I've asked you to explain how I'm being self-righteous. As far as I recall, I haven't made any statement about my moral standing at all. I think you're rude and obnoxious for posting stupid and disgusting stories that go nowhere, but I still don't see how disliking you makes me self-righteous.

What about my post is self-righteous? Displaying dismay at your description of bestiality on an essay writing site is somehow "preachy"?

Really? Two of my favorite areas--I feel like I'm getting paid to have fun with those (especially the latter).

That isn't what I said at all, but if you're so anxious here's one:


The word you were looking for is "clinch." Maybe this was a mix-up, maybe this was a typo, and either way it proves nothing. You spent most of this thread railing against two users claiming you are a credible alternative to their pettiness, and then instead of engaging in anything like a productive discussion you continue insulting these two users when they're long gone and making petty claims from petty evidence, like claiming I'm a nitwit based on a single error.

I don't know why pheelyks and WritersBeware were banned, but I fully understand why the moderators wouldn't want any non-members able to see your posts. It certainly wouldn't be a useful way to attract new users to the forum.

Again, you're the one posting publicly about this nonsense. Bristling when you this ridiculousness is pointed out doesn't make any sense.

Advising customers to turn into scammers is hardly the best way to raise the bar here.

You did address it. You're also the one that posted here about someone having sexual relations with your dog. I wish I were making this up, believe me.

How exactly have I proven myself a nitwit? By using one incorrect homophone? I'm sure I could find a mistake in one of your posts if I cared to look, but I have yet to see you write anything of substance so I don't really think it would be worth my time.

At least you're trying to troll someone who's still on the forum now. That makes you seem something less of a whingy adolescent.

Why come here to post this rant in the first place?

I sincerely doubt any action is going to be taken against Stdnt for calling a company a scam. Also, if the work they delivered was actually copied from a textbook, then Stdnt did get scammed.

Many of the scam sites are actually part of the same company. It is possible (though there's no way of knowing for sure, of course) that xavier only works for one company and is helping to promote all of their sites.

It's too bad that it's usually too late when students find this site.

The only person here throwing random and cryptic insults about is editor75. To me, that represents a lower standard of discussion than most of what goes on here, except for michael890's recent foray into a bestiality narrative. Though many other conversations are not of great practical value, they do tend to represent a mutually beneficial/enjoyable exchange of ideas.

Well, that was entirely necessary. Thank you for elevating your usual brand of rhetoric to engage in that bit of eloquence.

One can try to educate clients/students about the very simple ways to protect themselves, such as ensuring that whoever they're sending their money to has a verifiable identity and payment account ideally in the same country as the client/student themselves, and that is thus within the easy reach of the law.

If your money actually went to one of these countries it should have been easy for you to get it back if you used a legitimate and reputable service to send any funds, unless it took you weeks to realize you'd been hoodwinked. I really don't know what to tell you other than you need to read up on safe ways to do business before you lose more money.


We are arguing because you claimed to know the reason--you said it was "in their blood," i.e. a part of their genetically-bound proclivities.


While everyone might have a right to their own opinion, they do not have a right to their own set of facts--not if they want to be taken seriously, and not if thy want a hand in setting the agenda.

WB definitely liked to swear a lot and often appeared near the edge of lunacy, but I don't think your characterization of them is at all fair vis a vis their spelling abilities (and presumably their general intelligence, as is implied). As to your ongoing battle with entities that can't even respond, I guess I'll leave you to it, though it doesn't seem to be having any affect other than lowering the standards of discussion around here.

Yes, I do see the difference. You made much poorer choices by agreeing to do business with individuals you thought were from these countries without taking steps to verify their actual identities. It isn't that hard to make sure the money you're sending is going to the country you think you're sending it to, and that you have proper recourse to retrieve it if the services aren't rendered properly. Basically, you are providing evidence that you don't know how to conduct business and are in no position to be giving anyone else advice on how to remain safe.


Actually, what you said was:


...clearly suggesting that when Africans/their descendants have control of a society, that society becomes fraudulent, corrupt, etc. Once again, it is racist to assert that the reason these communities have problems is because black people are simply morally corrupt and/or inept.

These are almost all about phone/email scams that did originate in Nigeria and are still fairly heavily practiced there (from what little I've read on the subject), and have no bearing on the claims you're making. Many of these scams are now perpetrated by people all over the world, yet they are still known as "African" scams. Read some of your search's own top hits.


You were cheated by 83% of the writers from Africa that you chose to do business with, and by your own estimation they were working in concert with each other. I repeat, your statistical and logical reasoning are both way off.


You implied that anywhere there are people of African descent there is crime, fraud, etc. Though you did not explicitly mention skin color, the implication is the same--you are claiming that genetics makes Africans/their descendants morally bankrupt. That's racism.

My saying that Africans do not have "cheating in their blood" while acknowledging that there might be cultural reasons why certain countries are home to more scammers has as much relevance to the industry as do patrick's paranoid claims. They also have far more relevance to the industry than weird stories about bestiality, such as the one you have posted in another thread.


Many of those instances are repetitions of the exat same phrase, and none of them are "African scammer." Did you change the search term when you realized the evidence wasn't there? You also realize that none of the entries on the first several pages have anything to do with essay writing, right?

I'm not saying there aren't a lot of scammers from Africa--there are--nor am I saying that everyone in Africa that speaks English has the acumen necessary to write for students in this industry. My single point has been that it is racist to say cheating is in someone's blood just because you got cheated by 25 people from the same continent. You even said you think that these 25 people were working together somehow, making it even less likely that their character is reflective of the population as a whole.

Clearly this debate isn't going anywhere. You think that the color of someone's skin is evidence of moral failing; this is not an opinion based on any logic or empiricism and thus logic and empiricism will not make a dent in it.

I didn't get "exposed," I got "accused," and I don't think it's especially self-righteous to not denigrate an entire continent full of people based on an experience with 25 individuals.

First, can you show me some of today's "around the globe" usages of this term? Second, can you detail the chain of reasoning that connects the use of such a term (if indeed the use is as frequent as you claim) to the idea that Africans have scamming "in their blood?"


What is it about the way I write that makes me sound African? As someone who is US-born and UK-educated that has never been to Africa, I'm very curious.

Now, michael strikes me as a foreign scammer of some sort, given his odd word usage and his assertion that Kenyan writers from the "backbone" of the industry (that fierce and often unwarranted Kenyan pride is something seen fairly often here, from what I've read), but I stil wouldn't go so far as to insist I know his country of origin.

From a population of over a billion (or even just the forty-one million living in Kenya)? No, it isn't.

What are you so convinced I'm from Africa? Because I called you racist for saying "cheating was in their blood"? Or because my username has "John" in it?

By your own admission, you base your opinion on "knowing 30+ of African writers." That is a really poor sample and your conclusions are racist. Your racist paranoia now has you convinced that I am African because I have an association with the name John (a pretty common name throughout the English speaking world). It's sad, really.

That's pretty poor logic.


That's the racist part of your argument. Being especially wary of writers from Kenya because you've been scammed by Kenyans before is one thing; saying that cheating is "in their blood" is ignorant and racist. It might be more allowable in their culture, and again this might be cause for extra wariness, but there are ways to protect yourself without resorting to angry and imbecilic racism.

Students--be smart, and make your own decisions with great care. Sending money to someone in another country is always riskier, especially if there's a complicated story as to why your native UK writer has a Kenyan-verified PayPal account, but if you don't mind hiring a Kenyan writer then do so with certain precautions. Anyone you do business with should have a verified and substantiated account with whatever services they use to accept payments, and you should read the terms and conditions of those payment services and their fraud response before you proceed. This, not racism that makes you blindly trust as well as blindly hate, is the way to stay safe.

This is racism and nonsense. It is necessary for everyone to be careful dealing with anyone over the Internet, but saying that cheating is "in their blood" and that anyone with a gmail/yahoo/etc email account is bound to be a scammer is just ridiculous.

There are ways that established companies with paid-for email addresses can rip you off, and there are ways that writers from English-speaking countries can rip you off. The way to not get ripped off is to be careful with how you send money, how much you send, and in the discussions that take place before you send money. Where a writer is from or what their email address is doesn't matter at all if customers follow these simple steps.

It is obvious you have a strong dislike for these two, but why do you keep making these kind of references if they aren't even around anymore? Is there a point?

I was actually asking editor75 based on a comment he made; you slipped yours in while I was typing, it looks like! :)

So you did write the article?

Also, the section you quoted is highly relevant, as it gives a description of why ghostwriting exists and how it works, making it clear that what occurs in this industry isn't really the same thing. There is assumed (and often explicit) confidentiality and money changes hands in return for writing, but that's where the similarity ends.

I know (at least I'm pretty sure) what ET stands for, but given that no one else here is saying it I somehow don't think it wise. Maybe it's something to do with the evident bitterness in long-time posters.

While I find this forum useful, I don't think anyone here wears their membership as a badge of pride.

Do you have something to do with running the forum? Are you one of the moderators?

To whom (or what) are you referring, exactly, editor75?

Your "little more research" seems to agree that the Bible does not qualify as having been ghostwritten.

That's something of a relief. I actually went back and read most of it, and in addition to some real syntax issues the author is generally inaccurate, touching on truth but making claims with far more certainty or emphasis than the facts support. His understanding of the oral tradition of the Old Testament, the education of the apostles, and much of what he says about Shakespeare all needs adjustment.

Then I would like to restate my previous dislike of the idea.

You're welcome. Are you the author?

I'm pretty sure the reason no one says ET's full name is because you're not supposed to.

So...someone from your company mistakenly copied someone else's website without meaning to cause harm? It's outright theft, which tends to be pretty harmful (and illegal).

I am well aware of how the Bible was likely (all but certainly) written. I don't know what your background is; I have a minor in Religious Studies and while this doesn't make me an expert I've actually studied the Bible (especially the Old Testament) pretty extensively. Even though an independent blog post (that I'm guessing you wrote) equates the writing of the Bible to "ghostwriting," comparing what the scholars and priests who wrote and compiled these texts to what we do in this industry or to what actual ghostwriters do in the publishing industry is, as I said before, grossly inaccurate and misleading.

There was no person to be ghostwritten [i]for/[i] when it comes to the Bible. That is, there was no living author claiming credit for these works due to an arrangement with the actual authors. It was also not an issue of translating someone else's ideas/stories into a well-written text or narrative (which is what ghostwriters actually do). The context, the intent, and the product was entirely different. The only similarity is that those who wrote the texts did not claim authorship of those texts, and if that's your definition of "ghostwriting" then there are much older texts than the Bible that qualify as having been "ghostwritten."

Also, whoever wrote that article needs to hire an editor (or a ghostwriter). The second sentence michael quoted when he thought I got "busted" would be a good place to start.

As someone in the comments section of that article quickly pointed out, the use of "bimonthly" to mean "twice a month" has no etymological basis whatsoever and is the result of modern grammarians deciding that a frequent incorrect usage warrants a change in definition. It's like the fact that "literally" can now be defined as "Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling." It's bs arising from laziness and inaccuracy.

There are many shady companies that have kept the same names for years. When the customer pool changes on an almost constant basis, it's easy to be a scammer in this industry.


Yes....isn't that the entire point of this thread?

For a second I thought there was a serious discussion happening here...

That is such a grossly inaccurate and misleading statement I don't even know where to begin...

As for the larger idea, there are several associations for various types of freelance writing and editing. Creating one for this industry would be almost impossible and largely pointless unless huge amounts of effort were invested in SEO to make sure students knew about the association before ordering with less reputable writers/companies.

You're with UVO Corp? Isn't that the company that's trying to rip off this forum as we speak?