Essay mills like to tell their customers "don't turn in our essay; it's for research use only" in the fine print to cover their asses legally. To mistake that winking caveat for real advice, and then attempt to pass it on to students, seems obtuse.

If you're an industry veteran, and you've made any money, you've written literally thousands of papers on 1. nursing 2. business admin and 3. social sciences, likely without a degree in any of them, and likely competently enough, or you wouldn't be an industry veteran. You're an ace!

If you're a shady noob with too much free time, and you're taking pot shots at the status quo from somewhere undisclosed, then you don't know or care that much about how a legit writer operates, or you wouldn't be on the sidelines nitpicking about nonsense. You're a loser!

Looks like the emperor's new clothes to me. There's also too much legwork implied in having to fix the computer's tone and word choice. Students pay to avoid work, not to have to do more of it.

Lurk here on and off, so I know the score. I'd let them have the conspiracy theories; there's no knowing who's who here, anyway. Isn't that the way the internet was supposed to be?

Noted makes some interesting points, once you get past their obfuscated English. However, it doesn't seem like there is any distinction between an unscrupulous writer cut-and-pasting from their "secret stash" working as an independent, and one doing the exact same thing for a company. The only company QAD in this industry that I've seen has been engineered to line administration's pockets. And I have yet to see an essay company admin who can pour **** out of a boot with instructions written on the heel, when it comes to QC.

Companies that fine their writers do-- and often arbitrarily. That's a great reason to go solo. There are no "honest companies" in the academic ghostwriting industry, as these companies engage in providing criminal accessories in the first place. You can paste as many disclaimers as you want on it: that's the bottom line.

My English is fine. The warped part is that companies hide their provision of criminal accessories behind flimsy, winking caveats such as "research use only" and "not intended to be turned in for credit." Freelance writers are accessories to crimes as a baseline, however much various reactionary hypocrites want to tart that aspect of the industry up, blow it kisses on this forum, and generally act like addled idiots.

Looks like my own point, with a little pejorative sprinkled in. Is this how you normally conduct yourself?

What is this, an echo chamber? Looks like your own English could use a little work. Nonetheless, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

But claiming to lead a bandwagon regarding something that's common knowledge... aren't you thinking a little highly of yourself?

Having understood and responded to the clarion call "reactionary hypocrite," you've certainly gotten the gist. Any attempt to say otherwise is further obfuscation of your own true contributory purpose on this forum, which is apparently to be a general snob and perform hatchet-jobs. What a sad state of affairs...

You've pointed out absolutely nothing. And I doubt that a case of barking echolalia can be considered linguistic superiority by any reasonable standard.

a1writer apparently hails from a place where actors and actresses wait for their queues and read from queue cards. People stand in cues there, I guess. It's not the US or UK; wherever it is, it must be confusing.

You're right; I was ignorant of the fact that it was FW that made that mistake in the first place.


And speaking as we are of the ability to present one's case clearly in English, perhaps you can see the reason for my confusion. That is, the above statement is as clear as mud. Thankfully, I used the search function, and solved the mystery, thus ending my ignorance. Your inability to express yourself properly, however, will likely continue.

It's probably because he's disturbed by the agenda there on your sleeve, or maybe he simply views you as a lunatic. In any case, sorry to interrupt-- have fun trying to disparage a writer whose competency seems to be widely recognized on this forum.

What an odd post. You're a professional accessory to fraud! There's nothing even remotely ethical about it. Can you break down your idea of ethics to me? Please take off the rose-tinted glasses and respond as if you weren't about to throw a blanket down on the sidewalk and start selling me random items. Also, specific site and writer recommendations are against the rules of this forum, so you might want to stop calling for those. It's not going to happen.

It's hard for me to see what may be an innocent question as anything but a call for competing endorsements. Call me jaded. It seems here that the OP is going much further than recommending the search function. Some of their advice is fine; mainly, I'm looking forward to a response that defines Tutor Joan's personal definition of ethics.

If I were you, noted, I wouldn't be so eager to start a competition. Still waiting for that answer from Tutor Joan...

So you're an ethical relativist-- criminal behavior is not absolutely wrong, but rather, relative to extortion, being a professional accessory to fraud is ethical, so therefore, you are an "ethical professional." Seems shaky and arbitrary to me.

I'm not confusing being an accessory to getting the munchies with being an accessory to academic fraud. It's "precisely" a strawman.

If the power of the US dollar is indeed non-existent to you, Noted, you might make your whining ON this forum less ambiguous, and elucidate your considerable readership as to what exact currency you prefer.

Oh, and since you've apparently taken on a new role as a parrot of a1writer's ridiculous scare tactics (which tactics btw alienate the very forum-reading customers you seem to jealously crave), you might want to address FLW's question posed to the two of you. It regarded, if you forget, reality, and how the hell bobbies are going to teleport themselves over WiFi to give whatever new laws exist any actual teeth.

Personally, I'd love to hear this question addressed with some concrete details, rather than rumors and vague suggestions. I won't hold my breath for a response-- basically just wanted you two Keystone Kops to know how foolish you appear.

@a1writer: It's laughable that the strongest response you can produce is entirely based on a hypothetical "perhaps." It's also highly suspicious that you've chosen this forum for your ineffectual fear-mongering.

Again, I'd like someone to explain exactly how anything has changed in the contract cheating industry, when it comes to boots on the ground. Your response that maybe someday someone will single out FLW is so off-point as to be pathetic. Are you obsessed with FLW, as he believes? Did you actually see any of my questions? There have been laws on the books in various places about this sort of thing for dozens of years-- but no boots on the ground. Essentially, when it comes to reality, nothing has changed, has it?

@noted: The mods were correct to delete your response, as you didn't address either of my questions. At least you got the Keystone Kops reference and ran with it-- but let me assure you that I'm no sock-puppet-- not any more than you are an investigative journalist or expert enough in the English language to parse out distinct voices. I think you should probably stick to answering direct questions only if they are a decade old, and posting cursory web searches about the status of companies no one's asked about.

A forum is an informal setting anyway, but if you're going to throw stones, I'd say it should be done with pinpoint accuracy. Your approach seems scattershot. Care to give an example of my poor grammar (and that doesn't mean idiomatic expressions that you don't get)? As a grammar snoot, I'm on tenterhooks!

Btw, that injunction is just what I'm taking about-- completely toothless.

Just troll FLW, if that's what you're here for. Can the scare tactics. They make you look like a foolish schoolmarm.

If you can't write better than a bot, you should be especially worried.

In reality, telling an essay scam that you're going to sue them will likely anger them, rather than causing them to back down, leading to possible further extortion attempts and intensification. It's really dumb advice, at best. At worst, it's malicious cowardice. If noted wants to bluster at essay scams and hire lawyers, let him. You should keep your head down and wait this out.