WritersBeware works for *********. his purpose on this forum is explicitly commercial.

I know the truth, and so do you. you can tart your lies up with trappings of empiricism all you want-- they will remain lies.

yes, I saw the thread title. I would expect that an independent, non affiliated scam-buster, like you aren't, would welcome the chance to point an entrepreneur in the right direction. but no-- the first label you come up with is, "competition."

the truth is my absolute defense. you're a liar, and you know it.

regarding my unfortunate mix-up of indefinite articles, I was moving clauses around... which actually is a typo, or a cut-and-paste-o, and not a sign of retardation, like spelling "dweller" wrong multiple times despite correction.

and as to your insane backpedal of "even if I did work for ET, I'm still a great crusader, etc." that's complete BS, which you also know. you're compromised the instant that you admit you work for, and therefore have incentive to defend, a company in the industry you set yourself up within as an objective scam-buster... which is why you won't admit you work for them.

if you were an objective scam-buster, you might have met Evorus' literate and cogent questions with some useful advice re: battling scam companies, instead of seeing him/her as an immediate threat, and attacking.

this is pretty funny, since you're the one pretending to be a woman. have you seen a shrink, btw? I think you could keep a shrink very occupied.


give it a rest, Socrates. you're a lunatic, egomaniac attack dog whose idea of a reasoned debate amounts to a elementary school recess shouting match. "debating" a rabid pea-brain like you, for a reasoned individual, is about as fun and exciting a prospect as dental surgery.

I'm not here to debate you, you fraud. I'm here to state the fact that you have a vested interest in defending your own company, *********, and disparaging its competition. you are posing as an objective scam-buster, but in reality, you are a self-serving, hypocritical disaster.

for a racist snob, you sure make a lot of elementary spelling blunders.


very ladylike. sorry, did I hit a nerve?

what a dummy. don't you know that no one trusts a liar?

you're a liar, and your position here as an objective judge of scams is fraudulent.

are you saying WB doesn't work for, and have a vested interest in, *********? that's a closed question, btw.

it seems like it would be a lot simpler and easier just to type, "no, I don't," doesn't it? ...because if people ask me, I'm going to tell them the truth-- something you appear utterly unable to do.

WB is a liar who works for *********, and sees this post, which contains legitimate questions about scams in this industry, as a threat to his business. WB lies about who he is, as well as where his interests lie.

prescriptive, as opposed to descriptive. is this ringing a bell, anyone?

academia-research.com doesn't cheat its customers... what it does is (usually) give them ****** copy, which is the status quo. with companies like this, the real shaft is reserved for the writers. I don't think half of the customers even read the research before they hand it in (or cite it in their bibliography, right? haha). the same credo works for so-called legit companies (a huge misnomer, considering the context). there are no standards of quality in this industry, because there is no accountability. writers are not held to anything but arbitrary and basic rules re: their product, and are driven into a quantity over quality equation, if they want to make any real money. calling yourself a professional writer under these circumstances is a dubious claim, at best.

anyway, pheelyks, it's okay; maybe being an internet snoot will fill the void... good luck.

I believe that alpha can probably write passable copy for this industry, and that one shouldn't put professors on a pedestal just because of their job titles. and more importantly, I agree that it's ridiculous to point out prescriptive grammar errors on message board posts.

the standards for helping people cheat on their homework are ridiculously low-- hence the proliferation and continued existence of sites like academia-research.com, who hires anyone and everyone. alpha is also correct about a lot of peer reviewed scientific studies being written by scientists, rather than writers.

pheelyks, of course, can't admit that anyone has a point but himself. it's sad, because he's a failed screenwriter who helps kids cheat on their homework for a living... not really a position of much credence or authority irl.

academia-research.com is going to rob you blind... and judging by your attitude towards people struggling with a second language, it's going to be sooner than later.

this is an open forum for customers, writers, company owners, people with passing interest, chainsaw jugglers, etc. rather than trying to narrow the purpose to writers only, please recognize the openness of the board.

pheelyks, yet again bragging about how much money he makes, and then patting himself on the back for being logical... and yet, at the same time, he seems to dream of fame and fortune with something on which his name appears. weren't you giving some newbie a hard time about this recently, pheelyks? so what do you tell the neighbors when they ask what you do for a living?

screenwriting? I said less scummy.

in any case, quond, yes, your instincts are right. it's cheating.

not to beat a dead horse, but I have the feeling that your self-satisfaction is both atypical and somewhat deluded. your use of absolutes also suggests that you haven't really tried your writing out successfully in any other, less scummy industries. you also apparently haven't considered that most of these alternative industries have vastly superior opportunities for advancement.

I think that the scummy nature of the industry is actually something that contributes to writers being systematically mistreated and underpaid. I have never changed my position on the nature of the industry in general. nor do I rail against those who critique my ideas, as long as they have something to bring to the table, other than lies and insults.

some people like to pretend that they're doing something good and useful by operating in this industry... when you start out with that kind of deluded thinking, it's a slippery slope, at the bottom of which you'll find most of the regulars of this forum.

"lair" is right.

pour vous, merde d'or.

Lache-moi la grappe.

kel merde, comme de coutoume.

don't let the door hit you on the way out.

the mod isn't going to help you, WB. try telling the truth.


they find the biased, subjective, half-crazy, and often racist assumptions of an ET propagandist.

shame on you.

well, thanks for chiming in again, pheelyks. here's fact #1-- I wasn't addressing you.

fact #2 (absolutely!)-- WB works for ET.

ergo, fact #3-- WB is a liar.

how's that logic? I don't see where your dog is in this fight, unless you're recognizing WB as your colleague, in which case, the dog would be you-- WB's lap-dog.

I don't position myself in this forum as any sort of provider of services. I was politely ignoring your point (at least you didn't accuse me of not reading it), but if you're going to call me on it, I'm going to call it what it is... moot.

very ladylike...


fact: WB works for ET. care to refute?

au contraire, mon frere.


the truth will set you free.

WB: again, I don't debate cowards who won't lay their cards on the table. if you'd care to come clean, we can have a discussion. it might be fun-- maybe you'll try to cinch another argument using urbandictionary.com; maybe you'll use wikipedia this time. in any case, it's not going to happen unless you admit what most (including your new toady pheelyks) here already know: you work for ET.


it's nothing to throw a tantrum about. aren't you proud of your job? haha.


going by your number of posts, that's totally possible. but I wouldn't want to call the average customer in this industry a very good judge of my empiricism... would you?

I'm not here to answer your "hypothetical" questions or argue with you, unless you can put your cards on the table first. you're lying about not working for ET. you're lying because you know that admitting it would seriously torpedo your credibility as an objective third-party "scam buster." what you may not know is that you're just building sand castles... your childish tantrums, ignorance of empirical research skills, and misplaced vulgarity have already destroyed your credibility.

WB-- backpedal much?

"you can't prove it... even if I were..."

I feel sorry for you. it must suck, posing as this high-moral fraud-buster, while being a total fraud and liar. and to top it off, you're terrible at it!

even if I've had some unworkable ideas, or stooped to your level on occasion, I've been nothing but myself.

listen-- there can be no "legitimate debate" when one side is withholding information, or lying about issues substantial to that debate. since you do work for ET, it does affect your substantive assertions made on this board. it gives you a vested interest in both defending ET and disparaging its competitors.

like I said, whatever floats your boat.


you're a liar. I don't debate liars.

OK, WB, you're not willing to admit your correct sex... whatever floats your boat. but as for refusing to admit that you work for ET, it's pretty important as a baseline for "legitimate debate."

pheelyks-- you could learn a lesson in brevity; many feel it's more effective than pompous, long-winded, self-centered entitlement.

right-- against a child and a brick wall. you don't win arguments, WB... you tire people out with increasingly schizoid insults, and then gloat. it's not the same as winning. and since when has the point of this forum been to argue? I'll tell you: since you took it over!


you may have given some good advice in the past, but lately you've been following in WB's antisocial, gimpy footsteps. it's good to smile at the boss, laugh at his jokes, etc. but do you really have to take it to the full-out extent?

there's no getting through to you. keep making the same mistakes, then, and repeating the same tired lines. it just shows how you're projecting your own inadequacies onto others. you're the one who ignores the points of others to promote your own selfish agenda. someone said it best in another thread: you're like an infant throwing his toys out of the crib. you're not here to help anyone.

I had some good ideas that didn't hold up to the cynicism of writers happy with the status quo (the minority of regulars here) and threatened company owners (the majority).

then, I asked for help to make my ideas better, and got a lot of condescending twaddle from you and yours, pheelyks. didn't you actually read your posts?

in any case, that's in the past. what we're talking about now is your tendency to go sophomoric, and then call the kettle black. has anyone ever taught you how to be charming?

you're just as bad as Fracture, although slightly more homo.


funny.

nice try, sweet-tits. you operate in this industry directly for ET, and have a vested interest in defending them. talk about propaganda!

it's funny that you don't say, "it's not true," WB. you just say, "you can't prove it."