Writers: What do you say?

I've stated that it's not true many times-you just keep ignoring that fact in favor of continuing your pointless, mindless propaganda.

1. Your claim is false.
2. Your claim-even if it were true (it's not)-is absolutely irrelevant (just like your existence).

nice try, sweet-tits. you operate in this industry directly for ET, and have a vested interest in defending them. talk about propaganda!

1. Wrong.

2. Quote a single example of me "defending" ET and being proven wrong for doing so. (We both know that you can't because it does not exist.)

3. I defend ALL legit example research sites that get libeled by idiots, liars, and dirty offshore competitors.

Hello, everybody!!!

I am back again. The diamond of your heart is here again. From now on, you will always get me available to communicate with you. This time my mission is to throw the Trinity of WB, Phyleeks and WRT out of this forum.

Let's throw this vermin-trinity out there in the Dustbin.

LMAO!

Monkeys are funny, especially when they throw their own poo.

This has been your mission every time you show up here. One would think you'd get tired of failing miserably at a task you have absolutely zero chance of accomplishing...

When you will get the real kick your a&&, you will feel better about my life-time mission.

Yeah, well, you've been promising that "real kick" for over two years, now, and you haven't delivered so much as a forceful toe, so you'll pardon my persistent belief in your gross inadequacies.

An African rhinoceros never feel the punch. Can you tell me the meaning of the following sentence: (In a forum I found it. Someone says) In America there is a long fat and sturdy black "p" in white "v". So the domiciles are increasing in number.

You think you're being both clever and vulgar, and in both attempts you're really just underlining the fact that you have a seven year old's sensibilities and intelligence. Go back to grade school and compare your pecker with the other boys on the short bus, and let the grownups talk.

you're just as bad as Fracture, although slightly more homo.


funny.

I strongly believe my boy P and his sis WB have strong conviction they own this forum. They also believe they are the authority here over each and every single topic.

For example, I have posted substantive content (directly from research articles + many a reference); now instead of admitting they don't know anything about applied linguistics research, they gave their verdicts (with their favorite swear words they learned as toddlers) which still make me laugh out loud.

Secondly, wherever anyone makes a post on anything, it's both of them jumping in and they love to use their home language = swear words.

I must admit many a contribution by them is useful, but it doesn't mean they're the only Socrates on this forum. It simply tells us of their arrogance which is inadmissible in any domain of human activity.

So I have decided (1) to pay no attention to their gibberish (besides any useful posts), and (2) to continue to read through posts, topics, to keep on learning.

Pheelyks and I both read your little articles, and pheelyks highlighted exactly how and why they serve to prove false the ignorant assertions that you sought to prove correct. Good job!

Really? Did you actually read his posts?


Exactly what have you contributed in the way of substantive conversation to this forum? You had a few ideas that didn't hold up to any criticism, so you lost it and formed this weird persecution complex, and now you only show up every once in awhile to complain about how horrible this forum and the people on it are. We don't like you any more than you like us, so go play somewhere else.

I'm afraid that the "computer" in your skull has been operating at maximum capacity (233 MHz, 1MB RAM) for quite some time already.

Why do you, brother and sissy, always defend each other? EXACTLY!!! Wow! Your verdict is the word of the forum. Missy you and your brother (my boy P) don't know anything about applied linguistics.

Here is a direct challenge: make a clear assertion, and we will show you exactly how and why you are wrong. Deal?

...too bad yours aren't. There are a lot of other people that have contributed wise and relevant things on this forum, you're just not one of them.

Yes. Now, when I have cited from reputed journals that there is no such thing as Standard English and you guys don't admit, my posts aren't useful, correct!


Sure. Now would you mind telling me which specific genre of English is taught in US universities? (I won't put more keywords because you will google things - though you won't still be able to tell me).

Let's see.

I had some good ideas that didn't hold up to the cynicism of writers happy with the status quo (the minority of regulars here) and threatened company owners (the majority).

then, I asked for help to make my ideas better, and got a lot of condescending twaddle from you and yours, pheelyks. didn't you actually read your posts?

in any case, that's in the past. what we're talking about now is your tendency to go sophomoric, and then call the kettle black. has anyone ever taught you how to be charming?

That's a very good question. But, Editor75, you know very well, as all of us do, he does not have the answer to this question! He takes pride in throwing swear words (like his sissy) which is a clear indication of how these guys have been brought up. Oops!

That isn't even close to what your cited journal articles suggest. The fact that you can't understand this is a major part of the communication problem here.


No, they didn't hold up to logical scrutiny, as your suggested "improvements" to the status quo would have led to a decrease in job satisfaction for the writers that regularly post on this forum.


Again, wrong. You got (from me, at any rate) reasoned explanations of what was wrong with your ideas and why they weren't approved. The fact that you reacted like a butt-hurt little child isn't anyone's fault but your own.


I could have sworn we were talking about your lack of anything relevant and useful to say, and thus your incessant need to simply comment on the style of others' posts rather than involving yourself in more taxing and meaningful pursuits.

there's no getting through to you. keep making the same mistakes, then, and repeating the same tired lines. it just shows how you're projecting your own inadequacies onto others. you're the one who ignores the points of others to promote your own selfish agenda. someone said it best in another thread: you're like an infant throwing his toys out of the crib. you're not here to help anyone.

Absolutely correct!

MeoKhan and editor75, you're a couple of unaccomplished, jealous simpletons with absolutely no skill, no knowledge, and nothing to offer the forum community.

Neither one of you can win a substantive debate against either pheelyks or me, so you harp on our meaningless and utterly irrelevant "character" traits. Why? That's all you've got, that's why.

Allow me to let you in on a little secret: this is a harsh forum about uncovering essay scams. Visitors love my blunt, no-bulls-i* style and detailed investigations because I prevent them from being defrauded. Nothing else matters.

This is not an online charm school.

This is not my Facebook wall.

I am not here to make friends.

You don't like it? Leave.

I responded to every issue you raised when you first showed up wanting to change the industry. You acknowledged that you have no direct knowledge about how the industry works and still claim to have no practical interest in it, yet every practical point of reality I brought up was dismissed out of hand simply because it challenged your conceptions and ideas. Now, all of your comments consist of rating/judging other people here, which is even less useful than raising ideas that have already been repeatedly discussed and dismissed prior to your arrival. As for my "selfish agenda," I never advertise my services or name the companies I work for unless accused of having such a hidden agenda. I openly and willfully acknowledge my position in this industry, but I try not to do so in a way that violates the TOS of the forum.

I also have responded in many threads started by consumers that ask about the validity of various sites, and will tell them when I don't see any signs of a scam just as I will tell them when such signs are glaringly obvious. This has included many companies that are direct competitors of those I work for, so as far as my selfishness goes I seem to be going about it rather stupidly. The general advice i have provided in many threads--don't believe outlandish claims, know that you have to pay for quality, place small orders to begin with, and understand how the chargeback system works with your credit card--also serve no direct "selfish" purpose of mine, other than building a trusted and respected name with the consumers in this industry. You can claim otherwise if you want, but I have the PMs and the emails to rest assured in my position here.

Have a nice life, Buford...I hope it gets interesting enough that you don't keep feeling a need to show up on a forum you cannot hope to actually contribute to just to continue facing what--in your eyes--is nothing more than childish abuse.

right-- against a child and a brick wall. you don't win arguments, WB... you tire people out with increasingly schizoid insults, and then gloat. it's not the same as winning. and since when has the point of this forum been to argue? I'll tell you: since you took it over!


you may have given some good advice in the past, but lately you've been following in WB's antisocial, gimpy footsteps. it's good to smile at the boss, laugh at his jokes, etc. but do you really have to take it to the full-out extent?

Buford, the selectivity and brevity of your comment in response to my own post is evidence of your uselessness here. The lack of validity in your comment, on many levels, is also an indicator that reality simply has no meaning to you.

OK, WB, you're not willing to admit your correct sex... whatever floats your boat. but as for refusing to admit that you work for ET, it's pretty important as a baseline for "legitimate debate."

pheelyks-- you could learn a lesson in brevity; many feel it's more effective than pompous, long-winded, self-centered entitlement.

I am quite brief when need be. You use brevity as an excuse no to respond to things that prove you wrong/ignorant/stupid--this isn't commendable or anything anyone else should learn.

Here you go again with the gender obsessions . . . . What is your problem? You're utterly useless. Thank you for making my point. My gender is irrelevant. Regardless, it is YOU who-for some reason-doesn't believe that I am a woman. That's your sick, disturbing problem, not mine.


Again, you're sick in the head, and that's not my problem or concern. I don't work for ET. Dozens of idiots like you have made that accusation (which is how you got the idea) and all have failed miserably in posting even the slightest evidence.

Congratulations on coming up with TWO excuses as to why you are too much of a coward to debate me.

like I said, whatever floats your boat.


you're a liar. I don't debate liars.

On what, exactly, do you base your incredibly ignorant accusation, other than me defending ET and ALL other legitimate sites against liars and idiots?


Regardless, my connection to ET-which exists only in your deranged mind-would have absolutely no relevance to the substantive assertions that I have made in this forum, which, in turn, have absolutely NOTHING to do with ET.

Either way, you lose, clueless coward.

WB-- backpedal much?

"you can't prove it... even if I were..."

I feel sorry for you. it must suck, posing as this high-moral fraud-buster, while being a total fraud and liar. and to top it off, you're terrible at it!

even if I've had some unworkable ideas, or stooped to your level on occasion, I've been nothing but myself.

listen-- there can be no "legitimate debate" when one side is withholding information, or lying about issues substantial to that debate. since you do work for ET, it does affect your substantive assertions made on this board. it gives you a vested interest in both defending ET and disparaging its competitors.

Even if this is the case, it does not have anything to do with objectively verifiable information used in arguments both about ET and about other companies. I, for instance, acknowledge completing orders placed at ET, and also acknowledge that there are several other legitimate companies I know of (so does WB). What we say about ET or about other companies isn't made less true just because there's a potential bias (and I have no idea who WB does or doesn't work for, so I'm not suggesting there is one).

Surely your basic class in logic covered this type of fallacy....oh, that's right; you have no idea what anyone's talking about once the rules of logic become involved.....

Seriously-to what are you referring? Are you capable of being specific? I have NEVER backpedaled. My positions have been quite clear since April of 2007.


You're clearly an idiot. In debating, that's known as "playing the devil's advocate." It's a technique that works quite well in painting-for an audience-a mental picture of the invalidity and futility of an opponent's argument. In short, I show that even if your false accusations were true, you still would not have a leg on which to stand in a debate on the substantive issues.

If I were to list all of the legit companies in the industry, would that mean that I "work for" all of them, too?

I'm not here to answer your "hypothetical" questions or argue with you, unless you can put your cards on the table first. you're lying about not working for ET. you're lying because you know that admitting it would seriously torpedo your credibility as an objective third-party "scam buster." what you may not know is that you're just building sand castles... your childish tantrums, ignorance of empirical research skills, and misplaced vulgarity have already destroyed your credibility.

There are far more open appeals for assistance from WB and I than there are for you. In fact, I can't recall a single person posting to ask your specific advice about a company, how to go about finding a decent company, or anything else. If you're going to harp on empirical research skills, you should try engaging in some empirical research: from what can be objectively verified, WB and I both have far more credibility than you with others who come to this forum.

Um, that's all you, buddy. Again, if you'd like to debate me on the issues, let's do it. If not, just STFU, loser.