Here is "jfoureur's" answer to how Grady Harp amasses all of his helpful votes on his reviews. It appears in a comment on a review of "The River" written by Betty Dravis. According to "jfoureur", we do it, acting in accordance with Stanley Nemeth's directions.
Of course of the nearly thirty people who read this brilliant comment exactly none of them found it to be helpful. Look at the spelling, look at the grammar. Tell me, who does this remind you of? It was one of three comments posted on that review by "jfoureur" rushing to the defense of Marie M. It makes you think, doesn't it?
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2008 9:55 AM PDT
jfoureur says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Hide post again. (Show all unhelpful posts)]
and your proof ?????????
or do you now kneel at the altar of Mrs. Delaney ???????
you seem more intelligent.
have you ever considered the possibility that Mrs Delaney and her cohorts use their own dummy accounts to mess with grady's vote counts and then accuse him of corruption.
his votes were normal until "they" appeared and curoiusly spiked when the pedantic Mr Nemetts gave instructions on their blog on how to set up dummy accounts,expressly for voting.
just an unproven possibility of course.
jfoureur
Your reply to jfoureur's post:
Guidelines
Reply to this post | Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer
0 of 27 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Not surprisingly, I don't think foureur's post adds to the discussion, but I do credit it with being unintentionally hilarious. In revealing the depths of improbability to which he'll sink to still defend the naked emperor, the ever silent Grady, foureur makes you wonder about his possible motives. I suspect he and ol'Grady in some mysterious but finally uninteresting way are just taking in each other's laundry.
Well, um, I don't quite know what to say. I mean if we had that kind of time on our hands wouldn't we be setting up all those fake/dummy accounts to give ourselves helpful votes? But no, aren't we the evil ones giving everyone in the Amazon universe negative votes?
Hellloooooo.....
jfoureur as you may recall used to follow me around the Harriet Klausner reviews screaming in defense of Harriet Klausner. Since I've stopped posting there now he's against Klausner's improbable reviewing record. Cantrell underwent a similar conversion. Don't either of these men have the strength of their convictions? Last year I was compared to a child murderer for even suggesting Harriet did not read all of the books she has reviewed, jfoureur used to shriek like a fishwife when anyone questioned Harriet's abilities. Now they both compete as to which one can make the nastier comment about her.
There are three comments on that thread by jfoureur. He has zero helpful votes. (Marie M., I know you're reading this, better hustle over there with all of your accounts and vote those comments UP! After all, it was your water he was carrying.)
Cathy, you would almost think if we were half as dishonest or diabolical as he suggests we would do just that. You and Stan would be neck and neck with Grady at this point!
Actually I thought of this. It is not impossible, but because of the vote arrival pattern it is completely unlikely.
Post a Comment