. Pure, delighted evil laughter. It was one of the most glorious own goals I’ve seen in a long, long time.

        The last time I laughed like that Clamps had declared himself gay in an attempt to make me look homophobic, and took three days to retract the statement while trying to figure out why everyone else thought that he was gay now and it explained so much.

        1. I missed that one. I bet all the regular normal gay folks were like “Oh hell no! Stay off our side, weirdo!” 😀

          1. We didn’t know how to get in touch with you so you could see the hilarity. It was amazing – Clamps admitted that he posts my work with malicious intent to other sites, manages to declare breasts both sexualized and nonsexual in the same go, look down on Zelazny’s writing as ‘worse than his’; compared himself to Bart Simpson (particularly in that he likes looking at things that ‘gross him out’), did a “blame the victim” choice (“She deletes her sticky and I leave SF’s right alone.” – implying it’s MY FAULT he’s such a giant douchebag creepy stalker) and that Clamps’ default approach to women is creepy, that he blows his load into his socks (given how he’s constantly projecting what he does to others) and yes, reiterated, repeatedly, his threat towards my children – oh my god, you really missed out. There was SO MUCH.

            This was at Julie Frost’s livejournal a couple of years ago. Clamps dragged me up as usual to try deflect from how horrible his art is by attempting to claim mine is worse and that I have a ‘creepy fixation on the ass, breasts and loins’ and that he’s been paid a whole five dollars for a portrait (which is somehow proof he’s better than Sarah Hoyt in saleability?) and tries to dismiss that I was also paid to do the same.

            Clamps proceeded to pick on a different art’s ‘massive chest’ – does it surprise anyone here that the guy who paints all my interactions with every man in my life as purely sexual fixates on ‘the sexuality’ in a picture? – and keeps complaining about the ‘massive boobs’ – even if other folks bring up examples of my art where the women don’t have large boobs. Dr. Mauser grills him a while about attractiveness, where Clamps’ responses stun us because his assumption of how to approach a woman = sexual assault or in situations where they cannot easily escape him. I kid you not.

            Anyway, I imply, given his rants where we determine that he doesn’t find female bodies attractive, that he’s gay:

            I wonder if he’d be complaining if the boobs in question were on a man. I mean, whatever floats his boat is totally fine with me, but really, his obsession and constant protests about breasts and other typical shows of female femininity make me wonder if he wants his women androgynous. Or if he likes his men to look androgynous. Or that the obvious female attribute of breasts on a woman are what he finds repellent? Perhaps he likes man-boobs?

            I mean, what else are we all supposed to deduce about his oh so vehement protests against curvy female figures? He doesn’t like them curvy? Full bodied? Looking like mature women? He doesn’t seem to like them slender either, since he complains about Aff’s like for Lineage II light elves, who are modestly endowed in the breast department we must also conclude he doesn’t like modest breasts either. Even L2 Dwarf women have visible, but modest curves upon their chest, and are particularly drawn with hips and thighs.

            With regard to the men, he complained endlessly about my ‘focus’ on their crotch and loins. Particularly in this picture. I think it’s more indicative of what he focused on, instead of the other interesting details of the picture, like oh, the dragon with the glasses, or how the satchel is attached to the belt, and other detailwork.

            Nope, yama focused exclusively on the area between the belt and the thighs.

            Goodness, the sheer amount of time he stares at the breasts of my female characters and the crotches of my male ones! What an obsession with them he displays, and how my artwork seems to be the center of his entire existence for the past week! He’s done NOTHING BUT LOOK AT THEM.

            Everyone else got it. He didn’t.

            Probably the most important part came from this:

            tlknighton: The problem is that you’re being as creepy as a human being can possibly be on the internet. You’re freaking people the hell out. You’re the virtual version of a guy who sits in his car, parked on the street outside of a woman’s house every day for months with no good reason.

            So, she documented it. She documents it publicly as a defense mechanism. Don’t like it? Then change the behavior.

            You’re not a creepy stalker? Then why do you keep showing up at blogs of people you don’t like, and who feel the same about you? Do you honestly think you’re accomplishing anything?

            I don’t like you, and you don’t like me, but I’m offering this advice sincerely. Please, seriously consider this.

            yamamanama: I have a far better proposal. Drow deletes the sticky (or makes it private) and I leave SF’s far right alone.

            It’s quite simple, really.

            agilebrit (Julie Frost): What’s “quite simple” is that you don’t get to tell the offended party how to behave. You get to tuck your tail and go the fuck away and stop worrying about it.

            me: Also quite simple: We have proven extensively that he will lie to make himself either look better or to get his way. So given that he ‘s proven himself a liar, why does he suddenly think we will believe anything he says that would supposedly benefit us?

            I mean I just proved that he LIES. That he’s NOT a person of good moral character or even someone you should TRUST.

            I like how he thinks he can ORDER US AROUND. Y’know, like how he told me to fuck off a week ago, from your blog.

            Also: Real nice trick he’s trying to pull there. Since we already know he has no intention of keeping his proposal, he’ll point and say that ‘See? It’s Shadowdancer’s fault because she won’t give in to my demands. Thus, I have the right to keep harassing her, because she won’t stop doing what she’s doing, which is prove I’m a giant asshole.”

            Classic abuser behavior.

            Julie: Yeeeeeeeeeeeep. He comes stomping in here and starts throwing wild accusations around and breathing fire, and then demands that we stop documenting his douchebaggery.

            He came to my LJ (uninvited), brought you up completely out of the blue, and then was surprised when you started commenting. Well. DUH. What the hell did he think would happen? It’s not like we don’t all know each other, at least peripherally, or that this entry wasn’t linked back on Larry’s blog. I’m pretty sure we probably have lurkers sitting back and laughing their asses off at him.

            TLKnighton (answering to clamps): For the record, what you’re doing? It’s not exactly slick. Everyone can see it.

            You harass a woman for years. She documents your escapades publicly. In part, it’s defense, but in part its so other people you harass know that they’re not alone.

            Now, I make a suggestion. Your counter is to put it on her – the victim in all this – to stop her defensive measures and you’ll leave everyone on the right side of SF alone.

            Seriously?

            You’re trying to put this on her? No one on Earth with more than two functional brain cells would even consider the suggestion. The fact that you even offer it up tells us two things.

            1) You have fewer than two functional brain cells. In fact, you may have proven what we thought was impossible. Now, we can see it’s possible to resemble a human being with a negative number of brain cells.

            2) I made a suggestion, and your response is to ask that the victim roll over and let you have your way? Seriously, that’s as idiotic as someone actually believing a serial rapist who says he’ll stop the rapes if women will get ride of their guns. It shows us that you have no intention of ever leaving anyone alone.

            So, why don’t you tell us why you seem to feel this perverted need to visit the blog of every non-leftist SFF writer out there and offer up your own brand of harassment? Seriously, what do you get out of it. If you actually enjoy being mocked and ridiculed, fair enough, but I suspect it’s something more. Too bad that you’re complete ineffective at anything but being mocked and ridiculed.

            Seriously, as a troll, you completely suck at your craft. In fact, considering all that we’ve seen that you suck at, most of us are amazed that you’re capable of logging into something like LJ.

            Clamps managed to become exponentially more creepy and scary in the 8 days of the comments before Julie decided to lock it.

          2. Some people just deserve a merciless beating. In any previous civilization the villagers would have drowned him in the river.

  14. So that’s the big lie he kept referring to but refused to answer me about?

    Oh, that’s freaking FUNNY. Your big lie is something you never said, but it turns out that you’re right about anyway.

    Only Mike Glyer could screw up so completely.

    As another data point for folks, back on my old site, I wrote a post during the Sad Puppies kerfuffle where I fisked a woman who claimed she was ignored at book readings because she was a woman. That made it into Glyer’s roundup of the day…but he then ignored were I blasted MRAs for calling for a boycott of the last Mad Max movie without even seeing it.

    See, it appears that he couldn’t let his readers know that I wasn’t some misogynist prick and would call MRAs for being stupid too. Nope.

    That’s only part of the stuff he’s done. Plenty of us writers on the right politically have stories like that. About the only time he didn’t horribly misquote me was when he aggregated that I had a new banner image up at my blog. Why that even made it simply boggled my mind.

    1. Best summary right there: “Your big lie is something you never said, but it turns out that you’re right about anyway.Only Mike Glyer could screw up so completely.”

      I will admit, this entire thing has made me laugh. 😀

  15. As yet another author targeted and ‘spun’ by this pathetic ’eminence grease’ of sf, trying to get his circle-jerk friends to trash my career with his careful selective out-of-context quoting and little innuendos – thank you, Larry. You said it all so much better than I could. He gets away with the ‘just a reporter’ schtick because almost no one follows back to the original article – like you I found the trackbacks in the irrelevant 2-3. Oh and some of those circle-jerk? Sock-puppets. I wonder if he gets those from China too?

    1. But Dave, only the opinion of other Trufans counts. That’s all Mike is angling for. The real world is of no consequence. Mike merely wants that next Hugo nomination. Because he wants just one more silver dildo, to add to his collection of similar silver dildos.

      1. He did decline his nom this year, probably because it was due in part to the Rabids.

    2. As another victim of Vile 770, I want to second everything Dave Freer said. I also delete all links from the Monkey poo flinging site, btw. And the most I EVER got from there is 5 hits.

  16. Hmm. I wonder why (or if) he started buying traffic in late January 2017? His traffic was falling off but most dramatically in early November 2016 and hit a low from December through (apparently) the Trump inauguration where it was 20% of what it was in July 2016. Perhaps he was feeling his relevance slipping away and his comfortable echo chamber started getting a bit chilly with no hot air in the comments section. Time to buy some traffic!

    1. No need to buy Chinese traffic. 90% bots is normal, and the more links you have on your site, the more bots you’ll get trawling it. I have a semi-public FTP site (which is basically nothing BUT links), and I’ve had to block bots entirely because they were chewing so much resources that my hosting service bitched about it.

      1. I checked a dozen other reasonably popular SFF web sites. NONE showed any significant portion of Chinese traffic, much less an overwhelming majority like 92.1%.

        Not buying rationalizations at this point.

        1. How dare you try to bring facts into this discussion?! I think I should be triggered, or something.
          Mike “92% linkbots” Glyer doesn’t has to (left) justify his actions to all us Hatey McHaters. 😀

          1. Murgy, you are correct to be triggered. Using facts and logic in an argument is racist!

        2. Might have something to do with the site name or an advertiser he uses that others don’t.

  17. I dunno about you, Mr. Correia, but I don’t think I’d tell someone as poison-mouthed as Glyer to ‘lick my balls’… I mean, the idea of that critter coming in contact with my junk…. erg. no thanks.

  18. Ahem. Glyer is ***NOT*** a scumbag. Scumbags prevent the reproduction of unwanted children.

    Glyer catalyzes the genesis of even MORE de-facto children. . .

  19. I can’t stand to read the smug bastards, but I’ve got some fans who are gluttons for punishment, so they lurk over there and collect the most psychotic comments for our amusement. Some of those folks need serious help.

    Which “some of those folks”, the 770 readers or your masochistic fans? 😉

    1. Clearly I need serious help, because I’ve combed through his comments far too often. 😀

      1. You’re a far braver man than I, Gunga Din. I couldn’t do that without winding up wretchedly depressed.

    2. Had a quick glance this morning, allow me to sum it up: “Blah blah, you sound angry, blah blah, you’re mean and nobody likes you, blah, blah ticky and fifth.”

      1. An example: “Hampus Eckerman on June 13, 2017 at 11:48 pm said:
        A course in anger management seems to be in order.”

  20. Larry, you’re a dick.

    That’s probably a big part of why I like you – you remind me of me. 🙂

  21. I think Glyer is desperate for some Puppy-related controversy this year. In the absence of Sad Puppies from the Hugos, this is what he’s reduced to.

  22. B-b-b-but Trufandom (*cough* CHORFdom *cough*) is beautiful and perfect! Pravda 770 is a shining city on a hill! A beacon for all glorious and wonderful lovers of science fiction! No one could possibly have a problem with Trufans, right? Trufans are cuddly and huggable and they also fart lemon-scented rainbows! They giggle when you tickle the letter T on their fluffy little tummies!

    1. There are persons in this world who I would not mind being on close enough terms with that neither of us would mind my tickling their tummies.
      None of those people are involved with File 770.

    2. And just remember that this is the friendly, reformed-liberal member of the group of SFF authors Glyer has managed to completely piss off.

    3. Mmm, lemon-scented!

      Hope all is well, Brad! Thank you for your service, and I thoroughly enjoyed The Chaplain’s War. Found several copies hidden at my local Barnes and Noble and displayed them a bit more prominently. Want to get an audiobook copy to listen to at some point soon.

  23. Ah, this reminded me to go in and renew my lapsed ownership of vile770.com — if only I had something to do with it rather than park it…

    Also, now I have a new author to read. I just went on Amazon and bought one Arroz book, and pre-ordered another. It’s the best F-U I can give Glyer.

  24. Chinese Bots like his site because it’s a very link-rich. But then, very little of the content is stuff he generated himself, other than the lies he adds to set the scene for his selective quoting.

  25. Well, I won’t give the file 770 people a click to find out what imaginary thing they’re roasting this fella you mentioned for. But I will toss 2.99 at the kindle edition of his book. Figure that’s the best response possible.

  26. I am still somewhat new to this, but is there really a Hugo award for websites? I kinda thought it was a book reward. Are they counting the written words on his site as an art form?

    1. E-pubs are allowed nowadays. His nominations and awards split between Best Fanzine and Best Fan Writer.

  27. And there’s a perfect example, isn’t it? Glyer says this is a Trantrum, a lie, and misquotes through omission, and suppresses anything to the contrary. How like a Social Justice Totalitarian.

    1. Indeed. It is like some game of LSD telephone. They build on a layer of inaccurate telepathy of what they think are the motivations of those they oppose, then they add straw and lies and hate and straw until they have a edifice of evil to fight. But it isn’t a reflection of anything real, but the Vilers treat it as such and attack anybody who refuses to accept it as the revealed truth.

      (Yes I’ve seen the process happen, so don’t try to convince me to disbelieve my lying eyes. – Not you Dr_Mauser, any Vilers who happen to wander in…)

  28. Glyer showed up ugly a couple of months ago at Dr. Mauser’s blog, in response to a comment of mine. (Yes, Mikey, I still remember. I’m sure there’s a screenshot of it somewhere.) I wondered why he was still talking Sad Puppies when there isn’t one this year. He got suuuuper offended at that. Poor baby.

    Couple days ago, Cameltoe Floppypants had a big blog post “wondering” where Sad Puppies 5 was. I told him we already got all the candy out of the Hugo pinata, and were tired of paying to beat the empty husk. Naturally he deleted that, because the truth hurts.

    But here we are, AGAIN, and these fuckers just will not shut up about something that happened two years ago. Almost as if they had nothing else to talk about.

    It is now my considered opinion that if Vox Day wants to -really- hurt them, he will stop doing Rabid Puppies. I think if he did that, Glyer would be offering him money under the table to start it back up again.

    Nice bit of bitch-slapping, by the way Larry. I love seeing passive-aggressive jerks get called out.

    1. Who dares summon me from my lair?
      Oh. Hi Phantom. Sorry you are still sore about being in the spam filter.

      1. I know you read my comments, Camestros. You read the one I just left, too. The one with you and Glyer paying Vox to keep going out of sheer lack of subject matter.

        That you delete them so no one else can see, that strikes me as ridiculous. That you read them, delete them, and then stalk me on other people’s blogs, that smacks of a man desperate for something to object to.

        Why not comment on my blog? The Iron Finger of Deletion needs some exercise.

        1. I check the spam filter every so often and also when your IP address changes it lets you through sometimes. Apparently you keep posting comments – which is fine. I’d even de-spam you if you followed through with your arguments. That’s why I gave you so much latitude in the past.

          I’ll put up with a lot but not you being dull. Be interesting – I’ve a low boredom threshold (which also answers your other question).

          1. Since you’ve taken the trouble to visit Larry’s blog, perhaps you could enlighten the great unwashed here as to why 92% of Glyer’s traffic is from China. Specifically what makes his site so popular there, and why he is having so much trouble attracting an audience in, well, places where they speak English as a first language.

          2. It’s just normal bot traffic, which is attracted by linkbait. More links = more bots. There are assloads of Chinese bots (and probably some are contracted to legit search indexers).

          3. I checked a dozen other reasonably popular SFF web sites. NONE showed any significant portion of Chinese traffic, much less an overwhelming majority like 92.1%.

            Not buying rationalizations at this point

          4. Regardless of whether it’s “paid” traffic or web bots, the fact remains that it does not appear to be “real” traffic as far as actual readers.

          5. And once again, Camestros Felapton demonstrates that he is less tolerant than the people he derides as intolerant, seeing as his schtick never changes and his arguments have about as much backing as your usual third-party candidate.

          6. The people I deride as ‘intolerant’ are those seeking to remove civil rights from others and those who promote genocide.

            I don’t deride people for being intolerant for managing their blog posts because that would just be silly. I might have a laugh about it (e.g. when Vox had a meltdown at me) but they are still entitled to do it. If Larry wants to put my comments in the spam filter then that is his prerogative – it is his blog.

          7. “The people I deride as ‘intolerant’ are those seeking to remove civil rights from others”

            So you attack people who try to force Christians to be involved with same sex “marriages”? Good for you!

          8. He’s against removing civil rights, so he must take a hard stand against gun control too.

            But I’m going to go out on a limb and guess he’s talking about other rights, like the right to have me pay for his health insurance.

          9. In so far as gun control improves people’s rights, I am for it. In so far as it does the opposite, I am against. The question is then mainly empirical – where does the net effect lie and where should the balance lie.

            When a domestic terrorist like James Hodgkinson attempts to murder people elected by constitutional process, then absolutely there should be questioned asked about who can access weapons and what steps can be taken to ensure the civil rights of ordinary people and even Republican politicians.

          10. “then absolutely there should be questioned asked about who can access weapons”

            I have a question. In a world where Leftists have decided they need to KILL people over purely political issues, why do you retards keep insisting only cops should have guns? What are you going to do if Hodgekinson shows up at -your- baseball game, and there’s no cops around?

            Why are you on Hodgkinson’s side and identifying targets for his follow-on brothers in arms?

          11. Same reason why their fellow travelers like to dox. “Oh, here’s that racist anti-Islamic homophobic misogynistic hater’s address and place of work, in fact, have a map. Shame if something awful happened to them, like a terrorist attack from a Muslim angry about their Islamophobia.”

            In fact, that’s exactly why they’re on Hodgkinson’s side. They very well KNOW there are people on their side that will eventually be seized by ‘righteous fervour’ and ‘that’s a conveniently close target to me’ and go for it. They imagine that because their vector of attack and reasons are not within the usual criminal ‘rationales’ that the police would look for, they think they’ll get away with it.

            As a target for the dogpiling and stalking thanks to one of Glyer’s favorite regulars, I’m very aware of this shit, especially because of the threats leveled to my children.

          12. That clamps dickhead started trolling my blog. I frustrated him so badly he left and has never returned.

            He would comment, and them I would delete his comment but leave his name. Then below the deleted comment, mockery.

            He lasted a couple hours.

            As to the rest of Big G’s menagerie, they seem to mostly be people with serious mental issues. Small group of very dedicated nutters.

            The odd one is a professional Leftist, stirring the pot for The Cause. That’s the category Floppytron falls into. Someone for whom snark, “irony” and cheap trolling are a profession. Can’t imagine the pay is up to much, but then he’s not very good at it.

          13. //Same reason why their fellow travelers like to dox.//

            I don’t dox and I condemn doxxing – having been the target of some doxxing attempts in the past.

            I hope we can all agree that is a contemptible tactic.

          14. Please don’t speak on behalf of what I do and do not think is contemptible.

            Republicans were an oppressed minority in the South. Scalise has recently moved from critical to serious condition, you used the attempted assassination to justify the same victim disarmament that has been used for a hundred and fifty years of Democratic terrorism.

          15. Any time a progressive claims to have been doxxed, they are either lying or have been doxxed by a holier progressive.

            Given the evidence provided by Robin Munn on this thread, I’ll go with the former.

          16. Hodgkinson was a Democrat political activist, as has been murdering Republicans since after the American Civil War. Steve Renfroe without plausible deniability and activists protesting ‘unjust treatment’. If the Republicans and Democrats had switched places at any point in history, you would know the oral history on this and why the NRA was founded. O Camel Fellating white supremacist terrorist apologist and abettor.

          17. I strongly believe nobody should be forced into any kind of marriage. If a Christian does not wish to be married to a person of the same sex then I absolutely support their right to do so – indeed a person of any religion for any kind of marriage.

          18. That Mr. Felapton has stated that he is under the impression that “involvement in marriage” is limited solely to “being one of the married partners” is evidence of either mendacity or a definition of involvement that is so narrow as to be virtually useless for normal communication.

          19. I can’t speak for other people’s marriages but if I said somebody was involved in my marriage I wouldn’t mean that they sold me a cake once.

            You demonstrate your dishonest behavior once again. By mentioning the “sold me a cake” concept, you have just proved that you did indeed understand what Greg Q meant when he talked about people being forced to be “involved” with marriages. Which shows to everyone that your previous answer, where you pretended to misunderstand, was deliberately mendacious.

          20. //You demonstrate your dishonest behavior once again. By mentioning the “sold me a cake” concept, you have just proved that you did indeed understand what Greg Q meant when he talked about people being forced to be “involved” with marriages.//

            Robin, there is a difference between understanding what a person is saying AND accepting the premise that they are attempting to include.

            Not accepting a premise I believe to be false (with reason) is the opposite of being dishonest.

          21. You now claim that understood what he was saying, but disagreed with the premise. What an honest man would have done in that situation would be to say so: “I do believe that Christians should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings; that’s not a violation of their civil rights, because nobody has a civil right to object to someone else’s marriage.” See, honest statement of disagreement with premise.

            What you did, instead, was to argue against a point that nobody was making. Nobody here was arguing that people should be forced into marriages, and you knew that that was not the point that Greg Q was making. So instead of honestly disagreeing with his premise, you attacked a strawman and pretended that you were being clever.

            And now you are claiming that your behavior was not dishonest, in the teeth of the evidence of your very own words from just a few hours ago. Your character is becoming more and more clear.

          22. Argh, editing typo. First sentence should read “that you understood what he was saying…”

            Is there any way to get a preview button in this comment system?

          23. //What you did, instead, was to argue against a point that nobody was making.//

            No, I argued *FOR* the point *I* was making and already had made.

            //And now you are claiming that your behavior was not dishonest, //

            Correct. It was not false nor was it misleading nor was it unrepresentative of my opinion.

            //Your character is becoming more and more clear.//

            Which takes us back, once again, to the only argument of significance actually being offered here.

          24. The fact that the point you made was completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion has apparently escaped you.

          25. //You changed the premise and then pretended That’s what the argument was about. Which seems to be one of your common rhetorical tactics.//

            I didn’t change my point or the premise behind it: “The people I deride as ‘intolerant’ are those seeking to remove civil rights from others”

          26. The premise is very straight forward: I have a civil right to chose who I do business with.

            And I also have a civil right NOT to be forced to engage in speech I disagree with. Such as producing a product that celebrates an event I disapprove of.

            If you wish to claim that those rights don’t exist, then stop bring a pussy and make the claim

          27. Greg, you KNOW that ‘rights’ like that – the right to say no, the right to choose whom to associate with, the right to choose what jobs to take on – as far as Crapfelton and his ilk are concerned, we who disagree with their beliefs are not entitled nor expected to have those rights. Don’t believe in contraception or abortion? Why, you bigoted misogynist shithead, do what they want or never have a job again! Don’t want to bake a cake or provide a venue for a homosexual union because it’s against your religious beliefs? “Are you Muslim? If not, BIGOT HOMOPHOBE DIE!”

            The rights to refuse to perform at the Presidential inauguration because it’s Trump who won? Oh, that’s TOTALLY okay with them! Force Catholic orphanages and colleges to give babies to gays and provide contraception? CIVIL LIBERTIES, YA KNOW. Oh, and fuck praying Christian prayers or saying ‘God’ or the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, because that might OFFEND someone illegal.

            Ctrl-Left. It’s all about the REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE~!!!!

          28. What pathetic Motte and Bailey.

            Why is this fucking idiot even here? Is he under the impression that anyone likes him? I regret bothering to respond yesterday.

          29. You say genocide like it’s a bad thing. Removing every last orc from Middle Earth would have no down sides and would be widely cheered as an incredible act of good.

          30. That is an interesting question you bring up. Is genocide the extermination of groups of humans, or is it the extermination of groups of people, and are all people humans?
            (I presume that we agree that all humans are people.)

          31. I presume that we agree that all humans are people.

            Pro-abortionists don’t agree: I’ve seen, with my own eyes, pro-abortionists explicitly claim that an as-yet unborn fetus is not a person and therefore does not possess the right to life. Show them the DNA evidence that that fetus is a human, and they will maintain their claim that he/she is an unperson.

          32. These are the same folks, by the way, that will consider bacteria on a rock in space as ‘life’ and trumpet about science being awesome. Same folks who’ll say ‘it’s just a clump of cells’ regarding an unborn human embryo.

          33. Well, it may be something of a category error. “Human” is a biological description; unborn children are undeniably human. “Person” is a legal description; denying unborn children legal personhood removes them from consideration as legal entities against whom crimes can be committed. This is why the left goes full-bore apoplectic when states try to extend legal personhood to unborn children. Doing so would make abortions straight-up murder.

          34. I never “had a meltdown” at you. Once more, we see that SJWs Always Lie.

            I simply banned you after you humiliated yourself with your inability to understand Aristotle’s Rhetoric while affecting to instruct others on it. The discourse at VP is not so tedious that it requires the posturing of ignorant SJWs.

    2. Camazotz Flappytongue epitomizes the modern left — all rhetoric, no logic. He’s a one trick pony whose unfailing M.O. is to excrete a few paragraphs of unoriginal and content-free snark, then pat himself on the back for his supposed “intellectual” prowess.

      He/she/they/zhe became boring after about the second post I saw from him/her/zher/zhit.

          1. You know, Carnestrap Flappydon, you’re just as annoying as Glyer, and you’re pretty good at posting poisonous bullshit while pretending to be civil and impartial. All you need is a Chinese click farm to provide you with an imaginary audience and you too can be the next big thing in fanzines.

          2. Well I aim for a basic standard of civility but I’ve always been clear that I’m not impartial and I’ve always been clear about my politics and my views (at least in so far as they are clear to me). I’ll take arguments as I find them and will always aim to be at least more civil than the person I’m arguing with but I’m not going to pretend that they are talking sense when they aren’t (or don’t appear to be).

            Yeah but I’ll own “annoying”.

          3. Mr. Felpatron sir, that was a description, not an ad hominem. You are a type. That is the type that you are. I did not make you be that way, it is all your own doing. I’m simply holding up a mirror.

            If you’ll accept advice from an old man, you should stop being that way.

          4. “Well I aim for a basic standard of civility but I’ve always been clear that I’m not impartial”

            The man named after two incorrect forms of logical deduction had the effrontery to pop up on my blog, swaggering and boasting that he had bested me in a debate about various Green eco-frauds and scares.

            Like Mike Glyer, he even provided a link to his alleged rebuttal of my argument, which was merely a word-salad, a mass of evasions, elliptical phrases meaning nothing, and vapid hokum.

            It was, in a word, boring.

            He maintained throughout the same dishonest and undignified shit-eating avuncular demeanor which both conveys weakness and provokes impatience in sober men. One can hear a clown beclown himself only so many times before the shtick loses its savor.

            It actually surprised me both that he would challenge what I was saying, and that he would think himself equal to arguing with a trained professional, and that he would not only botch the counterargument, and badly, but that he would boast about it, and invite bystanders to come look at the mess.

            I think precisely one of my readers clicked through the link he provided, saw the intellectual trainwreck, and gave him the raspberry.

            I politely stepped away from the conversation without further answer. But camestrosfelapton’s response to my courtesy was to insult me, claiming it was cowardice on my part which rendered me unable to answer his nothingburger argument. Sneers were his first and sole reply. He must bail out the sinking dingy of his puncture ego, I suppose.

            His alleged concern for courtesy begins and ends with those in his warren of likeminded echoes. He is being sincere when he says he is not impartial.

            His lack of ability to reason impartially applies to every area and every topic is has been my sad misfortune to engage him over. I have learned my lesson.

            He is a fit match for Mr. Glyer.

          5. This right here – “He maintained throughout the same dishonest and undignified shit-eating avuncular demeanor which both conveys weakness and provokes impatience in sober men” – EXACTLY! It’s this whole thing where they’re allowed to insinuate every awful thing imaginable, it is always okay if they’re “civil”, or they can be lying career sabotaging bullies “but it’s all in good fun”, and a regular person who doesn’t play their games responds with “what is this bullshit?” and those regular folks “Sound Angry” with their “rant”, “tirade”, or “tantrum.”

            It’s a sort of slimy, dishonest, sick, demented culture.

          6. I’ve ruined nobody’s career nor have I ever attempted to. Certainly not yours (as if I could make the slight difference in that) but not Jon Del Arroz’s either or anybody similar. If I had that kind of power and was willing to use it, neither you nor even JCW would be my target.

            What I have done is responded to the challenges made. I suppose answering back can be seen as rude in some circumstances.

          7. You played your part, Camestros. You knew full well what internet lynch mobs and dishonest character assassination your buddy Glyer was chumming for. You helped, encouraged, supported, and twisted facts and lied for them. The fact that you’re a failure – like Glyer – at the career ruining is not for want of trying, but rather because because you’re inept. You have a large amount of time for it, though. Don’t you have any work at your transfer-college in the UK?

          8. (Dryly) Beneath one of the untermench who must excluded and silenced? Amazing. Surely such depths were never meant to plumbed. I’ve warned you and fellow travelers before: you survive merely because your opponents have exercised a degree of honor, nobility and generosity – and not repaid your side in kind. That’s run out now. We were not all your foes – but you treated us like foes. We’ve survived and managed to grow despite the whisper campaigns, the doors closed, the anthologies we’re not welcome to, despite outselling those who are welcome, the competitions excluded from, the blackballing, the cons we oddly don’t get invitations to. Yes, I still have friends on the ‘inside’ – I know I’m persona non grata, for pointing out the discrimination. You -as an individual – did your level best to dismiss it. The zeitgeist is changing – much faster than you realize in your University bubble. I once again advise to stop pushing the pendulum, and start acknowledging that these things need fixing ( it’s probably too late, but it may reduce the damage), that Glyer and his camp-followers -including you – are part of the problem. Otherwise, you, your partner, your friends, and your political views will find yourselves in what you imposed. And even those dull, old-fashioned ‘libertarians’ like me who believe in disagreeing with every word you say, but that you should have the opportunity to say them… will be able to do nothing, and are unlikely to be willing to try.

          9. // Beneath one of the untermench who must excluded and silenced?//

            You throw bigger insults at yourself than I would ever. If there are sinister conspiracies against you then they are not ones I have wittingly participated in or am aware of.

            I certainly haven’t silenced you – I’ve done the exact opposite.

            //Yes, I still have friends on the ‘inside’ //

            As an outsider, I’m happy for you.

            // Otherwise, you, your partner, your friends, and your political views will find yourselves in what you imposed.//

            I’m happy for you to do to me anything that I have *actually* done to you.

          10. I’m so glad conversations of which you were a part, saying the puppies should be put down… not to mention the accusations of racism, homophobia, sexism, being a Nazi etc. were my imagination. You were there, making snarky comments. Actually only one person ever had the courage to stand up and say these were slanders… and it wasn’t you. There are quite a collection of screenshots.

            Your failure at the silencing and de-platforming isn’t precisely commendable. It was failure not the opposite. You certainly tried to discredit me. You supported others in that. You chose to let falsehoods stand, even when you knew they were false.

            Both your university peers and the traditional publishing bubble match your prejudices and worldview almost precisely. You’re not an outsider to your chosen arenas. You’re the establishment and trying to stay that way.

            And as you happy to have done to you, your career and reputation… well, if this is true, prove it. Give us your name. What you’ve done is to my name, not a silly pseudonym.

            Bet you won’t.

          11. // You certainly tried to discredit me.//

            I certainly pointed out when I thought you were wrong. Ah! Is that what this whole thing is about? I dared say you were wrong? Seriously? That was the terrible crime I inflicted upon you? Dave, sometimes you are wrong.

            // You were there, making snarky comments.//

            And you were there making snarky comments. You are not some fragile creature – you are big enough and bold enough to cope with some snark.

            //being a Nazi etc. //

            Not only have I never said you were a Nazi, I have taken great pains to point out the political differences between the Sad and Rabids, and between people like yourself and the crypto-fascist Vox Day. I don’t throw out the term ‘Nazi’ casually e.g. I don’t claim people are Nazis because they cheered at an award ceremony.

            //Your failure at the silencing and de-platforming isn’t precisely commendable. It was failure not the opposite. //

            It was the opposite. Your voice got heard – you just didn’t like the reaction. Your position is an absurd one – that quoting you or linking to your posts or discussing your publically aired views amounts to being silenced.

            // Give us your name. //

            See my other comment about doxxing. If you are fishing for an identity the only relevant one is Camestros Felapton.

            //Bet you won’t.//

            Damn right I won’t. I’ve nastier enemies than you Dave Freer but you’ve not even come close to earning the first fragment of my trust to give you information that would put MY family in danger. Shame on you for even asking.

          12. As I said further up, you are a liar. You claim to be in favor of honest debate, yet on your own blog you call Mike Glyer’s twisting of words “not particularly misleading”. In the same paragraph, you also claim to have read most of the Sad Puppy round-up posts, so you’re unable to claim ignorance. You know that Glyer twists people’s meaning, often to the opposite of what they mean, by his selective quoting and trimming of words. Yet you continue to try to provide cover for him by claiming that his quotes are “not particularly misleading”.

            I would insult you, but I have already given you the worst insult I know. So all I can do is repeat it, without further embellishment.

            You. Are. A. Liar.

          13. //You. Are. A. Liar.//

            No. You are calling me a liar because I am refusing to lie to you. I *could* lie and agree with your views but that would be dishonest.

            I don’t know why so many of you desperately want to be lied to but I shan’t do it or be bullied into doing it. Nor will silly name calling make me do it.

          14. Thanks for the 10 bucks. It would have cost me a hundred if you’d been honorable and given your name. So: your promise is worthless. No real surprise there. Fieldsy, we know who you are, so we know why you do this and how false your assertions are. And your rationalizations may have helped other fellow travelers with their rationalizations. You know full well what was meant by the silencing and de-platforming, but you rationalize that that doesn’t apply to your behavior.

            Actually, I’m well-known for publicly admitting I was wrong – that’s how Eric and I ended up writing together. My apology to John Ringo is equally well known. IIRC I’ve apologized to Robin Munn as a proximal example. So: where are yours? I proved you wrong repeatedly, when you were wasting our time on MGC – and you’d just ignore it and skip on to the next trivia for me to have to repeat the process at length… Sea-lioning: The one skill you have in which only your chum Mark exceeds you.

            For the record: I think I bothered twice to wander to your site. The first you were trying damage control about the level of bias in the awards that I had written about, trying to minimize it, picking on trivia, usually out of context, most of which I could pull apart – if I was in education academia and had paid time to waste, for you start the same sealioning again. I planned to return to do so when I had time. When I did you’d drunk too much chardonnay and were honest, which I found refreshing – but sufficient to say ‘don’t waste your time, Dave.’

            And that is a good lesson for now.

          15. Dave Freer: “You knew full well what internet lynch mobs and dishonest character assassination your buddy Glyer was chumming for. You helped, encouraged, supported, and twisted facts and lied for them.”

            Camestros, here: “It is an absurd claim you are making Dave and beneath you.”

            Camestros, on his own blog: “Mike Glyer has taken his normal approach, cover what somebody is doing with minimal editorialising. Of course no news coverage is truly neutral – by it’s very nature choosing what to highlight and what not to is a necessary task and can create its own biases. However, as with the more substantial Puppy Kerfuffle, Mike has let people’s own words speak for themselves. […] While Mike clealry picked out key paragraphs to quote (which stands to reason), the quotes were not particularly misleading and in some cases cast the linked post in a better light (e.g. the quoted part was often the more cogent and coherent argument).” (Emphasis mine)

            You stand condemned by your own words. Your pretense of civility is just that: pretense. When you say what you truly think, you are quite happy to claim — with an utterly straight face — that Glyer’s twisting of words was “not particularly misleading”.

            You. Are. A. Liar.

          16. //When you say what you truly think, you are quite happy to claim — with an utterly straight face — that Glyer’s twisting of words was “not particularly misleading”.//

            Seriously? If picking things to quote is “twisting words” then you would be condemning yourself. Your point lacks so little consistency that it barely counts as an argument.

            You are just restating over and over that I am a liar and when you can’t find any evidence of it creating bizarre new rules which you don’t apply to anyone else (including yourself).

            Come on. You managed better arguments earlier. TRY HARDER.

          17. Camestros, thou hast condemned thyself. Robin Munn did not complain that Mike Glyer picked out things to quote. What she actually said, as opposed to what you said she said, is that he did his level best to quote people so as to present them in the worst light possible, a distinction that is so obvious that Hanlon’s Razor does not apply in this case.
            I should note, by the way, that until your most recent comment I was willing to assign your assessment of Glyer’s quote mining to a disagreement about the Puppies. Given, however, that you have–blatantly–misrepresented something someone said in this very thread, I can only conclude that, consciously or unconsciously, you are a compulsive liar, and therefore deserving of most of the opprobrium heaped upon you here.

          18. 60guilders, that is Camestros’s preferred mode of argument. Take a look at the “discussion” I had on File 770 a few days ago: archive.is/zpwGo and /aORhJ.

            To summarize: G—— made a laughably false claim about a Sad Puppies-aligned author; Mike (per his wont) quoted it in the best “let’s you and him fight” fashion; I pointed out the false premise of the original claim; G——’s comments were then artfully defended by people denying he’d said what Mike had plainly quoted him as saying; and comes Camestros Felapton to take half a phrase out of context, nitpick on the details, and declare victory by dint of having obfuscated his point so thoroughly no rejoinder was possible without careful redefinition of the entire English language and restatement of all canons of logic.

            (I quite recognize this style of logic chopping: it’s the hallmark of an inferior student of Talmud, attempting to imitate the form of argument he sees from his more capable peers, but who can only grasp the least essential details of the discussion and therefore quibbles about them. I’m gratified that English has the expression “chop-logic” for this, else I’d be left with the uncomfortable certainty—for now it’s merely an uncomfortable suspicion—that Mr. Felapton is a Yeshiva kid gone rancid.)

          19. That seems to be his favored mode of argument – redefine the discussion and terms so that we’re fighting on his battlefield using his weapons. That way he almost *can’t* lose an argument, at least to himself.

            It just makes him look like a slippery eel to the rest of us.

          20. 60guilders –

            For the record, I’m a man, not a woman. Robin *is* more often a woman’s name than a man’s name in America, so don’t feel bad about the mistake. Most people who haven’t met me in person tend to assume I’m a woman based just on the name. I suppose I could sign things as “Mr. Robin Munn”, but that just feels overly formal.

            Camestros –

            Seriously? You thought THAT lie would be remotely believable? For the record:

            1. What I meant was that Mike Glyer is picking deliberately misrepresentative quotes: taking sentences out of context, omitting vital parts of someone’s post, or other methods of making it seem like they meant something other than what they actually meant.

            2. You are intelligent enough to know perfectly well what I meant, as did everyone else who read my comment.

            3. You nevertheless tried to pretend that I meant something other than what I meant.

            Conclusion: You are not only a liar, you aren’t even good at being a liar. That one wasn’t even remotely believable. I’d say “try again”, but I am sick and tired of talking to you. You lie with every sentence you write, even when it’s not even remotely believable, and I no longer believe that you are capable of speaking the truth even once. I will therefore not waste any more of my time and attention on you. Goodbye.

          21. Ah, thank you. The internet is tricky like that.
            And yes, the fact is that Camestros is almost Glyer-like in being a compulsive liar.

          22. //What I meant was that Mike Glyer is picking deliberately misrepresentative quotes//

            And the words you quoted from me from my blog don’t say that but rather that his quotes are not particularly misleading. Did you miss the word “not”?

            Or is it just that you can’t believe that I believe what I actually believe?

            Let me repeat it then – I have read and re-read the bulk of the Puppy related posts on the major Puppy related blogs. I do NOT believe File770 misrepresented what was written there or that the excerpts were particularly unrepresentative of apparent beliefs of the writers.

            Where the beliefs of some Puppy aligned people misrepresented elsewhere? Sure – the EW report was a prime example. But I don’t think the File770 round-ups created a *false* impression of the Sad Puppies or the Rabid Puppies. Maybe I’m deluded, maybe I’ve somehow repeatedly misread what Larry and Brad and the folks at MGC wrote but I really don’t think that I have. Make of that what you will.

          23. Come off it, Camestros.
            Here’s what you wrote about what Robin said:

            Seriously? If picking things to quote is “twisting words” then you would be condemning yourself.

            What Robin actually said:

            When you say what you truly think, you are quite happy to claim — with an utterly straight face — that Glyer’s twisting of words was “not particularly misleading”.

            It’s times like this that I’m glad that the ILOH has disabled the edit button, because it makes it impossible to hide that you compulsively misrepresent your opponent’s arguments when they’re right there for everyone to read. That’s why no one believes you when you say Or is it just that you can’t believe that I believe what I actually believe?–because it’s patently obvious that you are functionally incapable of engaging with your opponents’ actual arguments, and will go to any lengths to avoid doing so.

          24. “It’s times like this that I’m glad that the ILOH has disabled the edit button, because it makes it impossible to hide that you compulsively misrepresent your opponent’s arguments when they’re right there for everyone to read.”

            This fascinating but common phenomenon on the internet makes me wonder if there’s a word for it. CF’s method of argumentation is strikingly effective in verbal conversations, which is why its practitioners must think it works in written form.

            I’m wondering if the predictable sea-lioning is only a natural reaction from those who can’t seem to grasp the reasons for their rhetorical failures, despite the fact that everyone else seems to have a functioning scrollbar.

          25. 60guilders –

            Don’t bother. I got him to admit to the thing that he denied when Dave Freer first accused him of it: that he approved of how Glyer was quoting people. When Dave first accused Camestros of enabling and supporting Glyer, Camestros denied it, calling it “an absurd claim”. But now, two days later, he has gone on record, in the same comment thread, as supporting Glyer: “I have read and re-read the bulk of the Puppy related posts on the major Puppy related blogs. I do NOT believe File770 misrepresented what was written there or that the excerpts were particularly unrepresentative of apparent beliefs of the writers.”

            It’s pointless to engage him any longer: he’ll never admit to his lies. But since we’ve gotten him to say two diametrically opposed things in the same comment thread, first denying his support for Glyer and then proudly proclaiming it, that’s enough. Screenshot the thread, save it to archive.is, and bookmark the archive.is link so you can pull it out later when he tries his schtick on someone else’s comment thread. We now have an all-in-one-page demonstration of Camestros’s dishonesty, and that’s a valuable thing.

          26. Nope Robin. Dave’s claim about me was this: ” You knew full well what internet lynch mobs and dishonest character assassination your buddy Glyer was chumming for. You helped, encouraged, supported, and twisted facts and lied for them. ”

            That claim was absurd.
            Feel free to screenshot what I have written.

          27. Dude. You literally just admitted to everything he said, either plainly or by implication.

          28. Floppy, we all know who you are and how you argue. Like a cheap and not very well trained lawyer. You talk like a typical Ivory Tower snob, and you think when you come here you are talking to “those seeking to remove civil rights from others and those who promote genocide.”

            That’s who we are to you. Genocidal nuts who want to bring back chattel slavery and kill everyone with a better tan than we have. This is apparent in everything you say and do.

            So you can nitpick and spin until Hell freezes, but we are not deceived.

          29. //Floppy, we all know who you are and how you argue. Like a cheap and not very well trained lawyer.//

            …and yet you still keep trying to post comments on my blog. You love me really Phantom 😉

          30. Wow: Cameltoe Fibbonaci is so vile, he induced the always polite, erudite and mild-mannered John C Wright to actually drop an S-bomb. Clearly CF, and his master Mike Glyer, are persons of unsurpassed despicableness.

            I’m thinking that if JCW becomes so enraged he actually uses the F-word in public, it will be a sure sign the end times are upon us.

            😛

          31. //which was merely a word-salad, a mass of evasions, elliptical phrases meaning nothing, and vapid hokum//

            At the time of the discussion John concluded:
            http://web.archive.org/web/20150803014252/http://www.scifiwright.com:80/2015/07/a-question-about-the-global-warming-hoax/
            “Comment by John C Wright:
            Saturday, August 1st 2015 at 4:55 am |

            Here the fault is mine. I asked you to name one false scare, and you did. I had thought I asked you to name one that had been called false or retracted by the left, but, as I worded the sentence, that is not in fact what I asked. I retract my comment and apologise. You are invited back.”

            But let me concentrate on the common element between JCW’s point here and Larry’s point in the main post. What is the terrible point that is being insinuated? It is a quite simple one: that John is incorrect and that his own words demonstrate that he is incorrect.

          32. I think mostly you are marking targets for James T. Hodgkinson. That may not be your conscious goal of the moment, but your comments regarding Richard Spencer say much about your character.

          33. This is why Vox Day recommends strongly against apologizing to a gamma male, even when one is in the wrong, or treating the gamma male with any sort of gentlemanly courtesy or dignity: they will use it as a weapon against you.

            A strong man in a fight tries to make himself stronger. A weak man tries to make you weaker. Here we see a weak man trying to justify his delusion of having won an argument by an attempt to impeach the credibility of an honest man.

            Pathetic.

          34. “Here we see a weak man trying to justify his delusion of having won an argument by an attempt to impeach the credibility of an honest man.”

            Pathetic? Perhaps.
            Truth? Yes.

            You raised the issue here John, not I. You made a challenge and I met your challenge and then later you said I did not do so. Whether I am weak or strong, left or right, pious or impious, virtuous or vile, it makes no difference to the truth of the events.

          35. And yet, Camestros, you remain incapable of seeing how your own words show your fundamental dishonesty, even when you sometimes speak a portion of the truth.

            You see, I actually followed your link and read the entire comment thread. John Wright asked a question that was narrower than he intended to ask, you successfully answered it, and he acknowledged that fact, as any honest man would do. Yet although you had not at all won the argument, only a single point (which wasn’t even the point that Mr. Wright was trying to make), you proceeded to act as if you had won the argument.

            This is not the behavior of an honest man. This is the behavior of someone for whom the truth is a mere tool, to be used when it is convenient and ignored when it points against you.

            I have seen your behavior on other blogs, such as the Mad Genius Blog, and it has not spoken well of you. And I have seen John Wright’s behavior in his own comments section. I have found him to be a man for whom the truth matters above all else: when he found that the truth was against him, he abandoned his previously-held beliefs and converted from atheism to Christianity. I wish you would do the same, but I’m afraid your heart is too wedded to dishonesty. For your own sake, you would be wise to make the truth your master, not your slave to serve your ends and be ignored when you don’t like what the truth is saying. But I have to admit that, having seen your previous behavior, I believe you incapable of humbling yourself in that manner.

          36. //Yet although you had not at all won the argument, only a single point (which wasn’t even the point that Mr. Wright was trying to make), you proceeded to act as if you had won the argument.//

            Not at all. John offered me a specific challenge (he literally double-dog dared me) which I answered. He then claimed I hadn’t answered his challenge and then (to his credit) apologised. John’s challenge was narrower than his broader challenge but in that same thread, I also did provide additional elements to his challenge. I did not claim that I had “won the argument” – although I do think the argument is winnable in front of an informed audience who approach the topic with goodwill. Did I “act” like I had won it? I don’t believe so but your perception is what it is and I have no control over that.

            Now, look above at how John characterises both that original discussion and the more recent one. Please read what I wrote and read John’s description of what I wrote. I am happy that my account is an honest one with no intended deception.

            I don’t know why John would want to rediscuss it here but as he has chosen to do so, then naturally I’m willing to address the details.

          37. True. Reality contradicts his secret special snowflakiness at every turn, but instead of taking the long, hard road of self-examination he declares reality wrong.

          38. Vox nailed him perfectly: a gamma who believes he’s won no matter what happens.

            Boring.

          39. It’s a common problem among idiots. They think they get to judge their own performance. They don’t realize debate is a spectator sport.

          40. John,

            The man named after two incorrect forms of logical deduction had the effrontery to pop up on my blog, swaggering and boasting that he had bested me in a debate about various Green eco-frauds and scares.

            I went looking through your recent posts, and could not find where this happened. I would have expected to see it in the comments of http://www.scifiwright.com/2017/06/age-of-hoaxes/, but Camestros does not appear to have left any comments there. Is that because you blocked him, and therefore the comments that he left (which you saw in the Disqus moderation tool) are not visible to me? Or am I looking in the wrong comment thread? I’ve seen the 2015 discussion he linked to further down in this comment thread, where he is mischaracterizing successfully answering a single point in a debate as winning the entire debate. But while that’s clearly the one’s boasting about having “bested” you in, that’s also clearly *not* the thread that you mean when you talk about him “pop[ping] up on my blog, swaggering and boasting…”. The swaggering and boasting must have been in a recent thread for it to still be in your mind, I assume. If it is visible to the public, would you mind pointing me to it? I had planned to cite from it in the message I wrote to Camestros just now (which appears a few comments down in this thread), but I couldn’t find it to quote from.

            P.S. I hope you do not feel offended that I address you by your first name instead of as “Mr. Wright”. Having interacted with you in a few comment threads at your blog and having come to respect you greatly, I feel a friendship towards you even though I have never yet met you in person. And if I were to address someone that I consider a friend by his last name only, it would feel standoffish and rude to me. But if you would prefer me to address you in more formal terms, I would be happy to do so.

          41. I prefer if strangers use my last name, so that if someone uses my first name, I know at once it is someone I owe money to.

            Here is the thread referenced above:
            http://www.scifiwright.com/2017/06/not-tired-of-winning-yet-xviii/#comment-3337965385

            It links to an earlier thread, where the double dog dare was:
            http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/07/a-question-about-the-global-warming-hoax/

            Apparently, Camestros Felapton regards his offhand remark about cell phones not causing cancer after all as a vindication of my challenge.

            You may read and decide for yourself if he exonerated the honesty and forthrightness of fifty years and more of eco-scares and frauds by his single tepid admission on the least of the dozen frauds listed.

  29. Ugh, Glyer. I started reporting his link-backs as spam when he hit my three-strike rule for false quoting. He would post an “excerpt” from my site, but with sentences, paragraphs, and the like selectively cut out to make me say or arrive at a VERY different point or conclusion.

    After three strikes, I cut the link-backs and reported his site as spam. Seeing that I wouldn’t play anymore, he stopped linking in all but the rarest cases, but nothing doing. He burned that bridge.

    Me? I keep writing. My success pains him and all his followers.

    1. I don’t know the circumstances, can you tell me what he quoted and what you really meant?

      1. There were a number, but the final straw was when I pulled one of my books out of a competition because the review place that was going to look at it was overtly racist. I’d entered a competition, and once I’d heard which group would be looking at my book, started visiting the site, started reading their reviews … and was instantly alarmed by some of the stuff I was reading. We’re talking tracts on the race of the author, or comments about how the book was almost good enough to have been enjoyable even if the main characters had been white … all of which influenced the ultimate review.

        I didn’t like that, so I contacted them, made my concerns known, and asked to be removed from the competition. I noted the acts of racism that had been found, including actual quotes I saved (some of which they later removed from their site), and considered the matter done. I then wrote a opinion piece on my blog with the quotes as examples, talking about how determining the rating of a book based on either the sex/ethnicity of the author or the characters is sexism/racism at its most basic, and how books shouldn’t be rated on ‘whether or not the main characters is white/black/green/whatever.’

        Of course, since the quotes had come from a very liberal individual, people like Glyer didn’t like that, and when he “quoted” my snippet on his site, he omitted and rearranged a bunch of things so it looked like I was complaining about characters not being white, and the “summary” given was that I was arguing in favor of racism, and had probably pulled out of the contest because I was upset I wouldn’t get special treatment for my ethnicity. About as far from the truth as possible, and only remotely workable because he’d cut and rearranged what I’d said so heavily as to make me arrive at a completely different conclusion. After that, I pulled up a number of other times he’d “quoted” me side by side the originals and noted that he’d often cut out sentences or sections to paint me in a bad light.

        And that was the last straw. His link-backs became spam, and I even called him out on it once on a different site where we stumbled across one another, and he gave a halfhearted response and then vanished from the site. I checked again later, and he’d “fixed” some of the ‘misconstrued’ quotes, quietly.

        Still too late. I’ve got better things to do with my time than feed his skewed worldview. I’ve got books to write.

  30. They never, ever address your ideas. They always go after your emotions and your person. “You sound angry.” “That guy you cited is a misogynist. Why do you listen to him?”

    I enjoy a good argument. It’s annoying because I hardly ever get to find one these days because of this crap.

  31. There’s another SF/F writer who makes a big deal about his Alexa ranking, and one whom Mike Glyer has also selectively linked to and quoted. Could it be he’s managed to confuse the two of you in his head (or is he just attempting to conflate the two of you to his readers)?

  32. I’ve never heard of this ass clown or his page. Sorry I will not waste my free time, better spent on WOT Blitz, looking.

  33. I remember a while back when Glyer had linked to one of my guest posts at Sarah’s blog. In the comments, Glyer said about me something along the lines of: “Well, hopefully he won’t be around much longer.”

    That was a year and a half ago. I’m still here. 🙂

    1. I couldn’t find him ever saying that. He did link to a guest post of yours at Hoyts and comment “Feel free to ignore the slur on this blog in the first paragraph; I did. (Almost.)” That was about a year and a half ago.

      1. I do remember that one. This was for another post, but it was deep in the comments and I’m not slogging through that today.

  34. If 92% of his web traffic are Chinese bots, and only 8% are authentic traffic… It stands to reason that a significant portion of his authentic traffic is nothing more than the Monster Hunter Nation keeping an eye on him… and his two loyal followers Darryl and Darryl

  35. I think it says something about the Hugo that I’ve never, ever heard of Glyer, despite having been an avid sci-fi reader for decades and active on the internet for the last 20 years, and somehow he has 40+ nominations. I count myself fortunate to have never encountered him or his site.

  36. OFF TOPIC ALERT: Larry, I need to thank you. I recently used your model of fisking to great effect and I appreciate the template! I am a moderator on a game server and we had to ban a long time member due to sustained idiocy. He chose to rant about it on a public forum, and there was just too much drivel there for a good response. By dissecting his own words via mulit-quote, I was able to show exactly our reasoning for the decision plus give a decent argument that he was insane. Your current (excellent) rant reminded me to send you thanks. 🙂

    1. I’m pretty sure it is an old and well established format, often known as MSTing, after Mystery Science Theater.

  37. From the way you describe Glyer, I’m astonished that he hasn’t been offered a plum position at the New York Times. He should fit right in; mendacious, easily confused, ostentatiously stupid, pointlessly offensive, and intellectually lazy. Hell, they should make him an editor!

  38. You’ll note, of course, that the screenshots of the Alexa pages shown on his own page conveniently crop out the details of his international fanbase.

  39. Larry, goole the “Internet Water Army”. It’s a for hire Chines web comment service.

  40. Mike recently linked to one of my blog posts over something non-Puppy related. I think I got less than ten unique visitors from it.

    Once you’re in the business of witch hunts, it’s very difficult to pivot to anything else. But… China? That shocks me. Perhaps it shouldn’t. Oh well.

    At this point, cleaning out my computer keyboard would be a much better use of my time than interacting with the Trufans. Probably more enjoyable too.

    Thanks for the laugh, Larry.

    1. Earlier he was all like I WILL POST EVERY LINK I THINK IS OF INTEREST TO MY PEOPLE!

      Then I point out 92% of his hits are fake THIS POST WHICH IS OF INTEREST TO MY PEOPLE IS FORBIDDEN!

      Dude, I’ve gotten such a laugh out of this. And I’ve seen so many jokes about it on Facebook that I’m going to have to do a follow up post just to collect them all. 😀

        1. “And on that day, many rolls of duct tape gave their all.”

          We can probably see him on Google Maps. Look for a huge white object in Southern California.

  41. Serendipitously enough, Amazon had just the other day suggested Jon del Arroz’ For Steam and Country as something I might like. I’d decided to pass, since I tend to avoid books with female protagonists (especially of the young and spunky persuasion), but if that asshat Glyer doesn’t like him, I figure he’s worth a look. Pre-order done, and I look forward to seeing it on my Kindle tomorrow.

  42. Larry: “My guess is he really hates me because unlike most authors I don’t dance around with fake politeness.”

    It might also have something to do with him being a retired IRS agent, the Natural Enemy of a private sector accountant like yourself.

    Plus he’s probably living in a decrepit Los Angeles bungalow on whatever pittance gets doled out to retired agents, while you’re buying a friggin’ mountain.

    The high point of his day is likely hitting the senior special at Golden Corral,

  43. So, how does a new author, trying to get his foot in the door, avoid pitfalls like these.? I’ve met Larry in person and read everything he’s put out. I’d agree with him, I’ll take GETTING PAID over some moronic award everyday.

  44. Ah, I have officially been accused of being a sock puppet by Glyer after dropping by to give him some non-chinese traffic. How wounded I am. Gotta wonder who the sad sack thinks is the one behind the puppet if he thinks I’m one though.

  45. Hmm… What can I say about this but… BWA, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… (gaspgasp)… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH… (GASPgaspgasp)… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH… ***THUD***

    To quote the great philosopher, B. Bunny, “Wotta Maroon!”

  46. I have to admit, just from commenting here I’ve noticed a slight surge in traffic. And I was made aware that Glyer even has a Dr_Mauser tag for his posts, although he neglected to attach it to his last slander. Yeah, I glanced though them and was re-annoyed by his tactics. And then I remember when he commented (was it on Facebook?) wondering why I wasn’t GRATEFUL for his attention!

  47. A most excellent opinion piece that pulls no punches.
    I will state, however, that there is some difference between what a certain party spews and what I excrete. What I excrete is, admittedly, unpleasant – but simply does not compare. Also, I have been informed, there is some slight utility.

  48. The hilarious thing is, Glyer is supposed to be this BNF, and I’ve been active in fandom since 1988–doing dozens of conventions a year as attendee, guest, dealer, even helping run a couple of cons, even as GoH, and I’d never heard of him until the puppies debacle. That’s how awesomely important he is outside of the Human Centipede of inbred fandom wankers.

    Just googled him for the first time. Cheesy beard: Check. Rolling mounds of badly-dressed slush flesh: check. Vapid, vacuous expression: check.

    I’m proud to say I’m half the man he is. Possibly a third.

    1. IIRC Mike ran the 2006 Worldcon. May be a West Coast v East Coast thing, but he was certainly well known among the West Coast fandom I used to hang out with.

      I used to like and respect him. Used to 🙁

      1. Oh, good, I was wrong. Christian McGuire ran 2006, Mike ran 1996 Worldcon. Still ran a good con, but the person who I thought “he wasn’t an asshole” isn’t him. 🙂

  49. That was impressively stupid. He didn’t even notice that his Alex rating was 92% from China before he posted the picture?

    Makes me feel proud of the fact that he banned me (under a different ID).

  50. Don’t be an insensitive hater. Glyer’s legions of Chinese click-bots self-identify as normal human readers, and we must be sensitive and caring.

      1. Perhaps there was a terrorist attack yesterday? Perhaps of a flavor that Glyer and Camel-Fellator have carried water for in the past? One could speculate that unwise things were said, things Glyer knew he could not afford to have associated with him, things that might lead to a collusion investigation he could not risk.

    1. File770.com Server Status Check

      Website Name: File770
      URL Checked: file770.com
      Response Time: no response
      Down For: more than a week
      DOWN File770.com is DOWN for everyone.
      It is not just you. The server is not responding…

      1. So where are these screenshot quotes coming from? I assumed it was file770, but if it’s been down for a week….

        I just want to see the trainwreck at the rails; see what else Glyer is misconstruing, misrepresenting, making up, and just plain lying about.

        1. It went down less than an hour or two after I posted my comment about being accused as a sock puppet because I went back there to see his response of who was supposed to be my puppet master and it was down.

          1. Yeah, it is pretty amazing how I secretly have 500 accounts, and so much free time that I make all you imaginary people comment for my amusement in my comments.

      2. He probably inadvertently DDOS’d himself when he panicked, hired a domestic click farm and demanded they get his US rank above Larry’s in 48 hours.

  51. Somehow, Edit 2 is the best. “What? Evidence that proves I’m wrong? NEVER!” Somewhere, Sir Robin is calling Mike Glyer a gigantic chicken.

  52. The question I’m left asking is, “IF the Chinese hits are just spambots, no problem, they’re going to a great place for their spam. IF the Chinese hits, however, are from actual Chinese people looking at this guy’s website, WTF is going on over there?”

    1. It is the 15,000th most popular website in a country where the secret police only allow 15,000 websites through their security filter? 😀

      1. That is possible – one wonders if Glyer’s screed improves on translation into Chinese? Chinese calligraphy being logosyllabic, it benefits thereby – a language of so many written characters may better obfuscate the ordure.

  53. Just a random idea, but if you have the ability in the blog software to examine the Referer (yes, I know it is misspelled, blame the RFC) header in incoming HTTP requests, you could always serve out an auto-play rick-roll to anyone coming in from Vile 770 instead of whatever this douchebag is linking to for his flying monkeys to fling poo at.

    Or a December 2016 C-SPAN video of Joe Biden certifying the electoral college count.

  54. I initially assumed that “Santa-looking” was a mere – weird – term of abuse.

    And then you showed his profile picture in a screenshot.

    Fair.

    (I was also, “Hugos? Nominations? For what” – and then looked and realized there’s a category for fanzines.

    That he has multiple wins would seem to indict the Hugos more than anything else – I’d give them credit for “maybe he’s gone downhill since the ’80s”, but one was last year.

    I cannot imagine there is no superior fanzine.)

      1. I looked at the numbers.

        Mr. Glyer’s 55 nominations cover 1980 to present, or 37 years. This means he has, on average, been nominated roughly one and a half times a year every year of his career.

        This is over twice the nominations than famed authors like Asimov (6), Heinlein (10), Clarke (5), van Vogt (2) and Bradbury (1) received for best novel when taken all together (24).

        When adding in nominations for novella, novelette and short story, the numbers are Asimov (13), Heinlein (17), Clarke (9), van Vogt (3) Bradbury (2) totals to 44.

        Nor am I selecting names deliberately to find underrepresented writers. Similar numbers obtain if you take other popular authors: George R.R. Martin (17), Harlan Ellison (13), Ursula K. Le Guin (20) when adding all nominations for novels, novellas, novelettes, and short stories totals to 50.

          1. Of course, Torlings insist that this is only because Tor is the biggest and bestest Sci-Fi publisher of all time! So of course they have all the Hugo-worthy stuff in their stable.

          2. Sure. That’s why they haven’t gotten an author onto the A list in over a decade, and their top sources of revenue are still Frank Herbert and Orson Scott Cards’ back catalogs.

        1. not like his nominations are for Novel or Short Story. He’s in a much smaller field and frankly, does a fantastic job in that field, so I don’t find the number of noms that troubling, but I do find JCW’s comparison to Sci-Fi greats to be meaningless if not disingenuous.

          1. “does a fantastic job in that field,”

            I mean, sure, if your definition of “fantastic” is “lies like a rug on the regular.”

          2. Really? “Fan writer” is in a “small field”?

            In what universe?

            The absolute best you can say about that is that the nominating shows the total inability of the Hugo voters to avoid ruts.

      1. It is back up now, but it seems like several articles have been posted at once, so that the comments about Larry Correia is now on page two of the site.

          1. No matter how far down he lets it sink, it won’t matter, because from now on he will always be known as China Mike. 😀

        1. No bet. All us racists, sexist, cis-gendered supporters of patriarchy are automatically presumed to be in the wrong, even if we’re not quite all straight, white Mormon males with big beards and great racks! 😛

        2. All kidding aside, I’d never support a cyberattack on File 770 or any other group of kickers. For one thing, we wouldn’t want it done to us. For another, they’re a constant source of cheap laughs.

          1. Cyberattacks and the like are the sort of thing the regulars there would support anyway, given their love for silencing.

            And we never want to silence them. We get so much entertainment watching their beclowning.

  55. I think “File 770” will be my new slang for the trash can, replacing “round file,” “circular file” and “File 13.”

    1. “Excuse me, something I ate seems to be disagreeing with me. I have to go take a 770 – badly.”

  56. He’s baaaaack:

    “Ultimately Correia remains enraged at me today because four years ago, I was one of the people (as were some of you) who said no to him when he wanted to help himself to the Best Novel Hugo. Not that I could actually stop that from happening, but when I started covering as news what Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, and everyone else had to say about the controversy (in their own words, with links to the rest of their posts), I had an impact by facilitating the growth of a new community of people who wanted to talk about these issues — most of them opposing the vandalism of an institution they had spent years building up.”

    http://file770.com/?p=35801

    1. The ending of the post says it all:

      “No comments will be taken on this post. Your continued participation here is all the encouragement I need to continue.”

        1. Monologues just doesn’t have the same impact I guess.

          Regarding the rest of his post, it is the same old thing; the whole Sad and Rabid Puppy movement, from start to finish, was all about the same thing: Correia being furious because for several years he wanted one of his novels to win a Hugo at all costs, before suddenly changing his mind after his followers had done so much to help him getting nominated. And how a recurring poster keeps manipulating him to verbally attack him.

          Further:
          “I have a temper of my own, but one thing I learned early in my fanwriting career is that bad language is a dead-end”

          Well, it is not the words themselves, but the actual content of the sentences, sometimes written between the lines, that counts. It’s about pretending that you are talking to your opponents, when you are really asking your followers to take care of the bad language for you. And to provoke your opponent to such a degree that they get enough of the fake tone and say things the way they are. If you are hiding yourself behind a mask of fake calmness, acting all innocent, I find that far much worse than being honest and do everything in the open. No point in using fine and polite words if they are simply used to cover up something rotten.

    2. So, Glyer (the G is silent) has fired up the inaccurate telepathy machine to once again do battle against Straw Larry.

      1. So he says he’s going to address this post and goes about it by not addressing this post, just screaming STRAW LARRY STRAW BRAD OMG PUPPEHS and not allowing comments.

        Straight outta CHORFton.

    3. Really? He wants to play pinata again?

      Hell, I’ll take a swing.

      “…opposing the vandalism of an institution…” by burning it down themselves.

      There. Fixed that for ya Mikey.

      Being part of Sad Puppies was one of the best, most effective, and most fun things I’ve done in SF since forever. We pulled the curtain back, and now everybody can see the man pulling the levers. And I got to help. Awesome.

      We SEE you!

      1. I think it says a lot about them that they NEED to keep coming over to blogs or FBs or sites that they don’t like in order to… have something to do.

        1. That’s what I’m saying! Why does Big G comb through these comments in search of some new outrage, every fricking day?

          He’s got nothing of his own, is why. There’s no Sad Puppies this year, he and Floppy still can’t shut up about it. Imagine next year, if Vox drops it too. Big G will be begging for material.

          1. Meanwhile, in other news…The Phantom is still trying to comment at my blog. I think it says a lot about him that he NEEDs to keep coming over to blogs or FBs or sites that he doesn’t like in order to… have something to do or…maybe not, its all cool really 🙂

          2. I think it says a lot about him that he NEEDs to keep coming over to blogs or FBs or sites that he doesn’t like in order to… have something to do or…maybe not, its all cool really

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            Blind. Totally, completely, blind to the irony.

          3. I didn’t think it was possible for someone to comically miss their own point.

            Well done Camelfapper!

          4. Given that you never post my comments except in moments of what I presume are technical incompetence, do you really think I’m “trying to comment at your blog”?

            Given that you obviously read them, don’t you think its more likely I’m telling you off?

  57. I’ve only rubbernecked over to 770 a couple of times to personally observe their toxic hate and projection, but I was under the impression they were a bigger deal than they actually are.

    High self-regard, projection, and fake civility only seems to attract trolls and Chinese bots.

  58. “He chums the water for his horde of psychos so they can go about forming internet lynch mobs, boycotts, and black ballings. But then he pretends to be all impartial and above the fray. If you ever want to lose all faith in humanity, read the comments there. His regulars range between basement dwelling goons, creepy weirdo stalkers, and angry rainbow haired social justice warriors.”

    What kind of fucked up world is this where Gawker has set the tone for journalism?

  59. Please don’t insult gas station sushi. This guy sounds more like “licking the floor of the gas station restroom” than “gas station sushi.”

  60. This sort of exchange leaves me thinking a little less of all parties involved. It’s just as distasteful to have a public mud slinging match as it is to watch people pile in from the sidelines.

    1. Yes. You posted that like 6 times in this sub thread.

      And then got severely butt hurt and alleged that I was too cowardly to approve your biting, witty, unique, and original commentary.

  61. Mr Correia, for what it’s worth, public feuds like this make folks like myself much less likely to read your work- not because I disagree with your views, but because of how you are conducting yourself.

    1. Yeah, now that I’m scrolling through the comments awaiting approval after taking a week off due to a death in the family, I can see that you made that same stupid Checklist: Concern Troll/Boycott argument several times.

  62. So, Moderator, I’m trying to puzzle out what criteria you are using to allow comments onto a page, given that other comments continue to appear. Am I insufficiently obsequious? I have nothing to do with the 770 crowd, but I have to say that filtering out everything but the most supportive comments does not really incline me to take the version of facts shared here as truthful. And even that can’t be it, because I see you let a few 770 folks in. Is it just the posse, plus a few designated punching bags?

    1. See elsewhere in this thread where I explained why I wasn’t online to approve comments all week, dumb fuck.

      1. Clearly I didn’t understand how moderation works. I’m sorry for your loss, and regret how the timing of that loss gave me the impression my attempts to comment were being blocked. Not sure my initial concern has changed- I guess I’m not part of the crowd you’re playing to. Good luck in the future.

  63. I realized China Mike’s true colors when I discovered that he gave moderator and/or posting privileges a troglodyte who goes by the username, “JJ,” a fellow who happens to be one of the most vocal, unpleasant, and militant leftists who frequents the site.

      1. I don’t know that he’s an official “moderator,” but I’ve seen him make official posts before. Granted, I’ve been avoiding the site for over a year now, and this may no longer be the case.

        Regardless, if you are willing to give someone who openly biased and hostile the right to make official posts . . . your pretense at neutrality is pretty sucky.

        1. Its been noted before that most of those tools, like JJ, are banned from both Sarah Hoyt’s and MGC. Their toxicity is Flopatronian in intensity. Glyer is every bit the toxic Lefty that they are, he’s covering his under a veneer of false joviality that turns even the strongest stomach after a while.

          Seem like the perfect personality type to work for the IRS, if that is indeed the case.

  64. This sort of exchange leaves me thinking a little less of all parties involved. It’s just as distasteful to have a public mud slinging match as it is to watch people pile in from the sidelines. It’s also pretty unfortunate that the moderator here would withhold comments like these, while letting through… pretty much any other vile thing as long as it’s cheering the feud along.

    1. Withholding comments like these while letting others through…

      Motherfucker, my dad died last week. I was a little too busy to approve comments. WordPress is set to require manual approvals to first time posters in order to block spam. I just came back here right now, today. Holy shit, get over yourself. That wasn’t even a particularly biting comment.

  65. Whoa … I’ve heard of folks with too much time on their hands, but DANG!
    Glyer appears to be the poster child.

  66. Every month, I construct a list of (some of) the SF. Horror, and fantasy novels published in the last month (requirements: on smashwords.com, over 100,000 words, not adult content). The list is very long, even though it has a high word count cut off. You can read it in The National Fantasy fan (N3F.org) or as a comment on MadGeniusClub.com. I did offer it to File770, and had an entirely polite rejection note. One might have supposed that there are a few Hugo fans over there who would have wanted to start reading.

  67. This sort of exchange leaves me thinking a little less of all parties involved. It’s just as distasteful to have a public mud slinging match as it is to watch people pile in from the sidelines. Certainly it does not make me any more inclined to buy any of Mr Correia’s books.

    1. Oh, well then. I’d better be silent and keep my opinions to myself from now on, so as to avoid scaring off potential customers. I’ll get right on that.

  68. I thought I recognised the name file 770. It linked to a random post on my blog ages ago, a post on merit v politics in fiction. It did kind of selectively quote one paragraph from the entire piece like. Although I thought it was spam thing honestly.

    1. Well, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here besides reiterate the title? Yes, Larry is the International Lord of Hate; not Hatred because the Vile 770 CHORF-y Ignorant Marxist Pawns (Imps) keep insisting he’s really awful racist, hateful misogynist and the usual bullshit lies that people spew to discredit their opponents, of which China Mike is one. Being called hateful by one of those blithering morons is a badge of pride. Says you’re doing something right in the world.

      OTOH, I’m half-guessing this is Clamps, given that shithead’s love of using Google Translate to pretend he knows more languages than he actually does. There’s a chance it isn’t, but hey, who knows.

      1. Seems unlikely that this is Clamps, unless Clamps speaks fluent Portuguese. Tiago Paolini’s name above links to his Gravatar page, which lists a blog that he runs (or ran — latest post is 2012), which is a Portuguese-language guide to a “freemium” MMORPG named Tibia. It has posts going back as far as 2008 and is (from all I can tell according to Google Translate) quite helpful. Which makes me very doubtful that this person is one of Clamps’ aliases.

    2. Well that was some pointless bullshit, because I don’t care enough to copy and paste it into Google translate. 😀

Comments are closed.