Dance of the Goblins: The Takedown Notice, Part 2

Issendai (or should I say Vanessa),

I am not complaining about your book reviews. I'm objecting to a 5 page article which exceeds fair use and misrepresents several plot points.

What possible legitimate reason can you have for insisting on keeping it? It's from 2007, there is no legitimate defence for refusing. There are no other reviews, especially 5 page reviews, on your site. This is clearly a personal attack.

~ Jaq

> Of all the possible names you could associate with me, how in heck did you come up with Vanessa?

Only one person has ever been so obsessed with me. You tipped your hand when you admitted to stalking my relatively new blog. How's your mother? Well I hope.

> "5 page article" = book review

Bollocks. No book review is 5 pages.

> "which exceeds fair use" = see original letter, points 5 and 6

Yes, I'm aware of your lawyer qualification.

> "and misrepresents several plot points" = interpretation and analysis are covered under both points 1 and 2, and points 5 and 6. If you have facts to contest, give me the details, and I will make such corrections as are justified by the facts in question and your evidence to the contrary.

You quite aware of them, you put a lot of effort into twisted them round.

> As my response to your takedown notice points out, you have no legitimate reason for insisting that I take it down. I do not need to justify publishing my own legal content on my own legal site.

I've given my reasons. Technically it's slander. But you already know that.

> Ah, so now it IS a review?

Your claim. There are no other 5 page vitriolic rants on your site either.

> It's an entertaining review of a very bad book. It says, at length, that a particular book stinks, and criticizes the author's skill in writing said book. It makes no reference to your personal life, or to your professional life outside of your public career as an author and filmmaker.

It's a vitriolic personal attack, skirting the edges of the law in a way that a failed lawyer sees fit.

> As for your decision to try to have the review removed now, I would point out that you have known about my site for years, as attested by your multiple emails about multiple visits;

I wrote 3 emails in one day when it popped up on a search where it was clearly targetted to appear. The date comes from the dates on the information on the page. Going to update now? I see you linked to it after the complaint.

Don't feel too smug Vanessa. While it's true that the US legal system is effectively closed to anyone outside the country, by going so far OTT in your childish rants you've given me something I can use for the kind of publicity that money can't buy. You might even become famous for giving a certain Texas senator the means to closing down protected identity sites as he did Megaupload.

No one without a personal grudge would have any reason to insist on keeping these old pages up. You're not fooling anyone.

~ Jaq

> Is this the same old enemy from Myspace that you accused a Wikipedia editor of being?

Thoroughly stalking are you? Imagine my surprise when a query turned up [my main email account] along with a couple of pages of other info. That does explain why Robin seemed to take an inordinate interest in my projects. You even offered to do a website for me, how sick is that?

> If you're looking for a statutory limit on the length of a piece of criticism,

I'm not going to waste a great deal of time on troll feeding, but I will answer a couple of relevant points.

We're not talking letter of the law on this, we're talking human behaviour. A normal person who hates a book puts it down, or finishes it and tells people it's crap, or even writes a bad review like the ones you've left on Goodreads etc. You've shown unhealthy obsession with this and really need to bring it up with your shrink. I'm not your mother, I haven't slagged off everything you've ever done. I never even took a dig about your only published works being off a friend's photocopier. All I ever did was call you inept as a troll, which is still clearly true.

You're making yourself look like a complete ass to anyone who reads your site. Granted that's probably just a few close friends, but someone intelligent enough to programme a decent website can surely see that she's embarrassing herself?

Let's stick with that assumtion of intelligence...

> If you don't contest specific facts, I can't make corrections.

1. The clain that the book was self-published. If you had waited until this year you might have had a case, but a failed publisher does not equal self-published. The book went through several readers in three different countries in a process common to any other publisher. The publisher had grand plans at the time for developing his business. He didn't put the time and effort in and he failed, but that doesn't make the book self-published. You are intelligent enough to know this, yet insisted on on falsely claiming it at a time when self-published had a lot of stigma attached to it.

2. "Goblins and humans speak different languages, so either Anton has learned goblin tongue well enough to understand this Masters-level screed, or Haghuf has learned human tongue well enough to give it."

So you didn't read the part about them learning each other's languages? It was early on. You make similar ignorant comments about "They all speak English". Surely you've read fiction books set in places that speak different languages before? The majority expect the reader to have an imagination and just accept that although they are reading English, the character is speaking in German or some alien tongue. Try Lord of the Rings. You get samples of Elvish and Orcish but where dialogue is required, the reader gets the translation.

This is an example of tweisting, trying to make any poor sod who stumbles across your page think it isn't what is normal.

Much similar twisting occurs in your expressions of 'opinion', where you make opportinities to accuse me of info dumps and such which legitimate reviewers somehow see differently.

I suppose you feel you've been artistic about it, keeping it just within parameters where you can claim 'opinion'.

3. "There are two kinds of people in this world: the good guys, and the stupid peasants. All the good guys speak alike, including a centuries-old goblin who lives underground and speaks Goblin and a young human aristocrat who lives in a castle and speaks English. All the stupid peasants speak in official Peasante Speeche."

Did you do any more than skim the book? This is just incorrect.

4. "Kolboingksu)" Where do you get off painting yourself an expert on pronunciation of something obviously above your reading level? It's fairly simple really, Kol-K-Su. I suppose you thought you were being funny.

5. "while carrying a dying child who does not merit a single mention over the course of the journey)"

Another example of twisting. Anyone actually reading the story can see that the newborn is unresponsive and effectively dead meat, although still breathing at that point. It has been declared unviable and in the culture portrayed (and most people can see this easily), it is not considered in the way we(humans) would a dying baby. Most readers don't require the points of goblin culture to be explained to them in two syllables or less, they get it clearly from the story.

6. "Lezipina" You can pretend that you're not going out of your way to take the piss on pronouncing easy names, but don't expect to fool anyone. Le-ina is obvious. A third grader gets that one fine.

7. "How the fuck is she going to get pregnant right after giving birth? Do goblins store sperm like bees?"

I'll give you 'legitimate ignorance' on this one as you've never had children. If you had, your doctor would have explained to you that women tend to be very fertile right after birth. The hormones make the ovaries release eggs you see.

8. "Count Anton is smooth, diplomatic, and utterly trustworthy. Everybody trusts him. Trust trust trust."

Really? What story were you reading? Not mine. Or maybe you missed all those chapters about the problems he had with people who failed to trust him. The bit where he got chased into the wrong goblin grotto by angry villagers was rather good if I do say so myself. Plus a goblin who trusts you doesn't throw you down a pit to get eaten.

9. "Count Anton impresses stupid people."

Ignorance does not equal stupidity. Look at you for example. I don't think for one second that you're stupid, or fooled by your own inept arguments.

10. "Incidentally, he and his inner circle do a lot of laughing at the peasantry."

Really? Care to cite examples? I seem to have missed a lot of what you say you've read.

While you're at it, can you go through and point out all these comma-splices that you claim I've done? As you're big on citing examples and all...

11. "Meanwhile, the peasantry is straight out of a fifth-grader's essay on How Bad It Was to Be a Peasant in the Middle Ages. Woman-hating, ignorant, drunken, superstitious, easily fooled by Count Anton;"

Again, completely incorrect. Latham would fit part of this, Jerrold the drunken part. Most of the citizenry are perfectly happy in a life that is more simple than the computer age. I've described skilled craftsmen and a nice stable society. You want to twist it into something different, but anyone who reads the book can see how full of it you are.

12. "and they have the strange idea that when one of their fellows goes missing for a while and is discovered raving and semiconscious in the custody of a green knobbly creature, the green knobbly creature might pose a threat to them"

Yes, this is how human nature works. A nice stable society with skilled craftsmen and a belief system much like basic Christianity see one of their people being pushed around by a green creature that looks like the demons described in their religious books (as was explained in the story). There is precedent for torches and pitchforks at that point in many classic works of fiction. Frankenstein comes to mind.

But you would twist the point into something derogatory if you could convince anyone. Who is assuming the peasants(readers of your site) are stupid here?

13. "So after Anton and Haghuf finish their tete-a-tete in Anton's car, Anton drops Haghuf off at the entrance to the goblin tunnels of Nacibrab. They have a confusing conversation about how there are undescribed signs outside the entrances to goblin tunnels that Haghuf has been removing and Anton has been putting back in special magical form that only special magical people will be able to see."

In the actual story there are signs outside of an old human transportation system that identify place names. Look around, stations have names whether they are underground stations, train stations, or whatever. You claim the goblins take them down and the humans put them back. That doesn't happen. There is nothing in the book that could be misunderstood so. The goblins take the signs down after that part, indicating that they have a reason to object to the signs. It's called foreshadowing. Later you'll learn that many goblins read and if you're sharp, you'll get the connection. If not it will be more clearly explained in a later book.

From what I can see you haven't really read the book but just skimmed for points to twist to your purpose, so dont expect me to add spoilers by explaining the later chapters.

"Yes, they are all reversed. (Nacibrab, Krapneerg, Lirrewot.) The names refer to the goblin settlements"

Oh you got that bit and still can't work it out? *shakes head*

"when you remember that most goblins can't read human writing"

Incorrect again, as is explained in the book.

14. "One of the common themes of the advertising for Dance of the Goblins is that the plot is new and fresh,"

Where do you get this? Yes the idea of goblins as a Shamanic people living close to the earth instead of the typical war-mongering gaming examples of goblins is a new approach. Your comparisons to Tolkien's elves is wandering well into the land of trolling for trolling's sake. Obviously so.

There are no doubt many more points I could correct but this is enough to make MY point. Your pages are an attack. You're a twisted stalker intentionally misrepresenting points in my book out of some personal vendetta. Your obsession with me is unnatural and unhealthy for you.

> Since June 22nd is the first day I've ever received more than one email from you, I'm intrigued about where the other two emails went. As for the emails I was referring to, see point 1.

As you had a message from your hosting service, I wonder which part of obvious you missed?

> What date are you talking about?

Before your recent update, 2007 was the latest date of your various media links. There were plenty more in existence, you obviously got bored with the attack until I complained to your server. I told them I expected this result.

> Alternatively, if you would like to write a point-by-point rebuttal of my review, I will gladly publish said rebuttal alongside my review so that readers can make up their own minds about the merits of your work.

Let's see if it shows up as I've written it. You've had all of the time you're getting from me today, I have deadlines to meet.

> Issendai/Vanessa/Robin

You ned to do something about your reading retwntion, that was a reference to a specific point I was answering and you were backing into the usual troll position of trying to divert the point to a letter of the law example.

I have no time for you today.