the line is between serving the customer, and actively trying to ruin them. happy trails.

you crossed the line, Pigsy. karma's a *****.

oh, and WB, thanks for your two cents, you angry know-it-all... it's worth about as much.

lol... careful what you wish for.

sounds like you had a real case. the judge would have probably sided with you, sure. but you didn't go there, did you? instead, you squealed like a little pig.

That's okay, Meo. I'll try to explain it to you in simpler English. gather the goats, and read it aloud to them for practice. repeat where necessary.

Pheelyks is hired by students to do their homework. that's his job. if a customer doesn't like they way he does his job, the customer has rights. one of those rights is the right to a refund, if the product is of poor quality, is different than Pheelyks described it, or isn't fit for the customer's purposes. Pheelyks is not the judge of this; the customer is. essentially, Pheelyks' job is to make his customers happy. a customer clamoring for a refund, while annoying, is not, as Pheelyks claims, tantamount to an extortionist. that customer is in fact very much entitled to their refund.

instead of making his customers happy, Pheelyks has admitted to turning a customer's personal information (just one, though, right Pheelyks? haha) to their university, thus quite literally ruining this person's life. for what? for having the audacity to demand a refund that's legally theirs.

and although Pheelyks is obviously proud of his actions, and is acting like a sissy-boy about "protecting himself," he is actually setting a really crappy precedent. see, Meo, Pheelyks has crossed a line. his reporting that customer was not just unethical, but also dangerous. eventually, he's either going to be caught doing this by a company he works for (companies know that sometimes you have to eat a refund or two), or he's going to get a client who doesn't care about his/her reputation, and wind up in court (where he'll probably accuse the judge of being judgmental). although that latter is unlikely, and Pheelyks seems very smug, think about it. if your life is ruined, what do you have to lose?

this is the perfect metaphor for you, toad. we've already established that you're not a mechanic; keep your rape fantasies to yourself.


lol @ "I keep telling you."


have it your way; you're over the threshold, anyway, you smug bastard.

oh, and welcome back, WB. you backed the wrong horse with WRT, and Pheelyks is next. it won't be long till he's outing ET customers.

I think this is going to come back and bite you in your fat ass, eventually. it's just a matter of time before one of your clients lawyers up and stops your snide shenanagins. you can talk all you want about how extorting clients' futures by threatening to report them to university authorities is fair play. that I can maybe even get around. but to actually do it? it stinks. you stink. at the end of the day, you're hired out to help these people. and if one of them goes amok, you eat it. you don't squeal like a little pig to their college, and ruin their life. scumbag!

that's not extortion; your customer was legally entitled to a refund. the customer didn't "accept" your goods. the contract doesn't even matter, at that point. check out "sad fart" law; it's very appropriate to your general situation. let me clue you in: lay off the ho-hos and brush up on the basics. you never know. the next client whose life you unethically and vindictively ruin may have a shark up their sleeve.

you got vindictive, and you got revenge. I can be as judgmental as I want, since I've never crossed that line.

the customer is legally entitled to a refund, btw... that's not extortion.

it's all good, though, Gus. the majority of the drooling idiots you prey on here still don't know their legal rights, or that you're not averse to ruining their lives over petty cash. see what I mean? no accountability.

what's gotten your panties in such a twist, Tootsie?

I wouldn't know.


even if it were credible that you went right to executing that threat without listing conditions, it would still be a dick move... arguably more of one. fortunately for everyone, it's not credible.

I bet you'd be as unhelpful a mechanic as you are a writer. "don't like the crap hack-job I did on your transmission? tough. now, let's see if I can find something with which to extort you." with that attitude, lunchbox, you're really going places. maybe someday, when you're a big boy, you can run one of these ****-shows yourself.

sure, sure...

haha, pheelyks. yeah, I'm projecting... that's why you kept working for a company that fined you.

this is just more evidence that writers are treated worse than mechanics. it doesn't really matter where.

look a little more deeply, Tootsie. you may find that you and cyber have more in common than you think.

this from someone who taunts Kenyans about huts and lions.

industry rules

1. apply lipstick.
2. consider pig.

wow, what a train-wreck. WRT, you couldn't just slink away, could you?

and speaking of slinking, what does your former partner in idiocy have to say about all this?

like I said before, there's no peer review or objective oversight to weed out fakes. you already tried playing this card; is it your only one?


no? this is pretty weak... no wonder you repeated yourself. proof that someone said something isn't proof that what they said is verifiable or valid. I've also seen entire threads here mysteriously disappear into thin air.


that's right, lunchbox.

my point, salad dodger, is that neither of those groups can prove jack diddly **** here.

maybe, but these are pretty easily faked here, with no quality control, peer review, or oversight.


I never said she didn't.


this isn't reality, Pugsley.


I understand that what I wrote above sort of torpedoes your last five years, WB, but this isn't a factional thing. besides, queen doesn't need my help.

this is an anonymous internet message board, and there is no evidence of anything here. that's just the nature of the beast. demanding, expecting, or pretending to supply empirical proof within this medium is a farcical, stupid waste of time.

well, I'm serious. now, if one of your throng of friends and admirers should ask, you can tell them that bipolar is a schizoaffective disorder.

no, I just know about it. I'm glad to see you can admit it when you're full of **** about something, anyway.

don't be dense, WB. I'm not proving anything, remember? I don't think you should pretend to diagnose people without knowing what you're talking about, though, so I will tell you that "psycho-social phobias" is, in my opinion, just some random BS combination of pop psychology terms that you have echoing around in your warped, cavernous dome-piece. that is, it's not a legitimate category.

"schizoaffective disorders--" now that's a category.

WB-- as far as I remember, "psycho-social phobias" isn't a DSM-IV category. am I missing something?

it seems to me that history is repeating itself with Meo... although I think it's a different kind of "online relationship" this time around.

WB-- as to who is on whose side, as usual, I'll leave it up to you to keep a careful, detailed count. haha. I really got you with that bipolar diagnosis, didn't I?

"because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggone it, put the lotion in the ******* basket."

it's your world.

haha. uh... this is what you're escaping here, actually.

btw, nice grab with the "psych 101" routine-- a gem of my own frequent use, now shining in your rotten crown. but, a gem! poor WB... you just couldn't resist spitting my diagnosis of you back at me.


and then...


I've got a couple years of college psych, WB, and I'm no doctor, but I'm a little concerned. this is a very quick turn from pathetic parroting to some sort of weird, psycho sissy-fantasy. since you're so up on "projection," WB, I'm sure you know about rapid cycling, and its association with bipolar mood disorder.

I'm not here to pretend an anonymous message board is some sort of haven for valid evidence of anything... except maybe that some of its more entrenched members may tend to blur the line between the "social" and the "para-social."

you're right, it's too late. those are assumptions, and you still don't know what a fact is. sorry.

WB-- if you haven't gotten it by now, you're not going to get it. it may be that your egotism has led you to see the empirical validity of all of your own statements as infallible. before this devolves into some sort of case-study in denial and narcissism, I'm going to try to spell the situation out for you one last time.

you claimed that Meo informs his clients about his language status. you didn't preface this claim with "I think," or "I suppose..." you just put it out there as a fact. and you're trying to defend it as a fact. but it's not; it's an assumption. good luck defending it. no one even knows for sure if Meo has clients.


thanks for your concern, but there's no need for embarrassment. I know the difference between an address on the back of a receipt and a statement of disclosure regarding language status.

WB-- I'm not attacking "an honest ESL writer." I'm attacking you for being selectively gullible, and not holding yourself to the same standard of proof to which you hold others. your failure to admit that the above list is made entirely of assumptions is moronic, stubborn, and strange, but not all that surprising.


haha.

WB, you don't know what Meo tells his customers. you assume he informs them of his language status. I assume he doesn't. I'm not even saying my assumption is any more legitimate than yours. I'm just saying they're both assumptions. why is this so hard for you to admit?

WB-- way to stay on-topic. your stubborn refusal to stay in the bounds of the current argument, when cornered, is truly something.

you have no business stating that Meo informs all of his clients of his language status, because you have no proof that Meo does this; you are making a huge assumption.

oh, and, jmho, great crusader, but Meo is another scammer, just like WRT. they both shined your boots up, and now you're all set to look like a doofus accessory again. it must be frustrating; no wonder you're raving about "sheep" like a crazy person.

pheelyks-- his English is abysmal. even clients who request basic language still want basic grammar rules followed. "world Englishes!"

Meo-- my purposeful use of lowercase sentence-starters is a style I have chosen for the internet. only a dunce would regard the base inference that I don't know how to capitalize words as some sort of legitimate accusation. you, meanwhile, have a long way to go before you can even separate countable and non-countable nouns correctly. if you actually are busy, which I doubt, I pity your clients.

pheelyks: once again, I completely agree with you. I am making an assumption. there is no need to counter by making offensive assumptions about about a point on which we agree, is there?

it may seem bitter to you, but I believe it to be realistic that a writer would not lead with, or say, "by the way, just so you know, I speak World Englishes." as to how logical that scenario is, I'll leave it to you, this hell-pit's ostensible, repetitious logician.

once again: I am making an assumption.

as opposed to:


I know it's hard for you to get stuff, sometimes. the crux isn't my denial of Meocon's disclosure being an assumption; it's WB's.


Meo: you're right; I'm jealous. I long to unlearn all of the proper English I've grown up with, and offend customers with my awkward phrasing and misuse of countable nouns. seriously, Meo, I've used article spinners that have better grammar than you do. to be that... innocent... it would be great.

btw, thanks for still not telling anyone when, if ever, you tell your clients that you are a low-intermediate-level ESL speaker and writer. all we have so far is your address on a wire receipt and your word that you don't have a phony, unregistered Paypal, which is not the same thing as disclosure.

of course I know that Meo states he practices full disclosure with his clients... unlike you, I don't believe him.

so, Meo, even if one believes you don't have a phony, unverified Paypal, your defense is that your name and address are the back of some wire transfer. thanks for letting everyone know how you "notify" clients of your language status. lol.