when I don't know something, I ask a question. how can you beat a person down for asking questions? that's the behavior of a bully.

well, WB, as long as you're so focused on proof and evidence, if you'd care to point out where either EW or I said "all" students turn in their term-paper mill products directly, I'd love to see it.

can turnitin be beaten, or hacked? not only does it seem antithetical to this industry, but also, it seems to violate authentic students' rights to their original work. someone should bring it down.

WB, I don't have to quote it to know that it's your position-- if you can't remember, I suggest you look it up yourself. are you denying it's been your position that 7 out of 8 term paper mill clients use the papers as references? EW and I argued with you about this assumption of yours before-- did we change your mind? ...or maybe you forgot?

WB, just because this person's stance agrees with your assumption that the majority of term paper mill clients use their product for reference, doesn't make this person automatically honest. it doesn't make your assumption automatically correct, either.

WB, has it ever struck you that the same mods whose asses you're kissing put half of your posts in the garbage?

so, let me get this straight... companies submit their company names to an anonymous internet message board's unnamed and unknown moderator. and, the purpose of the forum is to get information on the names of fraudulent companies. no wonder everyone's so frustrated.

sure. let's start with some real information. for someone who ******* so much about people not reading threads, did you read this one?

I don't see any real information anywhere here. anyone have some?

if you need a prompt, my first question is: who wrote the DND list?

it's time that someone used this board for something useful.

I know; I am a member of a couple of sites where people go out of their way to help each other. it was a shock being exposed to these twisted jacks. I don't know why I still post here-- I think the reason is that I'm one of those people who slows down to gawk at car accidents.

+1

there's no communication at all? if so, this sort of poor customer service cannot be defended by blaming an understandably irate customer.

news flash: no matter how good your grammar or spelling are, you're a term paper writer. you scrape by helping kids cheat their way through school, and you get zero respect for it. so, you think you're going to get respect as a writer by correcting strangers' grammar on the internet? really? that's some chip on your shoulder.

you want respect? how about an award? this award goes to essaypit.scam's resident sub-human millionaire and grammar expert, pheelyks. kudos, pheelyks. your reward is a gilt turd with a blank plaque.

now, please stop taunting expressive handicapped people who speak more languages than you do. it's not Zandermus' fault that your parents didn't treat you the basics of being a human being.

I'm after your Lucky Charms!

"Kenya? wheer's that, now? why doan'cha go fook yerself!"

• 
  WB
  

larks and begorrah! not me sainted mum!

I think WB is Irish, if any of you want to "go there" in retaliation.

Q: what's the difference between shanty Irish and lace-curtain Irish?

A: lace-curtain Irish move the dishes before they piss in the sink.

once again, you're just digging yourself deeper-- the "I still find it hard to believe" makes this less of an absolute statement than it seems-- also, EW was talking about citing the papers in a bibliography, not handing them in as-is. I won't tell you to try charming, WB, because I know that's very difficult for you, but I will tell you to try a little harder, next time. till then, enjoy arguing with yourself.

the funny thing here, WB, is that no one said "all students use the papers to cheat," except for you. first, you put this absolute in phony quotes, as if someone besides you had stated it, and then, you went on to discount it. now that you're backpedaling from your inflated statistics, the only refuge you seem to have is your own imaginary counter-argument. essentially, neither I nor EW needs to say anything else at this point-- you are arguing with yourself.

WB: EW is correct. you can't generalize and expand a sample size of 8 papers to represent an industry in which 1000s of papers are sold daily. it's too small a data set; it leaves the door wide open for interference from extraneous variables. this is 101 level stuff.

I'd like to apologize for my "don't let the sun set on you" comment above. I was being sarcastic about the forum regulars banning Kenyan IPs. I know the internet's not the best place for sarcasm, not only because idiots tend to take everything so seriously, but also, because there's no allowance for deadpan or tonal variation. I think that this board should welcome everyone who enters with a constructive spirit, no matter where they're from.

"Kenyan-- don't let the sun set on you in this town."

get the tar and feathers!

this has to be a joke.

good luck, EW.

is that really a better idea? and who's been misled? no one has even mentioned any writing companies, just SWREG and Paypal. so, did you just come here to make trouble, too, or do you have something to say about EW's situation? in the case of the former, see the very text you just quoted. in the case of the latter, please elaborate. you seem to have a lot of information about these companies; the path to being constructive here should be fairly open to you.

I don't know why you keep assuming I haven't read the whole thread before posting. in any case, my post wasn't made to antagonize you, and shouldn't concern you this much. admittedly, it's an assumption; it certainly isn't (logically or rationally, anyway), any sort of invitation to disparage me as a human being.

it's disappointing that you've gone this overboard, and more disappointing that this forum doesn't have an "ignore" function. I'd therefore like to ask you, if possible, and since my posts seem to incense you so, to simply ignore them. this will, I believe, increase your own happiness as well as mine, since I will, in return, do you the same favor. thanks for the attention, and good luck with your projects.

like I said, pheelyks, no one's stopping you.

good luck, EW (to whom my initial response was addressed), but I think you're being played-- be careful.

the reason I use phrases like "I think," and "it seems," is that I don't know. the only people who do know are the people who are delaying EW's payments. just because a company pays out some, and then stops, does that automatically mean that they will pay out eventually? how is that logical? this scenario stinks, so I thought I'd say so. if you have a bunch of patronizing crap to say about that, no one's stopping you. I wonder why, though. are you that unhappy?

I do think. I think that this company is stringing EW along. it concerns me, so I post. what do you think?

I don't think this is a problem with the payment processors-- I think it's a problem with the company using them. jmho...

they keep resurfacing, and you keep bludgeoning them. skippy here has some new ideas and an outsider's perspective, too... you've given him a similar welcome to the one you gave me.

that said, I don't know why I'm even addressing you. whether you drink alone or not is none of my business. sorry for having rattled your cage.

WB-- being angry is bad for your health. relax! have a drink.

skippy-- I bet that a company that offered its writers more perks than competitors would probably drain a lot of talent from them... and it wouldn't be difficult. of course, word would have to get around somehow.

I think that WB drinks.

must be another Bolshevik Indian tax lawyer... better double check your washroom.

sure, that's why phabulous here is thinking long and hard about my pants, working up a movie treatment in his head starring me, and talking about welts on my ass. maybe it wasn't gayscam.org...

skippy-- you're right. what this industry needs is a fresh perspective. it's run by a couple of squabbling scumbags who get absolutely no respect from the reputable side of either academia or publishing... most of them are also as dumb as rocks.

does anyone want to address skippy's latest question, or are we going to start snapping towels?

Pheelyks-- it's interesting that you say, "it's on," in response to a comment that wasn't addressed to you. I'm sure that smirk can and will speak for their own confusion.

also, when I say, "try acting like an adult," I do mean it. that means you need to tone down your interest level in my pants... and stop calling me "Eddie."

smirk (what a charming name!):

Student A: "X company was great; I got an A."

Student B: "what company??"

is not

Student A: "X company was first on Google, and they have a Twitface page; I rolled the dice on them."

Student B: "You did?"

that's fine if you think I'm a half-wit... fair enough. but if you're going to "go there," be prepared to know and demonstrate the difference between word-of-mouth advertising and web presence.

I'm sorry you get so sophomoric when you're being defensive. it's really boring. speaking of what the internet does to people, why don't you try acting like you're an adult?

if I'm looking on objectively, with my head held up high, then of course, I'm able to see which head is buried in the sand, and which isn't.

if you're going to nit-pick like this, at least get it right. while you're at it, get a grip.

funny-- this pride is coming during a fall.

extreme assets, lol. and what do you say when your writers ask for a raise, or more perks? you admit you're broke.

the truth is, the "top dogs" have been turned upside down by global competition, and are in fact bleeding customers, falling by the wayside, staying in the same place, acting as shills on message boards, etc.

you're going to face a lot of paranoia on this board, and see a lot of heads in the sand. if you do start your own company, I suggest you think of two major factors that will separate you from the new "top dogs," who are arguably worse than the old ones.

1. treat your writers with respect.

2. concentrate on building word-of-mouth advertising.