it's no use, WB. pheelyks would rather spout utter nonsense than say you don't creep him out.

good to see that you're back to your senses, pheelyks. you've apparently come to the same conclusion I have regarding the relevance of dadaism. care to answer my question now?

I'm a pretty big straight guy, actually-- six feet, 180. anything else you want me to clear up, you weird fake?

still after the rat, huh? well, I'll give you credit for saying please, WB. the answer is no.

btw, I don't think I've ever seen anyone make an emptier threat. I suppose it's comforting for you to relish a hypothetical future victory, if you can't achieve one in the present. do everyone a favor and keep it to yourself, though-- it's pathetic to see.

a moment of worry... and the facade goes right back up.

wondering who sold you out? try asking nice.

haha... nice... "...right?"

are you worried? don't worry; I didn't keep them. I'm not running a full out expose. I just like rattling the baboon cages. call it a vice.

I didn't keep the screen-shots, nor do I have access to SNR's internal mechanisms. you and I both know the truth, and that's enough for me. being a man of my word, I don't share your obsession with pseudo-empiricism.

I liked holding it over you.

but since the mod says I must, I'll have to say it. I saw screen-shots of you being requested as a writer on SNR pages. why anyone would be deluded enough to request you as their preferred writer is one of the world's great mysteries. but I suppose I'm over-estimating the intelligence level of the average industry client. your move, scumbag.

WB, I'm here to tell what I know. what I want people to know is this: you're a fraud and a liar. there's nothing objective about your offensive presence here; you are here to promote the company of which you're an employee, and protect it against its competitors.

thanks, WB. that ought to calm pheelyks down enough so that he stops babbling.

you have some nerve, though, calling me deviant. you're the one violating social norms on this board, WB. your tendency to lie and misrepresent yourself, combined with your virulent, paranoid, infantile perspective, presents an affront to the norms that make many other message boards helpful, pleasant places to be.

WB, have you noticed that your crony is so afraid to say you don't make his skin crawl that he's been reduced to complete gibberish? I think another "rescue" is in order.

like I said, I understand your reluctance. I'm sure WB does, too.

yes, pheelyks, of course I see your quote-and-paste. hammering it home... it's less than 5 posts old, so it's like double vision.

I guess I can understand your reluctance to answer my closed question. I don't like some of my colleagues either, but I'm not about to broadcast that fact somewhere they can see it. it's best to keep harmony in the workplace, even if it's a virtual one. you wouldn't want WB stealing any of your order requests.

I'm sorry, pheelyks, but that was a closed question. it's either "yes," or "no."

thanks for the repost, btw, but really... it's right up there. sheesh.

even if those three useless, repetitive posts up there don't exactly address the above points in a spirit of truth and transparency, it's at least good to know that your protege has your stamp of approval... although I'm not positive it doesn't make him feel just a little bit queasy. am I right, pheelyks?

pheelyks attack tactic 1: "I make X amount more money than you."

2: "(disparaging, borderline-racist dismissal). English obviously isn't blah blah blah."

3: "(sophomoric insult)."

pheelyks defense tactic 1: "you obviously didn't read the post you're referencing."

2: "well, your just unable to speak English as good as me."

3: "seeing as how you are unable to have a polite, rational, logical discussion about that sophomoric insult I just called you..."

wtg, pheelyks. it's good to see the poets of our generation have not lost their creativity, wit, or charm.

haha

• 
  MrSockpuppet.jpg
  

I've heard your two default defense mechanisms enough to recognize them with a weary sigh, pheelyks. if you're so fascinated in sifting through your own posts, I'm sure you can find more examples of them than I can-- not to mention, I have better things to do with my time. --unless you keep track of your disagreements with others to use as quick references in future disagreements... that's so completely crazy to me that it makes me laugh, but it's not something I'd put past you. after all, you're sounding more like WB every day.

it's sort of funny that you respond to a plea not to use self-serving defense mechanisms with your second-most-tired old saw, pheelyks, which is, "since you disagree with me, you obviously didn't actually read the posts." you have beaten this transparent, pompous assumption into the ground already. if you can't take off your blinders, you could at least change up your game a little. it would make engaging you in these conversations a lot less boring.

WB-- I'd be glad to, but first I need to know that you understand the difference between global and local errors. after that, we can work on talking about how you work for SNR and pretend to be objective, stalked forum members and went through their garbage, make laughable global errors while declaring yourself an arbiter of proper English, and are very transparently pretending to be a woman. I feel that before we address any of your nitpicking over my choice of comma placement, we should maybe talk about these not insubstantial issues.

pheelyks-- logic? reason? I don't see much of that in your profiling of ESL writers, so why should I respond in kind? besides, shouldn't a poet like yourself be "discussing" less like a mathematician? I think you need to rethink your tack. try not repeating the same dumb, self-serving defense mechanism that anyone who disagrees with you is not logically furthering the discussion. see how that goes.

pheelyks, is WB really someone you want to pattern your online life after? he's sort of a lunatic.

if you want me to explain what "global errors" are to you, you're going to have to act a little more ladylike, and a little less like a playground bully throwing a temper tantrum because he can't get his way.

otherwise, there's always Google. try "global vs. local errors."

and I'm quite confident that I could survive a zombie apocalypse. having typed it on an anonymous message board, I'm now 100% certain.

it's not just about "dwellars," WB. it's about what repeatedly misspelling a simple word like that says about your unstable little pea-brain.

so, I see you've been skipping your Emily Post. bad girl!

as a poster who does not view himself as an arbiter of English, but who does find it amusing to point out elementary-school level errors in the posts of those who do, I have no problem with the "errors" you mention, and will continue to make them. in return, you must promise not to leave SNR to teach grammar any time soon.

as for knowing that work orders go untaken and writers get ripped off by their bosses, all that takes is a casual perusal of this board... that is, the useful parts. like I said, your idea of evidence is pretty funny-- in another time and place, you could have been a witch-burner. come to think of it, didn't McCarthy wear women's panties? in any case, I maintain my position as an interested observer.

what you call evidence never ceases to amaze me.

wow, what a bunch of desperate grasping at straws. just when I think it's impossible for you to look more foolish and crazy... there you go, right off the deep end.

I must have really hit a nerve when I pointed out those global errors in your posts, WB. but I was just doing it casually, in response to a glaring error. to go through all of my posts with a fine-toothed comb and come up with that bunch of nonsense... have you ever been diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder?

the first lessons were in contractions vs. possessive pronouns and possessive apostrophes vs. plurals, pheelyks. remember elementary school? hopefully, you're not too old to learn new tricks, because I'd hate to see you commit such embarrassing errors repeatedly. as I said, further lessons will cost you. don't worry, though... it seems that your hero/colleague is riding in to the rescue, guns blazing.

WB, maybe your memory needs some refreshing, as well. after your weird attempt to depersonalize me failed, you were refusing to tell me about some mysterious errors in my posts (also weird... why hide?). if you'd care to address this issue, or your general weirdness, feel free. otherwise, I'd advise staying in "time out," and, while you're there, learning how to speak like a lady.

it's actually more than half, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. and if you don't know, figure it out. the first few lessons are free, but this is getting to be like work. if you want further pointers, I'm going to have to start charging you.

if I were a student, I would trust someone who wrote exacting English, not some hypocrite scumbag who doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're."

btw, nice try at playing grammar teacher, but don't quit your day-job as anonymous homework-writer. it's a good thing you don't see the grades you get these poor saps, because half of those things you pointed out aren't even errors.

lol.

it's not that pcpisces wrote some kind of inspired masterpiece, pheelyks. it's that you're the one taking umbrage and going on the attack about it. all the while, even under the paranoia about grammar and spelling which your position of judgment (and my nitpicking) should ensure, you still can't even get your relative pronouns or plurals right.

although it is clunky and over-formal, there are technically no errors in pcpisces' text. your text, on the other hand, is riddled with elementary errors. your criticism is not only unwarranted, but ultimately, it makes you look like a hypocritical, egotistical, snerty idiot. it's fine to set yourself up as an arbiter. but you must watch your own language and usage very closely. that's the price you have to pay, in order not to look like a fool.

in context of what? it's in this thread.

also like WB, you write a freaking book of backpedaling nonsense, and nothing changes. are you sure you're not a sock puppet?

the fact is, you target ESL writers and mock them, just like your racist, androgynous hero, whether their English is technically correct or not. and now, also just like WB, you're acting clueless about it, even though you did it in this very thread, when you told pcpicsces,


after they posted an articulate and literate, if over-formal, piece of advice. about what? about being transparent. you, the great, transparent sage of English spelling and grammar, avoided their message entirely, and went right for the same old prescriptivist crock... which would be fine. annoying, but fine... but for the fact that since, you've messed up contractions multiple times, which is what, third grade grammar? earlier? I learned mine on "Sesame Street." now, you're just like WB trying to rationalize his "typos."

it's not my problem that you're pissy and in denial. I just thought you might want to know the deal, for once, you sad crybaby.

I agree. and that's something you should know, pheelyks, since it hardly seems rational to slam perfectly fluent, though over-formal, non-American English on this forum, and then have such terrible and consistent spelling and grammar errors in your own posts. as you seem to be WB's squire, it's no wonder you exhibit some of the same "projection" problems. I just hope they don't overcome your ability to form your own insults.... or your sense of distinct gender identity, for that matter.

well, yeah, pheelyks, way to think positive. at least there's that.

thanks for chipping in, WRT, you spineless, know-nothing muppet. the next time I want your two cents, I'll make sure to ask WB again. while I'm rattling the cage of these sieve-brained baboons, you have the nerve to come in out of nowhere and ask me what? are you serious?

pheelyks-- yes, I call you pompous quite often, and for good reason.

I wish you'd elucidate me... unless you're talking about how I know about your employer, or that I disdain starting sentences with a capital letter, which has already been addressed above.

• 
  put the lotion in the fuckin basket!
  

creepy depersonalization, there, WB. it places the lotion in the basket, right? tell me, when you assume your womanly internet persona, do you also tuck in the mirror and dance to "Goodbye Horses?"

speaking of repeating oneself...

you can hang the plaque on your wall, WB, next to all the road-maps and defaced spycam pics of competing companies' owners. or, forget about the plaque. maybe a better prize for you would be to bronze some of stu4's garbage, and encapsulate it in one of those airtight crystal display cases. what do you say?