So are you saying that if I suddenly went up to your mom and told her the statement above, she'd laugh and give me a pat on the back?


Was this a joke as well?

Err... With a defender like this, who needs attackers? :p

Translation: I got absolutely no defense against your perfectly reasonable argument, so I will just keep on rambling about "propaganda" and "misquoting" to get people to believe that somehow, your argument shouldn't matter.

I think that everyone's used to this WBull by now. ^___^

No response, huh? An argument that totally disproves your idea that emails cannot be part of official communication between one individual and a government agency and in both the times that I brought it up, you're completely dumbfounded. ^___^

Then you were intentionally wrong. You chose to highlight a part of my sentence that had little to do with my message and my argument. So now you have two options, either your understanding of the English language is flawed or your mind is prone to fallacious argumentation (in this case, a red herring). My bet is on both.

Also, I already explained why I mentioned email as my example, and my explanation clearly showed that the example is not as preposterous as you were desperately trying to get people to think. This explanation has been left unanswered. You chose to ignore it (like you always do when you get cornered) and simply pretended to have won the argument. Good luck with that.

$2000 for 4 projects that won't take me over 2 weeks to finish alongside my other projects? Ok, if you say so. ^____^


Embarrassed much?


Not according to WB:


^_____^

I think that people here have a right to know who they ought not to trust. Do you fault me on that?

Sorry, your "proof" is nothing more than just another lame excuse. If we look back in the thread your initial reaction to my challenge was:


and then later on you said...


Which is wrong. I did not ask you to provide emails. I asked you to provide evidence, say emails. Your focus on the hypothetical instead of the actual shows your skewed understanding. Any English teacher can explain the difference in meaning of those two statements to you.

I already did. For example:


No you didn't. Your reaction to my criticism in this thread was:


Does that count as proof in your world? :p

1.) They were not cowardly. I made them openly and directly.
2.) They were not baseless. I have sufficient evidence to prove your failure to understand plain English.
3.) They were not just about "understanding." For example, in the case cited in this thread, I specifically stated that you misplaced a portion of your statement.

4.) You denounced them, but you clearly were not able to disprove them.

No, but I know you are for attempting to goad other people into fighting your battles.


I actually did reference what I believe are your global errors, which are different from the errors that rusty claimed. So again, you lose. :p

No, I'm taking no position because it matters not to me. I gain nothing from proving or disproving that rusty is a liar. What you're trying to do is to get me to defend you from rusty's accusations of your global errors. Sorry, that's not going to happen. Please don't ask me to fight your battles for you. It's sickening. >.<

Errr... your (as you assert) is misplaced. >.< More proof of what I (not rusty) think are your "global errors." :p

Sorry, now you want me to prove that rusty is not a liar? I never claimed that he wasn't and I am not claiming that he is. I have no interest in doing so and have never expressed any. What I did claim was that I do not think he is clueless or stupid. Tsk tsk.... reaching much? :p


Haha!! Riiiiight.. I already made my choices several posts ago. You can continue to stall all you want. It just makes you look that much sillier. :p

Err... what does anyone being a liar have to do with any of this? I already gave my answer and it was quite specific:


Now you on the other hand, have yet to answer any of my challenges which are:

1.) Show any evidence that you were involved in the SEC-Uniwork affair.
2.) Claim that MeoKhan's writing isn't flawed.

^__^

err.. yes, you can check the thread if you want to. ^_^

Here's other stuff you'd find there:





^___^

Awww.. and yet your first retort when I bought up my challenge was:


When that clearly wouldn't fly, you thought that perhaps you expand the rules you made to include "challenges" on other threads (which by the way, I already answered by saying that I never sided with rusty on his allegation of your specific global errors).

Sigh.. childish, desperate and well.... so WB. ^__________^

Hahaha... what happened to:


^___^

Make up your mind on what excuse you want to use, dimwit. ^___^

Not at all. I'm just going by the rules you set. I issued the first challenge. Answer that, and I'll gladly answer yours. :p

Funny thing, when I use the "i issued the challenge first," you call me scared, but you don't seem to have any trouble utilizing it as your first (yet ultimately futile) line of defense.

Tsk tsk... WritersBeware old, old tactic.

1.) Make up the rules
2.) Change the rules when they don't suit you
3.) Throw random insults when cornered/humiliated

^____^

Like I said:


Hilarious. ^_^

What was that you said about challenges? :p Oh wait.. do you want to change your rules again? Hahaha!!!

I dare you to say that Meo-Meo's writing isn't flawed. ^___^

HAHAHA!!!!

Already did.

You simply didn't want to read my answer because you knew that you had absolutely no answer to my challenge. ^__^

This just goes to show my point that:


WritersBeware is a nobody desperately pretending to be a somebody. He keeps on making it seem like he had something to do with the SEC-Uniwork affair so that people would think he matters. He doesn't have a SHRED of evidence to prove his involvement and he knows it, so he resorts to these childish tactics to stall. :p Cute, but ultimately futile. ^____^

That's fine (although somewhat weird because you placed the comment after responding to the Dr. Johnson jab).

Don't blame poor Meo-Meo. He has a lot on his mind:




^___________^

Haha...


You wish.

Your "challenge":


My answer:


Like I said, you got ABSOLUTELY nothing to show of your phantom involvement in the matter so you will just keep on posting senseless retorts. Let me save you the trouble.

For the record, here's a summary of what people can get from reading this thread:

1.) Some of the best writers in this industry are also adept in statistical analysis.
2.) MeoKhan is an inferior writer.
3.) WritersBeware is a nobody desperately pretending to be a somebody. He keeps on making it seem like he had something to do with the SEC-Uniwork affair so that people would think he matters. He doesn't have a SHRED of evidence to prove his involvement and he knows it, so he resorts to these childish tactics to stall. :p Cute, but ultimately futile. ^____^

There's nothing critical about you except your critical lack of substance.



That has nothing to do with you not being able to give any evidence at all of your involvement in the SEC-Uniwork affair. Even if we assume that I am "in no position," you know that the moment you post your "evidence" here, EVERYBODY will laugh at you for it. :p I don't even need to do anything.

Look, we know where this is going. You got ABSOLUTELY nothing to show of your phantom involvement in the matter so you will just keep on posting senseless retorts. Let me save you the trouble.

Here's a summary of what people can get from reading this thread:

1.) Some of the best writers in this industry are also adept in statistical analysis.
2.) MeoKhan is an inferior writer.
3.) WritersBeware is a nobody desperately pretending to be a somebody.

Have a nice day. ^________^

Wow... more display of ignorance in the proper use of the English language. Know what? I think rusty is right about you having global errors. You fail to recognize the hypothetical from and the actual no matter how many times it gets shoved to your face. I asked you to provide any evidence that may prove your involvement in the entire SEC-Uniwork affair. I did not specifically ask for an email, although I did say that you can present such if they existed. Oh, and the mere fact that you continue to argue over this shows how much you are desperately trying to deviate from the topic:

How many times have you used this sorry excuse for an excuse? Hahaha!!!! You're such a pathetic little shill.

You challenged me to "defend" rusty for saying that you have global errors? I'm not gonna read through hundreds of threads to know whether you use "peak" instead of "peek" most of the time. That matters not to me. I think it's as petty as you chastising rusty over "speak" instead of "read." I think I've made that point pretty clear already.

Now... let's go back to YOU. :p

You imply (though cleverly not claim) that you had something to do with the SEC decision versus Uniwork when in fact you did not. Uniwork was most likely attacked by the writers that it cheated. You had NOTHING to do with it. You would like people to think that you did so that it would somehow make them fear you, and cover up your inability to make good on years-long threats that you've made.


Wow.. this makes me wonder why you call yourself a master of the English language. I said:


I think that ANYONE here would say that I was not asking you to provide emails specifically, but any proof such as emails. Also, your tendency to dwell on trivial matters in a pathetic attempt to hide your obvious failure is hilarious. ^___^

^______^ (nice try making it seem that this petty squabble matters though)


Awww.... now comes the classi WB "let's forget about it" s-i*.

I challenged you to give proof that you had even a pinky to do with the SEC decision. You call your being UNABLE to provide any such proof "winning" the debate? WOW. ^_______^

What was that a few posts ago about not being petty? :p


Blah blah blah... all I'm reading (or hearing :p) is "Uhhh.. proof? I can't provide you proof... but I was involved, I WASSSSS!!! YOUSE ALL'S GOTS TO BELIEVE ME. I'M A SOMEBODY, DARN IT!!!"

ROFLMAO!!!! Keep on dreaming, WB. I was asking for some proof that you were involved, not necessarily an email. You can't even bring yourself to claim that you called the SEC or something. ^___^ The fact is, you have NO PROOF that you had anything to do with the SEC's decision, yet you go prancing about making it seem like you did.

Such a sad little man (pretending to be a big fat woman). :p Whatever you're getting paid is too much. ^___^

*teardrop* :p

Geez... this act is getting REALLY old. The name of the game is selling essays to students. It's a shady "profession" no matter how you look at it, but we do it nonetheless because it pays well and we're very good at it. You ARE NOT a champion for "essay mill honesty" (which is an oxymoron).


If you're referring to the losers who come to this forum to sell their ****, the competent writers who post in this board make short work of them with or without you. But hey, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself.

SHOW PROOF that you were directly responsible for the SEC's decision about Uniwork in this link that you've been touting about:

sec.gov.ph/decision/mar%202011/case%20no.%2006-10-119.pdf

I know that the decision doesn't really affect EW in any significant way, but nonetheless, let's see if you can really claim the rights to this "victory." If you did directly cause or contribute significantly to the decision, then show us proof. Say, emails that you sent to the SEC and their responses, so that we can email the SEC ourselves and verify your involvement.

Otherwise, shut up.

Now that's the direct answer I was looking for. It's great that it only took a post to get it out of you this time. ^_^


In which of my statements did I even imply that? I said that...


Not reading the URL that one posts is careless, even stupid in some cases, sure, but I can't say that I read the entire length of every URL that I post, do you? So it's just not that silly to me. Now, thinking that you can do any harm to any competent writer in this forum, that's what's really hilarious. :p

Oh, I also think that all this talk about what makes the entire episode silly is silly. So... I'm going to go now. >.<

Again, I have no interest in reading through the threads to determine if anything was "comedic." However, if you're asking me what's sillier between rusty thinking you could hack or rusty not knowing that his link would contain his username, I'd have to choose the former. Yes, thinking that you could actually hack the writer's account of anyone here, or that you pose a threat to any competent writer is silly. The fact that he had thought so was stupid and funny.

You know what I think this is about? You're not willing to take rusty's admission of his overestimation of your abilities because that makes you admit to a weakness. I asked you if you're actually claiming to have any hacking abilities and you can't even give me a straight answer. You actually want people here to think that you have some ability to get them in trouble with their employers, and part of that is knowing what their usernames are. :p

I can, but as I recall, the last time this issue was brought up you insisted that your evidence proved that only a small fraction of students who bought papers cheated. If you agree now that most of them do (or if my recollection is wrong), then that debate is done.


Even he agreed that he was stupid to think that you hacked his account. I fail to see the need for you to claim that you weren't referring to his overestimation of your abilities. What does it matter where the stupidity came from? Why are you uncomfortable with rusty questioning your hacking abilities? Are you claiming that you actually have any?

Not at all. You said I was an ESL writer once and identified errors in my posts that were similar to what Rusty's identifying in your posts now.


This may have actually have stuck, if you weren't so eager to explain yourself to itsme even after he spilled his guts...

Was I even involved in these discussions? You seem to take me for someone who watches over this forum constantly. I don't, and I won't pore through the threads containing the matters you wrote about to know who's right and who's wrong in them. Not that it matters, anyway. I never claimed that Rusty's infallible. I agree with him when our positions are the same and in the case that I quoted in my previous post, I think they are.


Yes, which all of us (including Rusty, if I'm not mistaken) have conceded to. I myself have admitted (multiple times, I think) that the argument "all students who buy papers cheat" is indefensible because there must be some moron out there who actually cited the essay mill he bought his paper from in his reference list. That's a non-issue. I already said that I was in error in claiming so and that the claim should have been "most" instead of "all." I still think that you are clueless if ...


Now, do you or don't you?

1.) I don't think that rusty is clueless. I did think that editor75's old talk about writers becoming regular employees was silly (and I openly expressed my thoughts in the threads where those were discussed), but knowing now that they came from rusty, I know to take it as seriously as his old plan of using bulldozers to decimate EW's office.

2.) I don't disregard a person's crazy just because he sides with me or licks my boots. That's you. Please, just take the olanzapine. It's good for you. :p


Writers don't care as long as they have enough orders to fill their plates (and we do since the market is so large). Company owners now... :p


Hahaha!!!! Let's see... um... me? :p


Selective quoting? Have you read the entire email?

well done in trolling WritersBeware on that essayscam forum over the course of 4 years.

not only are you a more agreeable person than WB by far but also a much better writer and clearly better at debating too.

I cannot tell which of you is actually right at this point (I haven't been following it all but you actually seem to agree with each other on a couple points and have turned this into more of a personal trollfest) but your ability to monopolise the entire conversation where WB is concerned is impressive, considering that no matter how many times he/she/it refers to your tactics as immature and stupid etc they still feel the need, or perhaps some bizarre compulsion, to respond to you every time. O.o

to do such a thing to you in particular but for the fact that 'oh noes you annoyed WB boo hoo somebody call the waaaahmbulance!' which just goes to show exactly how petty and immature WB really is when push comes to shove.

why won't WB reveal itself once and for all? LOL).

You bought itsme's **** because you thought he was on your side. You'd buy anyone's **** so long as they bought yours too.


See, I agree with this statement. Why? Because it is reasonable to think that people who buy model essays for at least $20/page don't go through the trouble of rewriting the entire thing themselves and (HAHA!!!) citing the source of the purchased material as part their references. I think that a person who believes that is dumb and most likely, so would the authors of these studies:

Bartlett, T. (2009). Cheating Goes Global as Essay Mills Multiply. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(28):A1.

Selwyn, N. (2008). "Not Necessarily a Bad Thing ...": A Study of Online Plagiarism amongst Undergraduate Students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5): 465-479.

Whiteman, S., and Gordon, J. (2001). The Price of an "A": An Educator's Responsibility to Academic Honesty. English Journal, 91(2): 25-30.

I guess you're right. ^_^


Not all, there's what's his face for example.. another bootlicker of yours...

More importantly though, how many writers do you think work in this industry? How many of those writers post here or even read this forum? How many of the accounts posting here whose owners boldly claim to be Kenyan or Indian actually were created by semiliterate numbskulls from those countries and how many were created by people from other companies aiming to discredit ESL writers? Bottom line is, this forum is not a legitimate source of evidence for the argument, especially since some of those who frequent this forum have the tendency to call every loon who comes around to peddle his crap ESL.


Did I attack you in this thread? As I recall, you asked for my opinion and I gave it. You weren't happy with what I had to say, so you began attacking me. You also attacked me first in that other thread where I displayed part of the email of the schmuck who was trying to impersonate me. Was it necessary for you to attack me there when I was just showing what itsme wrote to expose him for the two-faced piece of s-i* that he is?

Really? Why not? Are you honestly claiming that all native writers naturally have a flair for the language? I think not. I've had classmates in a creative writing elective who fancied themselves as writers but consistently committed numerous errors and made horrible word choices. Like Meo, they also would never develop a flair for the English language.


O.O What's the difference. Oh wait,

1.) My sentence is less boring.
2.) My sentence intended to take a jab at Meo by using "flair" and "flare" correctly.

You see fire where there isn't even smoke. :p Have you been skipping your olanzapine again? ^___^


On this much, we can definitely agree. ^_________________^ Right, Meo-Meo? HAHAHA!

Wow... you're inability to understand the meaning of a sentence baffles me. >.<


It may be true that Meo did say he was an ESL writer and that he did admit that this made his writing inferior, but I did not say those things of him. I was simply repeated what he thought of himself.

Let me simplify it for you:

I think that Meo is a crappy writer.

You claim that it is because English is his second language.

Does Meo think that it is because English is his second language? Based on what he said before, I think so.

Do I think that it is because English is his second language? No.

You failed again. Why am I not surprised? :P

Desperation. :P