Are thesis writers expected to know how to use SPSS and stats analysis in methodology?

Meo-- WB seems cranky. his boots obviously are not shiny enough. get to work!

I guess you're right. ^_^


Not all, there's what's his face for example.. another bootlicker of yours...

More importantly though, how many writers do you think work in this industry? How many of those writers post here or even read this forum? How many of the accounts posting here whose owners boldly claim to be Kenyan or Indian actually were created by semiliterate numbskulls from those countries and how many were created by people from other companies aiming to discredit ESL writers? Bottom line is, this forum is not a legitimate source of evidence for the argument, especially since some of those who frequent this forum have the tendency to call every loon who comes around to peddle his crap ESL.


Did I attack you in this thread? As I recall, you asked for my opinion and I gave it. You weren't happy with what I had to say, so you began attacking me. You also attacked me first in that other thread where I displayed part of the email of the schmuck who was trying to impersonate me. Was it necessary for you to attack me there when I was just showing what itsme wrote to expose him for the two-faced piece of s-i* that he is?

Remember what I typed about you coming across as a stubborn jack?


What about your pal, Rusty? We both know that he is clueless. You won't openly admit it because he always sides with you.


Irrelevant. Since 2007, I have clearly stated that I am NOT against ESL writers. I am against DISHONEST and FRAUDULENT, ESL writers. Don't pretend that you don't know the difference, and don't pretend that I have not made that distinction numerous times in the past.


Really? You're going there? You think that any of the writers in this forum care enough-for whatever reason-about the ESL "threat" to pose for YEARS as an ESL writer? Oh, wait . . . .


If you can show a single instance of me, pheelyks, or freelancewriter labeling a poster as "ESL" who later proved to be a native writer, I'd absolutely love to see it.


The only reason why I posted in that thread at all is because you took a shot at me with your selective quoting from the guy's email. You might want to take a peak.

you think the majority of essay company clients use their papers as the legal caveats intend, and I'm the clueless one? okay, WB, whatever. don't forget to keep me posted re: Academon.


Meo, this is what I was talking about. here you see a global error in action. this is not a mistake or a typo-- it's a problem with WB's little brain and homophones.

"peek," WB. write it ten times.

1.) I don't think that rusty is clueless. I did think that editor75's old talk about writers becoming regular employees was silly (and I openly expressed my thoughts in the threads where those were discussed), but knowing now that they came from rusty, I know to take it as seriously as his old plan of using bulldozers to decimate EW's office.

2.) I don't disregard a person's crazy just because he sides with me or licks my boots. That's you. Please, just take the olanzapine. It's good for you. :p


Writers don't care as long as they have enough orders to fill their plates (and we do since the market is so large). Company owners now... :p


Hahaha!!!! Let's see... um... me? :p


Selective quoting? Have you read the entire email?

well done in trolling WritersBeware on that essayscam forum over the course of 4 years.

not only are you a more agreeable person than WB by far but also a much better writer and clearly better at debating too.

I cannot tell which of you is actually right at this point (I haven't been following it all but you actually seem to agree with each other on a couple points and have turned this into more of a personal trollfest) but your ability to monopolise the entire conversation where WB is concerned is impressive, considering that no matter how many times he/she/it refers to your tactics as immature and stupid etc they still feel the need, or perhaps some bizarre compulsion, to respond to you every time. O.o

to do such a thing to you in particular but for the fact that 'oh noes you annoyed WB boo hoo somebody call the waaaahmbulance!' which just goes to show exactly how petty and immature WB really is when push comes to shove.

why won't WB reveal itself once and for all? LOL).

You bought itsme's **** because you thought he was on your side. You'd buy anyone's **** so long as they bought yours too.


See, I agree with this statement. Why? Because it is reasonable to think that people who buy model essays for at least $20/page don't go through the trouble of rewriting the entire thing themselves and (HAHA!!!) citing the source of the purchased material as part their references. I think that a person who believes that is dumb and most likely, so would the authors of these studies:

Bartlett, T. (2009). Cheating Goes Global as Essay Mills Multiply. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(28):A1.

Selwyn, N. (2008). "Not Necessarily a Bad Thing ...": A Study of Online Plagiarism amongst Undergraduate Students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5): 465-479.

Whiteman, S., and Gordon, J. (2001). The Price of an "A": An Educator's Responsibility to Academic Honesty. English Journal, 91(2): 25-30.

Good luck making any more sales.


You see, this is what I'm referring to, EW_writer. Rusty is a desperate idiot. Neither you nor I tend to call out stupid mistakes like that because we know that doing so would merely highlight our utter lack of legitimate ammunition. Rusty still hasn't learned that lesson.


1. You fraudulently posed as an ESL writer.

2. On multiple occasions before discovering and outing your "ESL" act, I stated that you were a qualified, ESL writer. So, I'm afraid that your example is quite flawed.


Ah, so I'm supposed to be a mindreader? Like anyone else in a forum, I only know what a poster has the guts to post in public. Use your brain a bit before typing. Tell me-how was I supposed to know what he typed to you in a private email? You have already labeled him a "two-faced piece of s-i*," right? So, once again, your "point" is flawed.


I get it-you're going to pretend that the dozen or so times that he made ignorant claims and I disproved them didn't happen.

For example, did you miss how he repeatedly huffed and puffed about me "hacking" his email and acdn accounts because I knew his acdn username (due solely to him spamming it in this forum as part of his acdn referral URL)?

How about when he claimed I had no inside information about any company?

How about when he brazenly "corrected" my proper use of the plural possessive of sheep?

How about his very real expectations of-and demands for-medical, dental, paid vacation, 401k, sick days, etc. for FREELANCE workers (which contradict the very basis and purpose of "freelance" arrangements for both employer and worker)?

Seriously, I could go on and on with examples of Rusty's cluelessness, especially if I do a few searches, but I'm tired. Rusty's positions and claims run counter to a sound, reasonable mind. If you disagree, you're pretty much alone amongst all sane, long-time members of this forum who have experienced Rusty's antics.


Well, I am not shocked that you "agree" with what you KNOW to be an utterly false, propagandistic statement. You know perfectly well that I have NEVER stated that "the majority of essay company clients use their papers as the legal caveats intend." If you had any integrity at all, you would promptly acknowledge such and tell Rusty to stop his flat out lying. I have clearly stated that "not all students who buy papers use them to cheat," which was my original COUNTER to your false claim to the contrary (which you later acknowledged to be inaccurate). I provided irrefutable, real-world, legal evidence that not all students who buy papers use them to cheat. Had you never made the blatantly false claim that "all students who buy papers use them to cheat," I never would have posted evidence to prove you wrong (and you two wouldn't have the opportunity to intentionally misrepresent my statements).

Not at all. You said I was an ESL writer once and identified errors in my posts that were similar to what Rusty's identifying in your posts now.


This may have actually have stuck, if you weren't so eager to explain yourself to itsme even after he spilled his guts...

Was I even involved in these discussions? You seem to take me for someone who watches over this forum constantly. I don't, and I won't pore through the threads containing the matters you wrote about to know who's right and who's wrong in them. Not that it matters, anyway. I never claimed that Rusty's infallible. I agree with him when our positions are the same and in the case that I quoted in my previous post, I think they are.


Yes, which all of us (including Rusty, if I'm not mistaken) have conceded to. I myself have admitted (multiple times, I think) that the argument "all students who buy papers cheat" is indefensible because there must be some moron out there who actually cited the essay mill he bought his paper from in his reference list. That's a non-issue. I already said that I was in error in claiming so and that the claim should have been "most" instead of "all." I still think that you are clueless if ...


Now, do you or don't you?

thanks-- I just sold 2 yesterday.


I agree-- stupid mistakes aren't worth mentioning. global errors, though... wait, do I really have to explain it again?


that was back when I thought you might actually be some kind of threat. I agree-- it was very stupid of me to think that.


are you talking about the "legitimate" members?

Can you not READ?



I have asked you multiple times to prove your bulls-i* claim about my "global" errors. Why can't you do so? This is what separates you from EW_writer. You don't hesitate to lie through your dirty teeth and post complete fabrications.


Which members of this forum, besides EW_writer, have expressed any sort of support for you? (Hell, even EW_writer acknowledged that you are completely off your rocker with the whole "benefits" thing.)


Um, no, as*hole. I'm not referring to what you claim to think about my abilities. I'm referring to how and why you boldly and falsely asserted-over and over-that I hacked your email and acdn accounts. You came to that ignorant conclusion because you were too STUPID and CLUELESS to realize that your acdn username appeared in the referral URL that you were intentionally spamming for personal profit (against the rules of the forum, which is what I felt no guilt about torturing your dumb a!). Hey, EW_writer, do you honestly feel that Rusty was neither stupid nor clueless during that particular, lengthy episode?

again: you're right, WB, it was stupid of me. I now know that you couldn't hack your way out of a wet paper bag. you threatened me; I thought you were a threat. I didn't realize at the time that I was dealing with a toothless lunatic. I'm not a mind reader, either.


I'm not being paid to be your English teacher, WB. if I were, I would go back and register every one of your persistent errors for you, and we could talk about ways in which to correct them. as it is, I'm content to watch you repeat them, and laugh at you. you can take that as an incentive for change, or an incentive for denial... it's up to you.

That's what I thought, bs-er. Go back? You purport to be so very familiar with my "global" errors (i.e., errors that I supposedly make out of ignorance, over and over and over), so why can't you provide even ONE example from memory? I'll tell you why-this site's search engine is on my side. You know that all too well.


Again, you intentionally avoid the main issue at hand, which is that you are too STUPID and CLUELESS to realize that your acdn username is in the referral URL that you spammed. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with your past, current, or future assumptions about my abilities in any capacity. You, sir, are simply an idiot.

I can, but as I recall, the last time this issue was brought up you insisted that your evidence proved that only a small fraction of students who bought papers cheated. If you agree now that most of them do (or if my recollection is wrong), then that debate is done.


Even he agreed that he was stupid to think that you hacked his account. I fail to see the need for you to claim that you weren't referring to his overestimation of your abilities. What does it matter where the stupidity came from? Why are you uncomfortable with rusty questioning your hacking abilities? Are you claiming that you actually have any?

I have NEVER "insisted" any such thing. In fact, I never even suggested such a thing. Do you have a quote? The last time the issue came up, I echoed the same position. Once again, at no time have I ever taken any position other than "not all students who buy papers use them to cheat." That is all-nothing more, nothing less.


It has nothing to do with my comfort level with any of his silly claims about my abilities. It has to do with him trying to shift focus away from his embarrassing bungling.


No, he "agreed" that he was stupid "to think that I had the skill to hack," which has absolutely nothing to do with his STUPIDITY and CLUELESSNESS in posting his username HIMSELF and then publicly accusing me-repeatedly-of hacking his accounts to steal his username. You really want to suggest that such is not the comedic performance of clueless?

Pheelyks' interpretation of Rusty's worldview:

Again, I have no interest in reading through the threads to determine if anything was "comedic." However, if you're asking me what's sillier between rusty thinking you could hack or rusty not knowing that his link would contain his username, I'd have to choose the former. Yes, thinking that you could actually hack the writer's account of anyone here, or that you pose a threat to any competent writer is silly. The fact that he had thought so was stupid and funny.

You know what I think this is about? You're not willing to take rusty's admission of his overestimation of your abilities because that makes you admit to a weakness. I asked you if you're actually claiming to have any hacking abilities and you can't even give me a straight answer. You actually want people here to think that you have some ability to get them in trouble with their employers, and part of that is knowing what their usernames are. :p

Wrong. You know why? I never claimed to be able-or have any desire or intention-to hack his accounts of any kind. I am not a hacker. I have no idea how to hack anything. Hacking is a felony. The "hacking" nonsense was entirely the product of his delusional imagination. You're wrongly assuming that I ever threatened or promised to "hack" his accounts or otherwise steal his user ID or any other information. I posted his acdn username (after grabbing it from the referrer URL that he spammed) and he lost his marbles for DAYS, mouth-breathing repeatedly that I "hacked" his accounts.


Really? You think that the following referrer URL in any way makes his username difficult to see?

academon.com/4years
(I've removed a character from the URL so that it is not a valid destination.)

Dude-it's his OWN username that HE created.

Again, really? He posted it about a dozen times in different threads, and you're suggesting that he's not stupid and/or clueless for not only failing to recognize his username in the URL, but proceeding to accuse me of hacking both his email and acdn accounts? Listen, I know that you love the guy because he attacks me repeatedly with baseless accusations and lies, but you are truly embarrassing yourself by making excuses for his astounding cluelessness.

Now that's the direct answer I was looking for. It's great that it only took a post to get it out of you this time. ^_^


In which of my statements did I even imply that? I said that...


Not reading the URL that one posts is careless, even stupid in some cases, sure, but I can't say that I read the entire length of every URL that I post, do you? So it's just not that silly to me. Now, thinking that you can do any harm to any competent writer in this forum, that's what's really hilarious. :p

Oh, I also think that all this talk about what makes the entire episode silly is silly. So... I'm going to go now. >.<

as I've learned, one of WB's defaults here is to attempt to play himself off as some sort of cyber-stalker.

it's all BS, of course, which is proven by his hilarious inability to make good on a 3-year-old empty threat against my Academon account. that he's sticking to this threat is as much a testament to his stubbornness as his refusal to admit that he needs to practice spelling the words "peek" and "dweller."

you don't know anyone's real IRL identity, WB. you don't have pull in the industry. you're just a nut who sometimes manages to shoot fish in a barrel.

end of story.

The bottom line, EW_writer, is that you and Rusty are cowards who sit on the sidelines while mocking my efforts. Guess what-that's fine. It takes a very small, sad person to do what you do. My job is infinitely more difficult than yours. All of the burden is on my shoulders. Guess what-that's fine, too. I've carried others' burdens all of my life. It keeps me going. Contrary to your claims, I have gotten numerous sites, companies, and individual scammers shut down, banned from search engines, and/or barred from doing business in entire countries. Every time I post proof about action being taken against a certain entity, your all-star comeback is to blindly claim that I had nothing to do with it. Hey, if that tactic floats your boat, more power to you. In that case, consider me nothing more than a messenger who just happens to be the one to break the story EVERY time.


Hey, Rusty, are those your examples of my "global" errors? (For the record, a good example of a "global" error is your lazy tendency to fail to capitalize the first word of a sentence in virtually every post, making your posts difficult and annoying to read. Pure laziness is no excuse for committing the global errors that you force upon others. If you want to continue dumbing-down society, make your own forum.) Oh, and I'd just love for you to embarrass me by quoting an example of a sentence that I have typed in which the intended meaning is not clear.


BTW, a little bird told me that the owners of acdn have been reading all of your posts over the last few days, including all of those in which you brag about stealing, plagiarizing, defrauding, and scamming. You know, legitimate companies like acdn tend to not want to be in any way associated with your ilk. Oops!


Well, the fact that Rusty is completely incompetent should bode well in favor of the public good. :p

you're still at it! what an epic fail.

picture this: you own an essay company. you have a good relationship with a writer, in which you pay him royalties for a few hundred papers he has given you. this relationship has been going on for years, and thousands of dollars have been made on both sides.

now, you get a mean-spirited, empty-headed vendetta from some lunatic about a message board, demanding the termination of this long-standing, lucrative relationship.

are you really that deluded that you think Academon is going to do anything but laugh at you?

have fun on your fool's errand, though. don't let the impossibility of accomplishing anything on it stop you (I know you won't).

Gee, I wonder why you suddenly stopped harping on the "global errors" accusation. You don't like evidence very much, do you?


Aren't you a little old to be using the hip language of young people?


Liar. ;)


Remember, I won't have had anything to do with it.


We're not talking about the "entire length" (good job dishonestly making it seem as though it's really long; can't you play it straight for once?) of some massive URL. It's a short URL containing only his username after the domain. We're also not talking about just "any URL" that carries no significance, either. We're talking about his personal referral URL containing his private username that he created himself, copied from his acdn control panel, and then spammed in a very calculated manner in about a dozen different threads in this forum. On top of that, he nearly had a virtual seizure while repeatedly accusing me of hacking his accounts in order to "steal" his username that he revealed in about a dozen different threads in this forum! Yeah, I'm sure that if you were to take a survey, nobody would tick the "Clueless" box. ;)

WB-- knowing your predilection for proof, you might want to post those dozen threads. because the way I remember it, it was two.

I posted the link twice, and forgot about it. that doesn't make me stupid, though it may make me absent-minded. you may have noticed that I haven't posted the link since; I don't keep making the same mistake over and over (a commonly accepted definition of stupidity for which you fit the bill perfectly).

if I'm stupid for anything in all this, it is, as EW writer attests, thinking of you as a serious threat to my livelihood. now, go ahead: huff and puff, and pat yourself on the back some more. I enjoy some comic relief as much as the next guy.

just don't think for a second that I believe any of your empty threats, or that I'm not going to call BS whenever you make one. put up or shut up.

absent-minded = clueless and stupid


Right, because people are supposed to believe the word/memory of a proven liar and a self-professed "absent-minded" dips-i*.


1. You may want to check the capitalization of the first word of sentences in virtually all of your posts.

2. Why can't you post proof that I "make the same mistake over and over"? You can't because I don't (and never have), that's why. So far, I'm the only one to show proof of the other's "over and over" mistakes (see your capitalization problems). Why don't you ask EW_writer for help? I'm sure that she'll jump at the opportunity to prove you correct and me incorrect, right? After all, she's on record as claiming that you are NOT stupid, clueless, OR a liar. I'm sure that she'll be eager to help you prove your point, won't you, EW_writer? ;)


2. You posted the link all over the place, far more than "two times." Luckily for you (and I'm sure you already confirmed in advance), the spamming posts in which you included the link were expunged from the system LONG ago, after having been moved to the "Off Topic" section by the mod. Such threads automatically delete after a few months.

spoken like a true idiot.


I think EW writer is done rattling the bars of your monkey cage... and so am I, for now. it's been a good show, but as usual, your screeching and feces-flinging ultimately gets boring.

*teardrop* :p

Geez... this act is getting REALLY old. The name of the game is selling essays to students. It's a shady "profession" no matter how you look at it, but we do it nonetheless because it pays well and we're very good at it. You ARE NOT a champion for "essay mill honesty" (which is an oxymoron).


If you're referring to the losers who come to this forum to sell their ****, the competent writers who post in this board make short work of them with or without you. But hey, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself.

SHOW PROOF that you were directly responsible for the SEC's decision about Uniwork in this link that you've been touting about:

sec.gov.ph/decision/mar%202011/case%20no.%2006-10-119.pdf

I know that the decision doesn't really affect EW in any significant way, but nonetheless, let's see if you can really claim the rights to this "victory." If you did directly cause or contribute significantly to the decision, then show us proof. Say, emails that you sent to the SEC and their responses, so that we can email the SEC ourselves and verify your involvement.

Otherwise, shut up.

How silly of me . . . .


That's quite funny, considering that I did not speak. Only a psychotic idiotic "hears voices."


Yeah, you always scurry away when I back you into a corner about providing evidence to support your accusations. Hey, where are those "global errors" of mine? EW_writer, can you help him out? He's not clueless, stupid, or a liar, right? Are you going to stand by your official opinion of Rusty by helping to prove him correct? Does your official opinion mean anything, or are you full of just as much hot air as he is?


I never claimed to be. However, until you can prove that ALL research companies are dishonest and/or commit fraud, you're the ox moron for taking yet another position that you cannot concretely justify beyond your baseless, skewed, personal opinion. FYI, "I believe" is not proof or evidence, Margie.


Right. Is that why the writers to which you refer often ask for my help and confirmation?


Not yet, but it's a well-calculated stepping stone, which I already explained, Margie. It took over 2 years to finalize, but we all know that government agencies tend to take their sweet ass time, especially when it comes to dealing with small-time crooks. They have much bigger fish to fry, but, eventually, they do fry even the smallest fish.


Emails? Hah! No emails were involved, genius. You obviously have no idea how the formal complaint process with the SEC works. I'm not at all surprised, since you have a penchant for pretending as if you have a clue. Oh, and you really think that an official at the SEC is going to provide you-an absolute nobody with no original connection to the case-with "confirmation" of my personal information/involvement? Yeah, OK, Margie. You do realize that one of the SEC's most sacred rules is to protect the identity of informants, right? People wouldn't report otherwise, smarty-pants. You clearly have a lot to learn. The real world isn't a sci-fi essay assignment.

What was that a few posts ago about not being petty? :p


Blah blah blah... all I'm reading (or hearing :p) is "Uhhh.. proof? I can't provide you proof... but I was involved, I WASSSSS!!! YOUSE ALL'S GOTS TO BELIEVE ME. I'M A SOMEBODY, DARN IT!!!"

ROFLMAO!!!! Keep on dreaming, WB. I was asking for some proof that you were involved, not necessarily an email. You can't even bring yourself to claim that you called the SEC or something. ^___^ The fact is, you have NO PROOF that you had anything to do with the SEC's decision, yet you go prancing about making it seem like you did.

Such a sad little man (pretending to be a big fat woman). :p Whatever you're getting paid is too much. ^___^

Gee, I wonder why you have once again intentionally avoided justifying your position about Rusty. Where are all of my "global errors," Margie? Come on, don't you have the guts to prove your claim that Rusty is not stupid, clueless, or a shameless liar? I backed him into a corner and he ran away like a little coward. Will you join him or will you step up to the plate? You can either admit that Rusty is a stupid, clueless, shameless liar (proving that your support for him is as blindly propagandistic as your opposition to me), or you can reference the "global errors" that I keep making over and over again to prove him correct. Which will it be, Margie?


Ah, the frustrated ramblings of a soundly defeated debate opponent . . . .

^______^ (nice try making it seem that this petty squabble matters though)


Awww.... now comes the classi WB "let's forget about it" s-i*.

I challenged you to give proof that you had even a pinky to do with the SEC decision. You call your being UNABLE to provide any such proof "winning" the debate? WOW. ^_______^

1. Sorry, liar, but that's not what happened. You specifically asked me to post copies of the "emails" that you ignorantly assumed exist. Since emailing was never part of the process, I took the opportunity to highlight your ignorance of SEC procedures.

2. You challenged me after I challenged you. Sorry, but you don't get to cut in line. Reference my "global errors" about which Rusty continues to shout from the rooftops. Do you have any integrity or not?

How many times have you used this sorry excuse for an excuse? Hahaha!!!! You're such a pathetic little shill.

You challenged me to "defend" rusty for saying that you have global errors? I'm not gonna read through hundreds of threads to know whether you use "peak" instead of "peek" most of the time. That matters not to me. I think it's as petty as you chastising rusty over "speak" instead of "read." I think I've made that point pretty clear already.

Now... let's go back to YOU. :p

You imply (though cleverly not claim) that you had something to do with the SEC decision versus Uniwork when in fact you did not. Uniwork was most likely attacked by the writers that it cheated. You had NOTHING to do with it. You would like people to think that you did so that it would somehow make them fear you, and cover up your inability to make good on years-long threats that you've made.


Wow.. this makes me wonder why you call yourself a master of the English language. I said:


I think that ANYONE here would say that I was not asking you to provide emails specifically, but any proof such as emails. Also, your tendency to dwell on trivial matters in a pathetic attempt to hide your obvious failure is hilarious. ^___^

Um, it's not an excuse, Margie. I challenged you to validate your claims about Rusty first. Why do you think that it is OK to ignore my original challenge, issue a retaliatory challenge of your own, and then attack me because I have not yet answered your retaliatory challenge? Do you not recognize how stupid and childish that makes you?


Right. You're spineless. You can boldly assert that Rusty is NOT stupid, careless, and/or a liar, but when it comes to proving it, you suddenly have "no idea if he is correct or not"? Hmmm, nice job! Are you too much of a pompous ass to admit that my writing/typing contains no such "global errors"? What-you're not familiar with my skills? You haven't read THOUSANDS of my posts since 2007? Good luck with that patented sidestepping of yours, Margie. It really has become your calling card.


Again, you asked for emails. Again, I decided to prove that you don't have a damn clue about many of the things about which you blindly oppose me by highlighting these facts:

1. you asked me to provide "emails" as proof, which is not part of the formal SEC procedure;

2. you claimed that you would then use those "emails" to contact the SEC to get SEC officials to confirm my identity and involvement.

You really can't get much more ignorant than that, Margie. You want me to provide emails that were never part of the process? The SEC is going to give me up to you? Really? LMAO!

Just for shits and giggles, what-specifically-would you NOW like me to "post" in order to prove my involvement? Think carefully this time. (Good luck finding clues via a Google search.)

Wow... more display of ignorance in the proper use of the English language. Know what? I think rusty is right about you having global errors. You fail to recognize the hypothetical from and the actual no matter how many times it gets shoved to your face. I asked you to provide any evidence that may prove your involvement in the entire SEC-Uniwork affair. I did not specifically ask for an email, although I did say that you can present such if they existed. Oh, and the mere fact that you continue to argue over this shows how much you are desperately trying to deviate from the topic:

LMAO!


Stop ignoring my critical challenges, Margie.


Ah, so now you're claiming that you did not "actually" request emails as evidence? You "hypothetically" asked me to provide my "hypothetical" emails as evidence?


I don't think that you grasp the point, Margie. The fact that you requested "emails" as evidence AT ALL proves that you are clueless and have no business even attempting to debate on the matter. You are, therefore, in no position to determine what does or does not constitute legitimate evidence. You already blew your cover, I'm afraid.

There's nothing critical about you except your critical lack of substance.



That has nothing to do with you not being able to give any evidence at all of your involvement in the SEC-Uniwork affair. Even if we assume that I am "in no position," you know that the moment you post your "evidence" here, EVERYBODY will laugh at you for it. :p I don't even need to do anything.

Look, we know where this is going. You got ABSOLUTELY nothing to show of your phantom involvement in the matter so you will just keep on posting senseless retorts. Let me save you the trouble.

Here's a summary of what people can get from reading this thread:

1.) Some of the best writers in this industry are also adept in statistical analysis.
2.) MeoKhan is an inferior writer.
3.) WritersBeware is a nobody desperately pretending to be a somebody.

Have a nice day. ^________^

haha, ooops! Sorry, EW!

Haha...


You wish.

Your "challenge":


My answer:


Like I said, you got ABSOLUTELY nothing to show of your phantom involvement in the matter so you will just keep on posting senseless retorts. Let me save you the trouble.

For the record, here's a summary of what people can get from reading this thread:

1.) Some of the best writers in this industry are also adept in statistical analysis.
2.) MeoKhan is an inferior writer.
3.) WritersBeware is a nobody desperately pretending to be a somebody. He keeps on making it seem like he had something to do with the SEC-Uniwork affair so that people would think he matters. He doesn't have a SHRED of evidence to prove his involvement and he knows it, so he resorts to these childish tactics to stall. :p Cute, but ultimately futile. ^____^

I also find it quite telling how you've taken to referring to me as "he" lately because it is what your moronic pal, Rusty, has been doing. Seriously-how do you even stand up straight with that jelly spine of yours?


Wrong, Margie.

I issued challenges FIRST. Again, you don't get to cut in line. You have failed to answer those challenges, preferring to issue your own challenges instead. When you answer my ORIGINAL challenges, I will answer your SECONDARY challenges (at which time I will also quote your multiple false claims as some very tasty icing on the cake). ;) I do love a setup!

Already did.

You simply didn't want to read my answer because you knew that you had absolutely no answer to my challenge. ^__^

This just goes to show my point that:


WritersBeware is a nobody desperately pretending to be a somebody. He keeps on making it seem like he had something to do with the SEC-Uniwork affair so that people would think he matters. He doesn't have a SHRED of evidence to prove his involvement and he knows it, so he resorts to these childish tactics to stall. :p Cute, but ultimately futile. ^____^

Recently there has been some discussion with regards to the use of SPSS in research. The proposition made out of the talk is that the writer who knows how to use SPSS in research is the superior soul.

Please take note that this is absolutely a flawed notion.
In real, SPSS is just a software program that helps the user apply different statistical procedures and formulas to analyze the "already fed" data, in the social sciences research, to describe and infer the data one has acquired by different means (e.g., questionnaire, interviews, etc.).

With proper training and practice, anyone can use SPSS.

However, the real test lies in the pre-SPSS phase: from setting the research question to gathering the required data.

Anyone who suggests (or makes false claims) that using SPSS is the most important thing (without the mention of the pre-SPSS phase) is simply overstating the importance of SPSS.

I invite everyone to google what I write here to test the validity of my claims.

And remember, if trained properly, anyone can use SPSS.


This is only in your posts that I have frequently seen you referring over and over to how much you have earned doing this and that.

I have only once made a passing reference to how much I earn doing the same work as you do. My earnings will surprise you even though I am an "inferior" writer.

This forum is about scam and not about the boastful earning reports. I hope you'd take note of this fact.
BTW, if you earned just $2000, I can see you speak more than deliver. You need work hard and increase your earnings.

I have many a time stated that I am an ESL writer. I have also stated that my clients are both ESL and native speakers.

Ever since I stated this fact, I have seen your tone changed abruptly. Now, you are out to howl the fact to let anyone know "I am an inferior writer". It simply tells me you're scared of the growing competition.

When I have already said one thing (even over and over -that I am an ESL writer (not inferior though)), why would you point it out time and again: simply to assure yourself that your position is safe. Lolz

$2000 for 4 projects that won't take me over 2 weeks to finish alongside my other projects? Ok, if you say so. ^____^


Embarrassed much?


Not according to WB:


^_____^

I think that people here have a right to know who they ought not to trust. Do you fault me on that?