Amazon Can No Longer Protect an Author and a Book from the World's Atheists
In the month of May 2007, four atheists decided to stop the propagation of my book by submitting book reviews to Amazon. Without even reading the book, these atheists fabricated lies upon lies about me and the book. Amazon looked at their reviews and said that they do not meet Amazon guidelines. So, Amazon removed all four reviews. But, all but one of these atheists resubmitted their same reviews and their reviews reappeared on Amazon. Such resubmissions are now possible because Amazon's costs of checking reviews against their guidelines became too high. So, an author must be aware of this Amazon problem.
One atheist did not resubmit his review after Amazon removed it. Clearly, this atheist respected Amazon's decision to remove it. But, three reviewers, had no respect for Amazon's decision and resubmitted. The atheists who resbmitted are Darby Bask, utahrc, and bookjunky. As seen, only one of four of these theists have respect for US business decisions. Interestingly, the three disrespectable reviewers and Klooster have no intellectual abilities to even read my book. I thus conclude that atheism is a very troublesome belief system for any nation because some atheists are aggressive and disrespectful and are thus dangerous. The effort of these US atheists against me and my book is not healthy, in general, for the USA. As seen, atheists also tend to form conspiracies and thus do not respect the freedom of speech that the US Constitution gives us.
I do not know whether any of these reviewers are terrorists. But, this experience of mine informs me that the USA should not open world trade freely without making sure that the US security is maintained. Amazon's book review process has lost the security needed by authors. Amazon has thus become vulnerable to atheism and terrorism.
One atheist did not resubmit his review after Amazon removed it. Clearly, this atheist respected Amazon's decision to remove it. But, three reviewers, had no respect for Amazon's decision and resubmitted. The atheists who resbmitted are Darby Bask, utahrc, and bookjunky. As seen, only one of four of these theists have respect for US business decisions. Interestingly, the three disrespectable reviewers and Klooster have no intellectual abilities to even read my book. I thus conclude that atheism is a very troublesome belief system for any nation because some atheists are aggressive and disrespectful and are thus dangerous. The effort of these US atheists against me and my book is not healthy, in general, for the USA. As seen, atheists also tend to form conspiracies and thus do not respect the freedom of speech that the US Constitution gives us.
I do not know whether any of these reviewers are terrorists. But, this experience of mine informs me that the USA should not open world trade freely without making sure that the US security is maintained. Amazon's book review process has lost the security needed by authors. Amazon has thus become vulnerable to atheism and terrorism.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 8:15 AM
10 Comments:
At 3:01 PM,
Anonymous said…
With all due respect, but you are overreacting. I checked out the reviews you refer to, and I must say they raise some interesting points. Okay, they are critical, but what's wrong with that? Isn't it fair that potential buyers of your book get a little taste of its flaws? They are helping the American people. How can it be a terrorist thing to help the American people? I think you have a lot to explain to them, Mister Shollenberger.
At 4:33 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
bill adams,
I am not bothered by criticism. i have taken criticism fro 57 years of research.
Their reviews were prepared to stop the propagation of this book. The are unable to even read this book. it is above their intellectual abilities. Amazon agreed with me. other people agreed with me. Honest reviews are important. But political reviews of scientific material is not good for this nation.
Be honest Bill.
At 4:25 AM,
Anonymous said…
There is a disturbing pattern in the way you react to criticism: you turn things upside down. In numerous discussions lots of highly intelligent people have taken their precious time to show you that your knowledge of foreign languages and logic is non-existent and that your so-called Plato's negative is an unscientific method. Guess what? Instead of expressing gratitude to them for revealing important flaws in your proof, you accuse them of not having any intellectual abilities.
All those people are trying to help you. In spite of their without any doubt very high IQ's they lower themselves to interact with an average human being who never attended an ivy league university, only to be treated with scorn and venom. I think that is a disgrace!
At 8:39 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to peter horowitz (brown university)
They are not taking their precious time or lowering themselves to help anyone. They are atheists who are trying to destroy the founding documents of the USA, God, and religions.
This is a debate, nothing else.
That Ivy League University stuff is crap. They are out-dated and couldn't teach me anything true. in the life sciences.
I have been talking to the President about my own university, Johns Hopkins, and its forthcoming troubles. He was unaware of them.
Wake up peter.
At 3:27 PM,
Rev. BigDumbChimp said…
You've been talking to the President or talking at him? I find it very suspicious that you'd make a claim. Is this a conversation you are having with him or are you one of the million that send letters to the White House with no response, ending up in the trash heap.
I'm calling shenanegans.
At 6:21 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Hi Robert,
Unlike atheists, I talk with people. President Brody and I had a nice Email dialogue on a very serious subject that atheists will not understand.
At 5:04 AM,
Anonymous said…
So what is Bill (say hi to him from me) going to do to stop the troubles (which troubles?) the future has in store for his university?
By the way, has he read your book?
At 9:38 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to peter horowitz,
I informed President Brody about my book last summer after it was published. I do not push people on my book because portions of it require considerable study. For instance, it took me many years to master Nicholas of Cusa, which I teach in Part IIa.
Brody recognized the problem I brought to his attention and had no immediate solution. H understood the difference between the oncept theology (theory of God) and the concept sectarian (practice of a specific theory of God).
I told him that research on the theory of God at Johns Hopkins would not violate the university's nonsecearian policy.
He got the point I was making.
At 12:14 PM,
Anonymous said…
Wouldn’t teaching anything about a Christian “God” beak any nonsectarian policy that any public facility honored. A Nonsectarian Policy states that it welcomes “people representing a diversity of cultures, ethnic backgrounds, and political and religious beliefs. Creed, color, race and economic status are irrelevant to qualification for membership. And supporting no one religion over another and according each faith equal respect and consideration.” Thus if you teach about the existence of a Christian God, you would have to teaching about everything other deity in every other religion, as to not support one religion over another.
Fair is fair….
At 2:48 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
anonymous,
My teaching is about God. I do not teach any religion. However, as I get deeper and deeper in my research on God, some research results favor one religion over other religions. My objective is to unify all religions by teaching God. I do not teach atheism.
So, although I might seem to be supporting one religion over other religions, I am fair.
Post a Comment
<< Home