And yet you kept telling me I was wrong even though I just continued to say the same thing.

Anyway, anyone can clearly see I was correct in saying the posts were deleted from the original thread in which they appeared. They were removed from or made unable to be viewed in the original thread, i.e. they were deleted from the original thread. That is all I was ever arguing for, and if you were trying to make an unrelated point the whole time, then you are the one who was arguing for no reason. If you accept that I am correct about this, then you shouldn't have objected to my stating it. It seems perhaps we were each making points the other actually agrees with, but you were the one who objected to what I said for some reason. I think perhaps you were focusing more on what you thought I was trying to imply about the mods intentions in moving/deleting the posts and that you felt that what you thought I was implying was shown false by the fact that the debate, in whatever form, was readable in another thread. However, that is a distinct issue from the actual truth of the claim in question itself. Also, that I thought there was something strange or irrational about the posts being removed did not change when I found out they had been moved or copied to another thread. That action seems equally strange and irrational.

The only reason I can think of for the change was that the discussion was irrelevant to the topic of the thread, but some of the posts were moved into another thread in which they were equally irrelevant to the topic. And why put some in one thread that already exists and put the others into a brand new thread? Why not at least put them in the same thread?


Actually, WritersBeware is the one who brought it up again. I mentioned the debate as an example of something, but WritersBeware is the one who started arguing the issue again. This has no bearing on anything else you said, but I thought we should get the facts straight.

It was relevant to talk about them at the level at which I applied them, because that was the level referred to in my statement, and my statement is what was in question.


I said they were deleted, you said they weren't deleted because they were moved to another thread. I replied that I was still correct because they had still been deleted from the original thread. You then objected that this was false, that they had not been deleted from the original thread. Let's look at this a new way. You keep emphasizing that we should focus on the sense of "delete" that means specifically "make unable to be seen." What's in question is whether the posts were deleted from the original thread. The posts have been made unable to be seen in the original thread. See, if I wanted, I could even grant that my original claim that that they had been deleted simpliciter was false, but that wouldn't change the fact that my clarified statement that they had been deleted from the original thread is true, which is what we argued about after the statement was made.


If what you're getting at here is that you've been talking about the meaning of the posts all along, then save it. That's clearly not what we were debating about, and when you finally put it in those terms and tried to say it was what you meant all along (and you accuse me of backpedaling), I pointed out that it was irrelevant because it wasn't what I was talking about at any point and it's not even something I would disagree with because meaning isn't even the sort of thing that can be deleted. You say it is pointless to argue with me, but I'm the only one who has given real arguments here. You simply make new claims when backed into a corner. You ignore my points, respond with either a completely new stance or a repetition of points I've shown to be irrelevant, and then accuse me of not reading your posts. You change your story in the middle of the argument and then accuse me of doing so, when I actually kept defending one point of view throughout.

Guess I was trying to communicate in a way you are accustomed to doing yourself so that you could understand. Once again, you are a hypocrite.


How is that a response to me saying that I've explained why I don't wish to post the link? The response to this would to point out once again that my explanation has already been stated, and that explanation gives no reason to think I have anything to hide.


Wrong, the original post was NEVER moved; it was deleted. You can spin until you are blue in the face, but everyone can see that you are acting like a childish moron.

I actually bothered to trace the course of our argument in the last couple of posts I made in the thread in which we were debating this. You never responded. My statements there suffice as a response to what you say here.


The thread in which the posts occur is a relevant factor in what we were discussing. This factor does not come into play in the digital information itself if it is the same piece of information used to put copy a post in one thread and put the copy into another thread.

Actually, you are applying the type/token distinction on levels at which we have not discussed so far. Yes, the distinction can apply at those levels, but that fact is somewhat irrelevant here which is why we haven't discussed things on that level so far. You briefly mentioned it once, but I pointed out that I was not talking about things on that level. We need only talk about the distinction insofar as it applies to duplicate posts in distinct threads. If you feel it is relevant to bring in the distinction on those other levels, then by all means feel free to explain how.


No, what I meant was that the posts in which the debate took place had been deleted. Once I found out that they had been "moved" to another thread, I realized that not only had they been deleted, but had also been copied into another thread. Suppose they went back to the original thread and did the equivalent of clicking "undo" relative to the delete function. Then either the originals would come back or new copies would show up. If they the originals, then the originals cannot also be in another thread. If they are copies, then how could it be that the ones in the other thread are not also copies? So,as for your question above, regarding whether by my original statement I meant the second statement, I only meant the part about them being deleted when I said they were deleted, and I did not say or imply that it was the digital information itself which was actually deleted. As I've pointed out numerous times and you keep failing to understand or acknowledge, the same piece of digital information could give rise to both instances of a post, so it is not the actual piece of digital information that is in question here. Collect your thoughts, review what's been said, and come up with something better if you can.

Ha, I responded to your points way more than your responded to mine. You ignored most of what I said and missed the point most of the time when you did respond. Meanwhile I continued to show how each response you gave was flawed. Once again, you are trying to distort the facts because the truth isn't actually on your side.


Idiot, this is providing an example! I'm referring, once again, to our debate when I first got here in which you claimed certain things were against the rules and I showed that if you actually read the rules you will see otherwise.


I have no doubt that it seems that way to those who cannot comprehend.


Once again, this is not about my following the rules. It is about you being a hypocrite. If the rules really are as you say, then whether or not some random member asks me to do something that's breaking the rules shouldn't matter, even if that random member is you. I've explained why I will not post a link. Stop obsessing over it.


Just to make things clear, WritersBeware thinks that making a copy of something and destroying the original means that the original is still readable. She thinks that if I'm reading a novel and you're reading another copy of that same novel and I throw yours in the fire and continue reading mine, that yours is still readable because the same meaning is found in mine. Clearly though your book is not readable and you'd be pissed that I'd burned your book. Even if I gave you my copy as a replacement, it's still not the same book. Your experience of each copy would be about the same, so you might not care after all. But suppose your original copy had some sentimental value attached. Then you would definitely pay attention to the difference between the very same copy and another copy of the same novel. WritersBeware makes no sense here, as usual.


I was referring to visitors of this site in general. By the way, there could be many visitors who are not members. You and others here sometimes make the mistake of thinking that because someone has recently registered as a member here that the person is new here. I can't say for sure what is the case for others, but I know I visited this site for a while and read many posts before ever signing up as a member.

Like I said, I have no interest in posting a link to my site here. I don't want it involved in the sort of dishonesty, nonsense, and unwarranted attacking that go on here.


No, I mean the debate in which I backed up my claim that the posts were deleted. Your inability to understand "move" as anything but literal is childlike. Anyway, the debate is there for everyone to see, and my last comments there still have no response.


I see no need to prove it, given that I see it as common knowledge to regular visitors of this site, as well as obvious to any newcomer. You cry "prove it" in response to so many things in which that response really doesn't make sense. Do you prove every single statement you make?


Everytime you or anyone else challenges me, I respond with arguments to back up my claim. You, however, do no such thing. If I have refused to admit that I wrongly jumped to conclusions, it's only because I didn't wrongly jump to conclusions and thus have nothing to admit. You assume I'm wrong and criticize me for not agreeing that I am wrong. That's just nonsense. By the way, I find it amusing how you consider every rational argument a case of dancing around semantics. Just because you can't understand the concepts involved in a discussion doesn't mean that it's all a matter of semantics.


You understand very little, I see. I do not care whether you would criticize me for posting it. My point is that if I'd done it without you asking, you would have said it was breaking the rules. It seems quite hypocritical for you to be so adamant about nobody doing what you see as rule breaking here, and then tell me to do something that falls into that category.


Fool, get the context right:


When you say X counts as breaking the rules but X does not really count as breaking the rules, then you have said something false. Why can't you understand the simplest things? Or perhaps the better question is, why haven't you figured out that when you intentionally misinterpret what I say and respond to the misinterpretation, I will call you out on your straw man attacks?

So I'm cowardly because I don't want a "review" of my website from you? I have no reason to think the opinion you would give would be honest or of any value.

Among the posts that I've read, I've seen you act like a child and display a low level of intelligence. I've seen enough to have no interest in the rest. I've seen you try to state facts about things you clearly don't understand, such as in when you tried to insert yourself into a debate I was having with pheelyks (and then told me to mind my own business when I posted in response to an argument you were having with someone else, hypocrite).


Why doesn't one provide evidence when when one warns another that smoking cigarettes is unhealthy? Within the context of this forum, your nonsense is common knowledge.

Unless you are a mod, you have no authority to give "a free pass" concerning the rules. Of course, some of what you say counts as breaking the rules does not, as I've argued elsewhere. By the way, that's an example of the fact that not everything you say is true. You are a hypocrite to argue that we must all follow your interpretation of the rules and then offer "a free pass." Once again, you're just posting nonsense.

writersbeware@f

Your request seems hypocritical given that if I'd posted a link to my website you would have accused me of breaking the rules here by advertising.

Regardless, I don't see how you're qualified to review anything. I do see that you reason poorly, constantly post nonsense, and say things that aren't true, so I have no interest in your opinion about anything.

I have a website through which my customers place their orders. I've had some find me through this site too, but the majority have ordered through my website.

My advice is to request payment up front from private clients and do not begin writing until you've been paid. It works for me and keeps me from having to waste time writing for customers who don't pay. Technically, all of my customers are private clients since I've never gone through a company, so this is a handy principle to follow.

Correction: I have taken one order through a company but found it to be a waste of time. That's not to say that working through any of the companies would be a waste of time, but just that this particular one didn't seem like a useful resource for a writer wanting more than a few bucks per page.

It's at least as rude as my question about you that you referred to when saying I attacked you. Mine was no worse than yours, especially considering that yours came first and was unprovoked. You seem to think that typing "LMAO" makes your lies come true.


Actually, as has been made clear in at least one previous post, this is not a matter of the digital information being deleted. I have never said that, and made clear that I do not know whether the digital information would have been copied, i.e. whether having two tokens of the same type would involve them both being based in the same digital information or whether it would involve each being based in separate information (in which case the two instances of the information could also said to be two tokens of the same type). Even if it is just one instance of digitally stored information, it seems this piece of information could be the ground for two qualitatively identical posts. So once again, you haven't understood what I've been saying and have overlooked statements that clearly contradict your assessment of my argument. Whether the piece of stored information was one or two, the duplicate posts are two, not one. Surely even you can understand that distinction.

First, you have no business making assumptions about rational people. Second, making my "original comment" was not "making ontological and metaphysical arguments" and I never said so. Making an assertion is quite different from making an argument. You said the statement was false, so I argued that it was true. As with any other statement, arguing that it is true involves establishing truth conditions as well as showing that those conditions obtained in the situation in question. That is exactly what I was doing. That a statement's being true implies certain things about the world is just what it is for a statement to say something about the world.

You obviously have no response to my last post or the majority of my post before that. The best you can do is try to misconstrue what I've been doing and point out flaws in the misconstrued version. As with your continued whining that it's just semantics, I'm not surprised to see you committing the straw man fallacy over and over, as that is another common strategy of the pseudointellectual.

Well, you did say the following:


You do shift your focus to the user experience at this point. First, this was irrelevant to the point we'd been arguing up until then. Second, you continued to discuss whether "delete" applied in this case. So, you started your shift to an irrelevant new point while continuing to argue against my claim that the posts had been deleted.

And while you contend that you stopped arguing against my claim, you later said the following:


I grant that you shift the focus to the words rather than the entire posts. I shifted right along with you though and responded about the words, arguing that, as part of the tokens of the posts which were deleted, the tokens of the words were deleted as well. What you say was your "entire argument" had not been mentioned until your previous post.

So then we get to page 2. Fun stuff!


You now reassert that your focus is on the practical aspects of experience. You claim the posts remained visible at all times, which of course contradicts my claim that they were deleted. You do not specify here that you are referring to the meaning of the posts, which is not in the category of deletable things anyway. By the way, I didn't address this before, but when you say, "spouting crap about tokens and whether or not the posts are the same posts now or different because they were moved," it really makes it seem like you didn't understand anything I said before that. If they were literally moved then yes, they were the same posts. The debate was never about whether literally moving the posts would change them to new posts, but rather about whether the sense of "move" in question is literal or if instead the originals were actually deleted.

The rest begins around where we started arguing about whether we arguing about the same thing. So I said they were deleted and you said they weren't. You basically said that even if they were deleted, the words weren't deleted and that the experience was the same. I had already acknowledged that the experience was the same, so I just argued against your mistaken assertion that the words had not been deleted. You finally said that even if the words were deleted, the meaning wasn't. I agreed and pointed out that I had never said and would never say that the meaning had been deleted, as that would be impossible. Your claims about the meaning have nothing to do with my original statement, so why were you arguing with me about the "deleting" matter in the first place? You told me I was arguing with myself. I gave a thorough response that discussed the course of the argument, and you either didn't bother to read it or you read it and had no response. I've provided a more detailed summary here, but it includes more of your own words than the last so maybe you'll bother to look at it.


If you have a response, post it. Otherwise, concede defeat instead of asking me to re-post as a way to avoid coming up with something yourself.

I don't know anything about EW_writer, but he or she did post a link to the relevant thread that shows you were rude first. You just linked to the same thread that you linked to last time. However if you bother to look at when the posts were made, you'll see that yours came before mine. You clearly attacked first. It's funny how you lie and call those who disagree liars as though you really think it will change the truth.

You two keep telling me it's all a matter of semantics. There was a semantic element indeed, as I have granted. Sorting things out involved thinking about whether situations were better described with the word "move" or the word "delete." However, this is really no more of a semantic debate than all other debates that involve words, which are all other debates at all. It's a common strategy for the pseudointellectual, so I'm not really surprised by this behavior. You can't keep up with a true intellectual. I am what you little b*thces want and pretend to be. Try posting something that is well-reasoned and that doesn't contain lies.

If we haven't been arguing with each other, but we've both been arguing, then while it may follow that my argument was in some sense against myself, it would then also follow that your argument was against yourself in the same sense.

You are probably right about me being the only one who thinks I'm winning, and you are probably the only one who thinks you are winning. Perhaps WritersBeware thinks that too, but she has also argued for things that don't fit with what you're saying. It follows that if she thinks you are right then she thinks you are both right and wrong.

It's funny that you say I am arguing with myself, when you were the one who started the disagreement. What has actually happened is that I have continued to defend that claim of mine which you said was false, and you have continued to defend the view that it is false. At some point you started saying that what I was saying was actually a separate point from what you were saying. But if that is the case, then why disagree with me in the first place? You switch stances when you realize you can no longer support your current stance because the arguments against it are better than any you can come up with in its favor. You realized my reasoning held up and that what I was saying was true, so you switched from saying it was false to saying that even if it were true, it would not change the truth of what you were saying. Of course, what you were saying is that my claim was false. It is not possible for my statement to be true and your statement that it is false to also be true. If I say X and you reply with ~X, it makes no sense for you to later say that even if X is true it does not affect whether ~X is true. This is because contradictions cannot be true and so it cannot be the case that both X and ~X are true statements. So the disagreement remained, with me claiming X and you claiming ~X. Yet you try to say that you're actually saying something different, Y, and that whether or not X is true has nothing to do with Y, and that Y is all you were ever saying. However, that's simply not what happened. In summary, I said X, you said ~X, I kept saying X, and eventually you said Y. It turned out that Y was also false, but when I responded with ~Y, you could not tell the difference between ~Y and X, insisting that I was still just saying X.

I've seen other threads in which you have had some conflict with someone. I know that most of the responses you get are incoherent and that you're not accustomed to someone who doesn't have inferior reasoning skills. I know you are usually on the winning end of arguments, whether your stance is right or wrong. Just be a man and admit you lost this one. You show the potential to reach my level at some point. A little time and perhaps some more education might do the trick. Now make your little jokes since you can't make a decent counterargument.

Laugh away, but you're still wrong. I would say that there is a semantic factor here, in that at this point the main issue with the points you raise is whether "move" as it applies to situations in which one moves something with the move function is the same as "move" in the literal sense. However, settling this semantic issue involves going into other matters, which can rightly be counted as falling into the area of ontology. Ontology is quite different from semantics.


Even if that were true, those people may have never actually considered the ontological truths behind such functions, so there opinion only has limited value. No intelligent person with any knowledge of ontology would fail to realize that the two alternatives are distinct despite their having the same effects concerning the practical matters of how we experience the site afterward and how those who use the functions experience them.

By the way, what you're arguing here does not fit with what pheelyks is saying. pheelyks is talking about the meanings of the posts, which obviously are not the sort of thing that can be moved from one place to another. Even if "moving" were literal in the sense of moving a post from one thread to another, only a fool would equate this with moving the meaning. pheelyks did not equate moving the posts with moving the meaning. He acknowledged the distinction and made claims implying that the meaning itself was moved. This makes him a fool. So you are both fools, though for different reasons.


"For the record," that was not my introduction to the forum. I had already posted elsewhere and had received a rude response from you. I clearly state in that thread that I only mentioned you there because you'd already attacked me (and others) elsewhere. It was apparent from reading other threads before I ever posted that you have a horrible tendency to derail any conversations that are even slightly productive, and that your method of doing so involves being a complete b**-h. One rude comment directed toward me was enough to finalize my opinion.

I've made it perfectly clear to any rational person who actually reads what I've written here just what I've been claiming. You claim to agree with what I'm saying and then continue to argue against it. You'll say something about how you were never disputing that the original tokens were deleted and then make a claim that you implies that they were because the claim fails to account for the distinction between types and tokens.

By the way, you say that rather than claiming the original tokens of the posts were not deleted, that you were instead talking about "the substance of their meaning" never being deleted. As I've said, this isn't the sort of thing that can be deleted. But you have supported this view by saying that they couldn't have been deleted because they are still viewable, and deleted means something like "not viewable." This shows a further misunderstanding on your part, as meaning are not the sort of thing that can be viewed just as, and for the same reasons that, they cannot be deleted. Your view is full of confusions.


Isn't this the part where pheelyks is supposed to point out how lazy and stupid you are for not finding it yourself? It's fairly easy to find, as you can see links to threads one has posted in by going to one's profile, and I haven't posted in all that many. I think it's funny that half a year ago you tried to discredit me with the irrelevant fact of my not being here as long as you by saying that I'd been here "10 minutes," and now it's the same thing but "5 minutes" that I've been here.


Yes, we've already discussed the matter of whether or not a "move" function that deals with digitally based pieces of text should be counted as moving in the literal sense. You may disagree with my conclusions on it, but it has been addressed. Pointing out that it is a "MOVE" function and saying that "simply moves the existing post to a different thread" does not make it true that this is a case of moving something in the literal sense of "move." You can keep saying I've lost, but that changes nothing. On the contrary, I am winning, pheelyks is losing, and you aren't even a real competitor.

As I have clearly pointed out, that's not the sort of thing that can be deleted, and I am fully aware that saying such things were deleted would be a category mistake. Of course, I never claimed that such things were deleted. I was talking about the posts being deleted from the threads in the only sense of "posts" in which it makes sense to talk about whether or not such things were deleted. You've been talking about "the exact same words" being the things that were not deleted, which is not the same as "the substance of their meaning." The "substance of their meaning" would not be changed even if there were no copies of the posts left around at all.


In the lengthy debate we had shortly after I first started posting here.


If you paid any attention to what was actually being said here, then you'd see that your claim that the "Move" function literally moves things is presupposes certain ontological commitments which you've likely never considered, so don't be so certain of yourself when you try make claims about what's really going on. I'm not so easily confused about the difference between literal meanings of words and figurative meanings that reflect the practical aspects of the end result. The points you are making have been covered thoroughly. You should catch up before you try to jump back into this.


I wouldn't know, as I have neither written "an epic novel" as you say, or had anything I've said here negated by a couple of lines. Your point has been addressed and you are once again bringing up things that we've already moved beyond. I won't tell you that you lose, as that is impossible since you're not even really in this. You only make weaker versions of points that pheelyks has already covered and to which I've already responded. To say something relevant you'd need to respond to those responses instead of restating what he's already said. You act like I've written a lot here, but this takes up very little time. I guess writing a few paragraphs that thoroughly address a point may be more difficult and time-consuming for you.

This isn't backpedaling. My original statement that the debate was deleted could technically be taken as referring to the debate in itself or the token of the debate, and as the debate in itself is not the sort of thing that can be deleted, the only interpretation that makes sense (given that I am aware that the debate in itself is not the sort of thing that can be deleted) is that I was saying the token of the debate was deleted. At that point, neither of us had many any clarifications on whether we were speaking of tokens or types, so I thought it would be helpful now that we've seen that the distinction is useful to take a look at how it relates the origin of our dispute. This was merely a clarification, which is obvious. If you had read and understood what I said, you would see that it is in no way a case of backpedaling. The whole point of that last paragraph in my last post was to draw attention to the distinction between "debate" being taken as referring to what I started calling "the debate in itself" as opposed to it being taken as referring to a particular token of the debate. To take two statements which I have said are using "debate" in those distinct sentences and then try to point out a contradiction is merely equivocating. You have failed again.


Oh, I get it. You still don't understand the type/token distinction. Well that clears things up. When I say "the posts themselves" I am referring to the original tokens of them, which it seems you have granted were deleted. You admit that "something was deleted" and the original token of the series of posts is that something. The "form that matters--that is, their meanings and visual appearance" will be the same in all tokens of the same type, and thus has no bearing on "the posts themselves."

There is a distinction I realize I should make here. When I talk of the posts themselves, I am referring to the tokens of the posts rather than the type which those posts are a token of. When I talk about the debate itself, I am talking about something distinct from either the token or even really the type. We could have had the same exact debate in a sense with completely different sentences, and there could be multiple copies of these sentences in the same arrangement. Thus each of these sentences are tokens of the same type, and that type as well as the type we have instantiated here would both express the same debate. This may cause some confusion, but it is plain to see that this would be meant in different ways since "the debate in itself" is something like a proposition, which can be expressed by many different types of sentences, and each of those types can have many different tokens. Propositions and "the debate in itself" are not the sort of thing that can be deleted. A proposition can not be deleted, but a token of sentence that expresses it can. There can also be other tokens of the same type, which will express the same proposition. I hope this clears up any confusion over terminology here. This is in no way further support for my argument, just a clarification of terminology.

I have said multiple times that the viewable outcome is the same no matter which analysis is correct. I've said multiple times that the same information can be read in the copies. I have thoroughly argued that being able to read the same information in the new copies has no bearing on whether the original versions were deleted.

Once again, I never said there was any difference concerning anything along the lines of "meaning and comprehension," but only that the original posts were deleted from the original threads, and then also that the original tokens of the words that appeared in those original posts were deleted along with them.


Yes, the users could read the same information in the new tokens, which were distinct from the originals. I've been saying this all along. At the outset when I said the original posts had been deleted, I was unaware that copies had been placed elsewhere. You then stated that they had not been deleted, and supported this by pointing out the existence of the copies. There is no further layer, this is the argument we've been having. If you do not disagree that the original posts themselves were deleted, then you do not disagree with my original claim. However, you did disagree with it at first.

By the way, if we look at the original claims more closely, I said the debate had been deleted, then you said that it had not been deleted, but had rather been moved. A debate, it seems, would be like a proposition: it can be represented in different words or even different languages, so long as those words are arranged to have the correct meaning in their language. We could have had the same debate with different statements. So when I said the debate had been deleted, clearly I was talking about a particular token of the debate. Why is this clear? Because the debate in itself can not be deleted any more than a proposition could be deleted. Only the things used to express the proposition can be deleted, but of course the proposition itself cannot. The same is true of a debate. So my statement about the debate being deleted referred only to the particular representation of the debate. I even responded back that I was right by making reference to the posts. You admit the posts themselves were deleted, but if you maintain that the debate was not deleted then you are not disagreeing with me, for I would never say that the debate in itself was deleted, for whatever sort of abstract object that would be is not the sort of thing that can be deleted, just as a proposition is not. I hope you understand the difference between a proposition and a sentence that expresses a proposition. If you do, then you should also understand my distinction between what I've been calling "the debate in itself" and the series of posts that was, basically, a token of that debate. Only one of those two is the sort of thing that could be deleted, and that thing was deleted.

But once again, that is not what happened. Different tokens of the same words appeared in the same order, and these new tokens were visible, despite the original tokens of the same words being deleted and thus invisible. They were not the same exact tokens of the words, despite being the same types of words in the same order. The viewers could no longer see the same tokens of those words, despite seeing qualitatively identical tokens of those words. Besides, if you want to get technical about it, my claim was that the posts had been deleted. Thus your granting that the duplicate posts are not the same is admitting that my original point was correct. The new claims that I am making which are based on the same reasoning hold up as well, as I have argued here. Once again, you can't see the same exact book once it's been completed destroyed, but you can read the same story that was in it by reading a book that is duplicate of the one that was destroyed. You are still not able to look at the exact same book, the exact same pages, or the exact same copies of the words that were in the original.


What's beyond ridiculous is the fact that I have now written several pages outlining and repeating this argument without you realizing that I have thoroughly addressed this point.

It's as simple as this. The mods could take my last post and put a copy in another thread without deleting the copy that is here. So then there are new copies of the same words appearing in the same order. By your reasoning, it is then impossible for the mods to delete the original post unless they also delete the copy, because by your reasoning the words have not been deleted as long as there is another copy available. It is clearly absurd to say that when you have two copies of something that you can't delete one without deleting them both.

This "metaphysica bulls-i*" is what's required to make you understand a simple point, which you seem to both admit and deny. I did think that there were no versions of the posts since I saw that the original versions were removed from the original thread (whether deleted or not, they were removed). I am fine with going by your definition of "delete" as "make unviewable." This does not change my stance that the original tokens were made unviewable, which is not affected by whether there were viewable copies placed elsewhere. You can see that the exact same argument holds up when we explicitly put "delete" in the terms you have.


And if I steal a book from your house and replace it with a distinct copy that is qualitatively identical, then you will never know the difference. If I burn the original copy then you will never be able to read the original copy. You can still read the same story in the other copy.

And now let's look at that statement of yours more closely, specifically the part in the middle that says


I cannot believe that after all this you actually come out and plainly state the contradiction. In case you do not know, it is impossible for a self-contradictory statement to be true.

Actually, it wasn't a straightforward contradiction. You said "THE SAME POSTS REMAINED VISBLE THE WHOLE TIME, EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T ACTUALLY THE SAME POSTS" which is saying that the visible posts were the same posts as the original posts, whether or not they were the same posts. But clearly, if they were not the same posts, then it would be contradictory to this to claim that they are same posts. Then your statement that they are the same posts whether or not they are the same posts is wrong. This statement may not be a contradiction in itself, but it is only true if the contradiction is presupposes is true.

But you see, the reason that those posts are tokens of the same type is that they feature tokens of the same types of words, arranged in the same order. If you want to put it in terms of the words, then what happened was that the original tokens of those words were removed, which remains unaffected by the fact that other tokens of those same words were placed elsewhere in the same arrangement.

Consider the following:
banana
banana
Those are tokens of the same type. They are distinct tokens of the word "banana." Suppose I created the second by copying and pasting the first. You could still read the word "banana" even if I had deleted the first token of that word. I don't know what the underlying physical mechanisms are that explain how this would take place. I don't know if when I copied it there was a copy of the digital information made also, or whether both tokens as they appear on screen actually trace back to the same piece of digital information. You seem to think I am making claims based on a certain idea of what goes on there, but I don't know what goes on there and it does not affect the outcome of my argument.


I am equally frustrated by your inability or unwillingness to see that I actually am addressing the relevant points. But you have made a slight shift here, focusing on the words in the posts rather than the posts themselves. As you can see, I have followed you in this shift of focus and shown that the same distinctions play the same roles when it comes to the words. You have granted that my explanation of the posts is correct but you have objected that the posts are not what's important. You say it is the words that are important (or perhaps the statements, in a certain order). I have explained that the same reasoning I applied to the posts applies to the words. If you accept the reasoning about the posts, then you must either show how it applies differently to the words (in a certain order) or admit defeat. I feel certain you won't admit defeat and I look forward to seeing your explanation of why my reasoning about the posts is not applicable to the words.

Pointing out that a definition such as "made unviewable" or anything along those lines shows that they were never deleted since they are still viewable misses the point, once again. This is because on my analysis new tokens of the same type are all that remained viewable, while the original tokens were made unviewable.

The type/token distinction goes beyond the realm of semantics. That you claim it does not shows you do not understand it. I have read your posts, and almost everything you say in support of your view is infected with your confusion about the type/token distinction. You don't seem to realize it, which explains why you keep making the mistake and keep insisting that you are not. Two quarters are distinct tokens of the same type. If there was only one quarter but then we made a copy of it, you could see the same type of thing by viewing this copy. You claim that as long as we can see a token of the same type, then the original token wasn't destroyed. That is obviously absurd.

Framing the debate the way you depict it, my stance would come out as being that all tokens of the relevant types were deleted, which is obviously not what I am claiming.

This debate was never about the user experience. I've been saying that the experience is the same either way. We are arguing about whether my use of the word "delete" was appropriate.

You continue to fail to account for the fact that something can be deleted and the information in it still be available to be read elsewhere if there is a copy elsewhere. The copy can be there with or without the original being deleted.


Saying that I've clearly lost this round does not change the fact that I've provided much stronger arguments for my side than you have for yours. You are still confused about the type/token distinction. The facts about experience that you're pointing out can be perfectly well explained in my view by saying that what is readable is a distinct token of the same type. If you burn a copy of a book, that version of that book is no longer readable. But if there is a duplicate elsewhere, I can still read the same story, but I have to read it in a different book. I can read a token the same type, but it must be a distinct token of that type.


Your statement about "the original language in the original order" is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say you fail to understand the type/token distinction. In no way does my reasoning imply what you say it implies about the Internet. As you say, users don't see bits, they see words. Tokens of those posts that appear in the new threads could have appeared there whether or not the original tokens remained in the original threads, so their being readable has nothing to do with whether the originals were deleted. You seem to fail to understand this, over and over. And yes, we are in the realm of metaphysics (not so much epistemology, but to a certain extent). However, that is where this argument naturally went, which is why I'm schooling you now.


It's both a matter of semantics and a matter of metaphysics. We are arguing over the correct use of a word in a certain context, yet resolving the issue brings us to a discussion of the ontology of online posts.


I respond much more thoroughly to your posts than you do to mine, and I actually point out what's wrong with what you're saying and present cogent arguments to support my view.


Reading everything she wrote and everything I wrote in response would show you that nothing she said actually addressed the claims I was making or provided any support for either side of the debate. The post was irrelevant.

It may not have been your intention, but putting it this way changes the debate. What happened to specific bits is exactly what we were talking about, as the results relative to someone viewing the site are the same no matter which analysis is correct.


That seems like a different sense of deleting. Suppose I create a new Word document every day and write about various things in it. Now suppose that for several months the first paragraph is the same. If one day I decide to change things up and write a completely different first paragraph, then you wouldn't say that that I deleted the former first paragraph. In fact, at this point there are many tokens of that paragraph, one in each of the previous word documents over the previous several months. Choosing to not create yet another token of that type is not a form of deleting a token of that type, because it's never there to be deleted. In your example, the correct analysis is not that the letters were deleted, just that new copies of them were no longer made. To delete them such that they could no longer be read would involve going back and removing them from the old papers in which they appeared, but that wouldn't even technically be deleting. Perhaps the area of the printing press arranged for printing the letters is left unchanged for the duration of the time in which those letters will be printed, with the new letters being added underneath. At the point when the letters will no longer be printed, that area of printing press will be removed (these pieces are called "type" but I didn't want to create confusion over my previous use of "type" in the sense of the type/token distinction). I suppose you could say that these pieces are removed, but as I mentioned above, removing a physical object from something isn't the same as deleting something. For example, when I pick up a piece of garbage from the floor and throw it in the trash I do not delete it from the floor, I just remove it. "Delete" doesn't apply in this context, and using it that way would be a category mistake. There seems to be some confusion on your part concerning the changes to the printing press and what is actually appearing in the paper, which seems to be tied to some confusion concerning the type/token distinction.


This reinforces the point I made before, which is that you are being confused by thinking of "move" here in the same sense as when we talk about picking something up and moving it to another place. In the physical sense, to cut out a section of paper and paste it somewhere else involves moving it. As I pointed out above, cutting in the digital sense consists of both deleting and copying, so cut/paste would consist of copying, deleting, and pasting. In the physical sense, cut/paste does not include copying. There is no copy because the original is moved. In the digital sense, there is a copy made, which I argued for above. You have provided no response to that argument and instead tried to come up with a new argument for your point, so for now I only need refer back to the point I made earlier when it is relevant to countering your argument.


How is it desperate to point out that my response met that objection as well?


The problem I was referring to is not with how the sentence ends.


Maybe I wasn't concerned with getting it right.


You are saying the original versions are still available to be viewed. I am saying that duplicates of the originals are available to be viewed. You are saying the same tokens of those types have been placed elsewhere, while I claim that those are simply new tokens of the same types. The result is the same relative to a viewer of the site. Claiming that what is readable is the original and thus the original is still readable is simply restating your stance. I could simply respond by saying that you are wrong to say they were not deleted since they are readable because what is readable are copies. I can read a copy of something even when the original has been deleted. Your attempt to save yourself with dictionary definitions completely fails.


How long you've been here is completely irrelevant to this debate. If there is really something wrong with my argument, then point out the flaws instead of pointing out that you've been here longer. I was defeating you in arguments when I first got here, and I've been coming here for about half a year now. Also, pointing out that you've witnessed thousands of posts "moved" from one thread to another is also irrelevant. All that means is that if pheelyks is correct, then you have seen thousands of posts that were literally moved in the sense of the original version actually being placed in the new thread, and that if I am correct then you have seen thousands of posts get copied into new threads and deleted. As I've said, the result is the same relative to how we experience the website. What you've witnessed has no bearing on this discussion.


Only an idiot would interpret what I said as implying that. Once again, it is relevant that the results are the same either way, and thus any sort of repercussions would be the same either way. Furthermore, it is clear that the mods are not concerned with my disdain, and I no point have I implied otherwise. As pheelyks pointed out, cut/paste in the digital sense does not have to be a multi-step process, so my version does not differ by including some extra time in which the mod placed copies elsewhere as a distinct act. Whether the original tokens were moved or whether new tokens of the same types were placed elsewhere while the originals were simultaneously deleted, nothing you could have witnessed as a visitor to the site would have been different. This applies as well to the thousands of other instances like this you've seen. That you've seen this sort of thing happen a lot has no bearing on issue of the correct conceptual analysis of what is going on in each of those cases. You are making much weaker points in support for pheelyks's view than pheelyks himself. I've been hoping no idiots would jump in on my side and start making bad points in my defense, and now I see that has happened to my opponent in this argument. I'll probably just respond to pheelyks until you start making points in support of his view that are as strong as his own.

Yes, the "delete" was featured in a discussion that was basically defining the word. That doesn't mean I used it as part of it's own definition, or that I used a claim that something was deleted as support for the claim that something was deleted. You did something similar when you said "delete would actually delete the file." Once again, your circular reasoning accusation is misguided.


I'm glad you decided to put it in these terms. I've never seen the option called "move," though it would seem to be the same as the option "cut," with which I am familiar. Copying, cutting, and deleting are all distinct, as you said. However, I disagree with your further analysis. Copying does create a copy, as you said. It also leaves the original where it is instead of removing it. Deleting removes it without making a copy. Up until this point we're probably in agreement. However, when you cut you make a copy and remove the original. Cutting is a combination of copying and deleting. Perhaps you have been confused by seeing the word "move" used for this operation and took it in the literal sense of moving, as when one picks something up and moves it elsewhere. However, it seems that what's going on is really just a combination of copying and deleting the original. If you then paste it elsewhere, you are pasting a copy, just as when you copy without deleting. To further support my claim, I'll ask you to consider what goes on when you highlight a sentence in a Word document, select "cut," and then paste it into another word document. On your analysis, the original has actually been moved from one document to another. Now consider what happens when you highlight a sentence, select "delete," and then select "undo." In this case the original is removed and then returned. I suppose one could make the argument that the original is removed and then a copy is put in it's place, but you cannot make this argument because if this is a copy rather than the original, then surely the sentence in the separate Word document would also be a copy. Now suppose you cut the sentence and paste it into a separate document, then go back to the first document and click "undo." As I said, it is debatable whether or not this is the original returning or a copy replacing it. However, if it is the original, then the sentence pasted into the other document cannot also be the original; but even if it isn't the original, it has at least as good if not better claim to being the original than the sentence in the separate document. Thus the sentence that is the result of cutting and pasting is not the original sentence.


As I pointed out, you can if you copy it before deleting and then paste a version elsewhere.


I don't know you, so why would I get your name right, or even be concerned with getting it right? Also, "You're an idiot for misinterpreting the idiocy of yours I pointed out, and for assuming I'm a fool rather than taking two seconds to figure it out," doesn't mean what you think it means. I only point this out because you attempted to do the same to me earlier. Otherwise I wouldn't care that you're not perfectly grammatically correct on a message board.


As I hope you can see from what I've said above, there is a very legit argument to the contrary. Pointing out they were "moved" is just restating claims that pheelyks has already covered, and kind of misses the point of the debate here since at this point we've moved on to the matter of whether the seemingly identical posts in other threads are really the originals that have been literally moved or are just copies of the originals which have been deleted. Claiming they were moved instead of copied and deleted in support of the view that they were moved instead of deleted is an actual case of circular reasoning. I grant that you may not have intended this as supporting the view, but rather as an expression of the view. If it was not meant as added support for what pheelyks was saying but was instead just repeating it, then you are not guilty of circular reasoning. In summary, you were either begging the question or repeating what had already been said.

You remain unable to understand simple explanations. The posts could have been made viewable in other threads whether or not they were deleted from the original thread. The posts could have been deleted whether or not copies were put elsewhere. This clearly shows that my claim that they were deleted from the original thread is not falsified by copies being posted elsewhere.


Since when is "deleted" defined as "unable to be read"? You can try to say that it's just a matter of semantics, but saying it's just semantics and then redefining a word does not make you right.


Whether or not that is your name, and whether or not I think it is your name, you have made a fool of yourself here by responding that it is not your name and then going on about how I have found personal information on you. If that's not your name, then what is the personal information about you that you think I have found?


Actually, I never said anything about turnitin in this thread. This thread is about the do not discuss list, which, strangely, was blank at the time I started this thread.


You seem very confused here. The posts were removed from the thread in which they originally appeared. They weren't removed from "this thread" because this isn't the thread they were in. Instead, they were removed from the original thread and some of them were placed into a brand new thread, while others were added to this unrelated thread about the do not discuss list.


Copying the posts in to this thread is pointless precisely because of the title of this thread. The title of this thread is about the topic of this thread, which is the do not discuss list. That has nothing to do with what we're discussing now. That you defend the changes that were made shows you are even stupider than I thought, for making that change was even stupider than saying anything I've seen you say here.

Just because copies were placed elsewhere does not mean they were not deleted. To see my point, just think about the fact that they could have put up the copies in different threads as they did but without removing them from the original one. You can see that the information can be "moved" in the sense of appearing elsewhere, but that this has no bearing on whether or not the original copies were deleted.


My point, Danny G,which you seem incapable of comprehending, is that you are being unreasonable when you suggest that my not assuming that the posts had been posted elsewhere in addition to being deleted from the original thread implies anything about my research ability. It was completely pointless to delete the posts from the original thread and place them elsewhere. If it has to do with keeping posts within relevant threads, then that would explain why some were put into a brand new thread. However, it does not explain why some were taken out and put into a different thread in which they would still not be relevant.

Why search elsewhere for posts that were unreasonably deleted from the original thread? Like I said, you are more in tune with irrational behavior than I am. That you think this is in any way comparable to real research suggests you haven't done much real research.

I don't go to the homepage to the get the forum. Since I use Firefox, as soon as I start typing "essayscam.com" I'm shown the pages in my history that contain the sequence of letters I've typed so far in either the page title or web address. Your objection is thus irrelevant.


That was a pop culture reference that you obviously didn't get. And yes, I posted twice in a row without you responding because the posts were in separate threads. And yes, I'm now posting twice in a row in the same thread, but that's because I hit "Post Message" without realizing I hadn't responded to everything that needed a response. You know me: lazy, stupid, and apparently forgetful.

Only a fool would find it unreasonable that my first assumption was that those posts had been deleted, given that I returned to the same thread to find them missing. Actually, they were deleted, in that they were deleted from the original thread. The fact that copies of some of them were posted here and some elsewhere does not change the fact that they were deleted from the thread in which they were originally posted.


Yes, of course, I'm lazy and stupid because I saw the posts had been deleted from the original thread for no reason and didn't assume that one chunk of them had been stuck in this unrelated thread and the other chunk put into a new thread, completely out of context.I guess I'm not as in tune with completely irrational behavior as you are. And yes, I'm lazy and stupid because I didn't discover what happened immediately because I don't spend my time looking at all the threads here. Unlike you, my life does not center around this site. I've been coming here frequently the last couple of days because I'm currently involved in this debate with you, but I don't post here all the time like you do. I have a life outside of this site, and I don't use this forum to find customers like you do.

F-ck off, I've got work to do!

It's not mind reading. You and I had a debate here last night, and I'm pretty sure that you still remember it. In fact, your "mind reading again" statement was in reference to that very debate. By the way, when exactly have you ever "schooled" me? You are so stupid it's funny.


They deleted a whole debate between the two of us, so it was not just my posts that were deleted. You continue to lie, use poor reasoning, and be utterly useless.

That's funny considering that you know I made several real arguments that would still be here if our little debate hadn't been deleted by the mods.

Asking someone a question can be a form or research, idiot.

By the way mods, why did you remove the majority of the little conflict here but leave the first part?

Even though it was a long time ago, someone raised a good question about turnitin when they asked if a company's submitting a paper to turnitin would make it show up as being plagiarized. My question is, doesn't the same problem exist when students submit their own work to turnitin before turning it in?

Technically that's what all of our customers are doing, sending money to a stranger online. Of course they have questions at times, but usually I don't have to deal with many customer questions and the questions I get aren't anything difficult to answer. I don't know what problems you expect, but so far things have gone very smoothly.

Sometimes people try out a smaller order before they submit one for a longer paper, but I always get paid before I begin and I always follow through. After a customer's first order is complete, he or she then sees there is nothing to worry about. Some customer's may not like my system. I will admit that sometimes customers place an order but never pay, so perhaps those are the customers who are unwilling to pay first. That's fine with me, I understand, but I'm not changing my system for those few orders I lose.

Best of luck in the real world, maybe you'll get the kinks in your own system worked out.


Thanks.
I've considered doing something along those lines but so far I'm still requiring the whole payment up front. If I encountered a customer who was particularly concerned I might try something like your payment system.

Ok, let me explain. To start, you are wrong. Yes, that's what he said made him certain of it. But then he said that "another indication" that I don't work much was my continued participation in this argument, which he was guilty of as well, so the same would apply to him. I already explained this.


I get that. I handle all my own transactions and any promoting. It's really not that hard to get your name out there online. As far as dealing with customers who don't pay, that's just an unfamiliar problem for me because my customers pay before I start the paper.


Ok, here is what I was responding to:



I answer very few emails per customer. From 1-3 on average. I spend a few hours every couple weeks on marketing/finding customers, and I've never had to explain how to set up a paypal account. I don't have to reassure people I'm legitimate because if they're ordering from me for the first time they've already decided to give me a chance, and they'll see I'm legitimate when the paper is done.


I'm not just talking about the administrative work for the orders I take myself, but also for the ones I pass along to my other writers. In those instances I pass it along, the other writers gets most of the money, I handle the very quick and easy job of responding to the request and checking for payment. When it's complete I let the writer know to start. They send it to me, I send it to the customer, and everyone is happy. I would not need/want/have other writers working with me if I did not get more than my own share of work, so it's silly that you keep suggesting that I must get less work than you do. Yes, I get fewer orders than the company you work for, but you only get a small portion of those orders that go to your company (I realize that small portion could still be quite a bit of work). Meanwhile, I get the first chance to take any orders that come my way, and I have enough to pass the excess along to others. It is precisely because of my high volume of work that I find myself in the role of administrator as well as that of writer.

Actually, the claim in question was his claim that my keeping the argument going was an indication that I must not be working much. He too is keeping the argument going. Thus by his own reasoning, his continued participation in the argument is an indication that he is not working much. I think his reasoning is silly of course. I've actually been working a lot tonight and it doesn't take long to pop over here every now and then during a break. I'm already at my computer after all.

FreelanceWriter:

1. You're not quite being accurate. You were assuming that anyone interested in finding a way to make money at this without the worry that some have about getting ripped off by the company must be a bad writer, and that's the part I started arguing against.

2. I don't have experience working for one of the companies but I've got a lot working for myself, and I guess we just disagree because I wouldn't give up any of my money just to have a company handle the minor administrative duties.

3. It is foolish to argue against someone when you don't know what that person is saying, and only a real fool would knowingly do so.

Check my other posts and you'll hopefully understand your mistake. I have found a few other skilled writers who have been working with/for me, who I send excess work to when I have more orders than I can possibly do in a certain time frame. In those cases all I do is handle the administrative stuff and make a few bucks. Like i said before, it's so simple that I feel like it is practically money for nothing even though most of the payment goes to the other writer. Thus, it is in virtue of having many orders that I am able to profit from simple administrative work. It works out well for all of us because I have some skilled writers to lend a hand when needed, those writers benefit by getting good pay for their work and knowing I won't rip them off, and the customers benefit because I don't have to turn down a lot of orders.


But if that's the case, wouldn't it also be an indication that you're not working much either. And to clarify, this all started when you implied that essay writers who don't want to work for the big essay companies due to the fact that some of them scam their employees must be less skilled.


If there is anyone here who doesn't require someone to post responses on his/her behalf, it is WritersBeware. I mean that as neither an insult nor a compliment to WritersBeware, by the way. Also Freelancer, that response is really stupid and a horrible metaphor for what actually took place.

I too am "at the point where I sometimes get more work thrown my way than I want." I think it's funny how you assume you get more work than I do. Maybe I'm the one who gets more work and when you find yourself getting as much work as I do you'll appreciate making money for the easier, less time consuming aspects of the business.


Even if everything a particular person ever posted here is true, that does not change the fact that the mixture of truth and lies found here makes the situation such that someone viewing the boards should take it allwith a grain of salt so to speak. The point is that since there are truths and falsehoods to be found here, we have to be careful and shouldn't take anything here at face value . I don't see why you're disagreeing with me when you've made the same point yourself.

Ok, you didn't say you found it difficult (you didn't quite say it was a hassle either, but whatever). Either way, I suppose my point is, I have to wonder how something I find so simple and easy can be such a hassle for you.

I guess I just find it hard to believe, based on my own experience, that responding to customers' emails is such a hassle. I'm not saying your customers don't email you as much as you indicate, I'm just saying my customers don't email me that much. I wonder what's different about us or our customers that yours feel the need to constantly email you for reassurance while mine don't. Also, I think that it helps that I communicate directly with my customers. Sometimes it turns out they don't describe orders correctly but things get clarified through our communications with one another. Having some company's administrators acting as middle-men on such communication would just slow down the process while still requiring the writer to check emails from the company.

Actually, you accused someone of being a bad writer simply for being concerned about the possibility of being ripped off. What one can figure out from this forum is limited, for - as we are often reminded - there is a mixture of truth and lies here that requires it all to be taken with a grain of salt. One would need to go outside this forum and use other resources as well, and then still wouldn't know about many particular companies without trying them oneself. I'm not "too dopey" to do that, I simply didn't feel like wasting the time when I can get orders on my own. I suppose I was making a bit of an attack, but like many here I find myself getting suck into making attacks in response to attacks I see.


To clarify, what I was questioning was the rationality of someone who writes for money but is willing to give up some of that money in exchange for not doing the simplest part of the job. Like I said, when I find myself making a couple of bucks for only handling the administrative part of an order, I feel like I'm getting money for nothing. I assume your goal is to make money, so it seems irrational to me for you to give up what I consider to be pretty much money for nothing. It's getting paid to send a few emails.

Basically, if you're a good writer and you feel confident you can get your name out there and get some new customers to try you out, then do what I'm doing. If you're a good writer but don't feel confident about marketing yourself, find someone like me to work for/with (but if they're like me you must provide quality work) and you can avoid the big companies without worrying about advertising yourself or dealing with the so-called "hassle" of administrative tasks. Otherwise I guess just go write for one of those companies and see what happens. The big companies can either pay enough to get good writers, which means they'll charge very high prices, or they can offer low prices to their customers and not be able to afford quality writers. On the other hand, I can offer prices that are comparable to the cheap companies while still ensuring that I and my other writers are earning wages comparable to those working for the big essay companies. It's the best arrangement for both the writers and the customers as far as I'm concerned.

You seem to be overlooking some things here. You seem to assume that anyone who is concerned about being scammed as a writer for an essay company must be an unskilled writer who cannot get hired by a company that doesn't scam its writers. But you overlook people like me who had the benefit of reading informative posts on this forum before I ever actually applied to work for any essay companies. That was enough to make me not want to bother. Like would-be customers who come here, would-be writers who come here are likely to be scared away by the warnings on this forum. While the customers either have to take the risk or find a way to do the work themselves, the writers have the option of working independently and trying to find their own customers.


And because I decided to do this independently, I too have never worked for a bad essay company; I've just never worked for a good one either. Well, I wrote one thing for one company this month to see what would happen, and I'm waiting to find out if I get paid. But really their pay is typically so low I haven't even tried taking any more orders from them. I only took the one because it paid a little better and I knew it wouldn't take long.


I'm curious as to what it was that you found so difficult about the administrative work. The communication is all by email, and I don't find it that much of a hassle to read and send emails. I also find it no trouble checking to see if a payment has been made. You attack others who post here by assuming they must be low quality writers, but I have to wonder how well someone can do on the writing part of the job when that person finds the easy administrative part so troublesome. For orders I pass along to one of my other writers instead of taking myself, I take very little of payment and still feel like I got paid for nothing, despite handling all the administrative aspects myself. I basically take enough to cover the low cost of running my own essay business, and I only use writers who can meet my standards. There's not point hiring out my orders to someone who can't maintain the good reputation I've been building with my customers.


So there's your answer: work on your own or work for someone like me. If you have the skill and motivation you can make some money this way. So far my writers, my customers, and I have all been pleased with how things are going.