Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine

[faithlilly]

Why the hell not try and seek some redress for the damage caused to your reputation and livelihood?  Do you think they would have asked for this if there hadn't been such a shit-storm whipped up by your colleagues?

That may be so but don't call people names for doing exactly the same and I'm not sure what you mean by 'colleagues'. Care to explain ?

[Alfred R Jones]

That may be so but don't call people names for doing exactly the same and I'm not sure what you mean by 'colleagues'. Care to explain ?

You see no difference between a person writing a favourable review to help out a friend or colleague who has been monstered online, and a person writing a damning review online to hurt the author and his livelihood?

Sorry, I meant associates - not colleagues.  I suppose now you're going to tell me that neither you, nor anyone you know contributed a review to the Amazon  S & S book page....

[faithlilly]

I think S & S used the word "cowards" to describe the online abuse of the McCanns - in the first edition of their book, ie: before your colleagues decided to monster their book on Amazon.

I'm sorry Alfie but the author's personally spoke to not one single witness or, apart from Kennedy, anyone connected to the case.The book seemed to be made up mainly of Madeleine by Kate and old tabloid tat. TBH monstering was too good for it.

[faithlilly]

You see no difference between a person writing a favourable review to help out a friend or colleague who has been monstered online, and a person writing a damning review online to hurt the author and his livelihood?

Sorry, I meant associates - not colleagues.  I suppose now you're going to tell me that neither you, nor anyone you know contributed a review to the Amazon  S & S book page....

That's exactly what I'm telling you.

[Lyall]

I'm not sure what's cowardly about posting a bad review of a book you didn't like or felt was badly researched on Amazon. What else is a less than impressed reader supposed to do ? Go to the authors house and deliver his opinion face to face ? Would that be the 'brave' way to let the author know how you felt ?

You're right Faith,and if Amazon allow people to comment when they aren't verified purchasers publishers just have to accept it to have access to the largest online books marketplace.

[Lyall]

We're always being told on here that there is no lumpen mass of sceptics, that you're all individuals, with your own unique views on the case, that you are all individually "only asking questions", that there is no community, that you all act independently, so that being the case why would any one of you take exception at a blanket description "cowards" used to describe those trolls who repeatedly and often anonymously abuse and malign the McCanns and others on twitter and  social media - surely they didn't mean you, did they Lyall, or anyone else that you consider a decent, respectable "only asking questions" kinda guy...?  &%+((£

They were describing everyone as cowards, apart from the few they had named.

[sadie]

I'm not sure what's cowardly about posting a bad review of a book you didn't like or felt was badly researched on Amazon. What else is a less than impressed reader supposed to do ? Go to the authors house and deliver his opinion face to face ? Would that be the 'brave' way to let the author know how you felt ?

It would have been a good idea and the DECENT thing to have read it first tho, wouldn't it Faith?

How can one post a review on something they haven't read?


Most of us would call that downright dishonest.

[slartibartfast]

It would have been a good idea and the DECENT thing to have read it first tho, wouldn't it Faith?

How can one post a review on something they haven't read?


Most of us would call that downright dishonest.

Have you read GA's book?

[Benice]

Lets be clear about this. You don't have to have bought a book to have read it and while Summers and wife might not like that their book received reviews that were less than flattering, it goes with the territory. Besides its a tad hypocritical to ask your associates to post favourable reviews while complaining that someone else has asked their associates to do exactly the same, don't you think ?

They didn't ask their associates to post 'favourable' reviews.     The word they used was 'authentic'  i.e. 'genuine' reviews based on the content of the book - as opposed to reviews posted because of a grudge against the authors.

[Alfred R Jones]

I'm sorry Alfie but the author's personally spoke to not one single witness or, apart from Kennedy, anyone connected to the case.The book seemed to be made up mainly of Madeleine by Kate and old tabloid tat. TBH monstering was too good for it.

If monstering was too good for it then what would you have done to it?  Book  Bonfires?  authors arrested for sedition?

[Alfred R Jones]

That's exactly what I'm telling you.

I believe you Faith, honest I do...

[Alfred R Jones]

They were describing everyone as cowards, apart from the few they had named.

Everyone?!  Have you a cite for this all-encompassing accusation?

[faithlilly]

They didn't ask their associates to post 'favourable' reviews.     The word they used was 'authentic'  i.e. 'genuine' reviews based on the content of the book - as opposed to reviews posted because of a grudge against the authors.

How do you know that the reviews weren't based on the contents of the book? Just because someone haven't bought the book from Amazon doesn't mean they haven't read it.

[Alfred R Jones]

How do you know that the reviews weren't based on the contents of the book? Just because someone haven't bought the book from Amazon doesn't mean they haven't read it.

The author of one of the longest, windiest negative reviews admits he or she only skimmed the contents.  As the book only sold 3 copies (according to you) it seems unfeasible that so many people spent money on the book, read it and came to such negative conclusions.

[Benice]

IMO the main reason the book didn't go down well with some sceptics is because it didn't confirm any of the myths, lies and disinformation invented over the years -  which they so desperately wish were true - and which they need to be true to confirm their own beliefs.