Scammer looking for free writing

1. 58

   Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

   Hi all
   
   Just wanted to warn you about some one here. I got this message via hubpages this morning:
   ------------------------------------------------
   Joey Lue (yh_service@yahoo.com) yh_service on HubPages
   has sent you this message.
   (email address verified)
   
   Hello,
   
   We saw you on the content site (Hubpages), and we would like to offer you a service to work under us. The job offer is basically writing articles for in any category you like. We pay via PayPal per article so you don't have to wait until you earn clicks, once you write an article you earn.
   
   We will pay $3-$5 per unique, new article. If you are interested please write a unique, never published article (not even on Hubpages), and send it to yh_service1@yahoo.com . This will help us see how good you are, the article could be in any category as long as it has never been published before (new). It has to pass Copyscape.
   
   We will review and accept or decline you.
   
   Please note: That by sending us the article, you give us full right to the article as in you are not the author anymore. We will use your article whether we accept you or decline you.
   ------------------------------------------------
   
   This is clearly fishing for free content. No one in their right mind should write a $3 article on spec.
   
   I asked him to send me $5 - and if I like it I might write an article

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Benson Yeungposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for posting the email. I shall copy and paste and email to all my hubber friends today and hopefully make a 50-fold profit.
      
      Dr Benson Yeung, <snipped - no sigs please>

      replyreport
   2. 75

      spiderpamposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the heads up.

      replyreport
   3. 72

      AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Mark you should have asked them for $10 as you are an excellent writer!!!

      replyreport
   4. 79

      Frieda Babbleyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Now that's a good answer.  See, I would have just deleted.  I like your way better.  I don't suppose you got a response, huh.

      replyreport
2. 0

   nazishnasimposted 15 years ago

   Mark
   
   LOL, loved the reply you sent him. You really are right, nobody would write an article for $3 and this one for sure is a scammer looking for free lunch. I would rather publish my article here on hubpages but never degrade it by not only selling but also letting go of my ownership rights for $3-$5. 'The Yahoooooo' is not only a scammer but also a dumb one.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      JamaGeneeposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      This is the 3rd thread I know of about this scam, so nobody should be falling for it.  But maybe we should all follow Mark's cue and ask the scammer to send *us* $5 and we'll see if we like his stuff! 

      replyreport
      1. 80

         earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         I apparently did not warrant one, but ag did. Always suspected he was a better writer than me!

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Look at it this way -
            
            This guy thought I was dumb enough to send him a free sample.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Thanks! I feel better now Mark.

               replyreport
            2. 0

               bunyip named sueposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Come on now a guy has to earn a living. I sent him one in Bunyip Speak. Guess what . He sent me back a $3.00 bill.
               He also told me to not bother sending any more articles.

               replyreport
3. 60

   Eric Graudinsposted 15 years ago

   I reckon this guy is OK.
   He sent me $500 by Paypal, and asked me to write a 200 word article on what a bastard Mark Knowles is.
   So I took the job.
   But couldn't stop writing until I hit 2,687 words
   
   cheers, Eric G.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Is that all you could manage?
      
      I keep forgetting you are Tasmanian so I guess that used up your entire vocabulary. You can mix them up to make different sentences you know.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Eric Graudinsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks Mark. What a great tip.
         I've just had another thought too. Is it permissable to use the same word more than once in an article?

         replyreport
   2. 64

      darksideposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for sending me this to proof read it for you Eric. I think it's right to send in now.
      
      On behalf of several members of the community, I would like to express my shock and disappointment at some of Mark Knowles's utterances. One of the first facts we should face is that I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with Mark. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I comment on his calumnies. His attempts to dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities are much worse than mere alarmism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation.
      
      Mark's sound bites occasionally differ in terms of how stultiloquent can they are but generally share one fundamental tendency: They convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter. In other words, Mark always demands instant gratification. That's all that is of concern to him; nothing else matters—except maybe to cause pain and injury to those who don't deserve it. I tell you this because it's possible that Mark doesn't realize this because he has been ingrained with so much of factionalism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we embark on a new path towards change.
      
      Mark is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when high-handed, prodigal lummoxes bring discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that the Universe belongs to Mark by right. And fear of asinine, ugly bureaucrats like Mark who write off whole sections of society. If there's a rule, and he keeps making exceptions to that rule, then what good is the rule? I mean, the public is like a giant that he has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Mark leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to issue a call to conscience and reason. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that Mark's a financial predator who preys on the elderly, the gullible, and the vulnerable. He seeks their assets to support his own lavish lifestyle. Keep that in mind while I state the following: Mark has been trying for some time to sell the public on a parasitism-based government. His sales pitch proceeds both pragmatically and emotionally. The pragmatic argument: Women are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras. The emotional argument: Antisocial politicos should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. As you can see, neither argument is valid, which should indicate to you that Mark has been trying for some time to convince people that children should belong to the state. Don't believe his hype! Mark has just been offering that line as a means to manipulate public understanding of exhibitionism. I, for one, believe that we need to do more to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. And that's all I have to say.

      replyreport
4. 81

   LondonGirlposted 15 years ago

   Humph, sunshine obviously doesn't rate my writing.....

   replyreport
5. 64

   darksideposted 15 years ago

   Eric, I think this one is good too. Is this being added to the other one, or is the guy paying you another $500?
   
   Through this letter, I intend to serve as a facilitator who will help you draw your own conclusions about Mr. Mark Knowles. That is, I'll be your "guide on the side", not a "sage on the stage". With my assistance, you'll soon gain a deep understanding of how Mr. Knowles always sounds like he's reading a prepared speech. The following text regards my complaints of recent days against Mr. Knowles and his subtle but voluble attempts to batten on the credulity of the ignorant. I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I wish only that he had the same intellectual honesty. When it comes to his whinges, I sincerely avouch that we have drifted along for too long in a state of blissful denial and outright complacency. It's time to shine a light on Mr. Knowles's efforts to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society. The sooner we do that the better because he wants to deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Mr. Knowles's gossamer grasp of reality.
   
   Mr. Knowles will do everything in his power to envelop us in a nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; Mr. Knowles might have been in a lethargic state of autointoxication when he said that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life. More likely, perhaps, is that if Mr. Knowles can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. Mr. Knowles feels no guilt for any of the harm he's caused. What are the lessons for us in this? First, it's that his ipse dixits are devoid of logic and filled to the brim with hate and misinformation. And second, I can hardly believe how in this day and age, bumptious evildoers are allowed to set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts. That's the sort of statement that some people insist is disorderly but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because we must show him that we are not powerless pedestrians on the asphalt of life. We must show Mr. Knowles that we can yank up heinous fribbles from the dark rocks under which they hide and flaunt them before the bright sunshine of public exposure. Maybe then Mr. Knowles will realize that his accomplices are merely ciphers. Mr. Knowles is the one who decides whether or not to spread amoral views. Mr. Knowles is the one who gives out the orders to bad-mouth worthy causes. And Mr. Knowles is the one trying to conceal how it has been said that his profiteering and power mongering will have a serious destabilizing effect on our institutions eventually. I believe that to be true. I also believe that the impact of Mr. Knowles's disorganized roorbacks is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that every time Mr. Knowles gets caught trying to install a puppet government that pledges allegiance to his obstinate, lecherous flock, he promises he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his surrogates always jump in and explain that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does because, as they profess, principles don't matter.
   
   Mr. Knowles takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. Think of the lives that could be saved if we would just expose his hijinks for what they really are. While we may all pray for a perfect utopian world in which everyone is holding hands and singing "We Are the World" in perfect harmony, the reality is that he indulges in various forms of verbal savagery to conceal the fact that his exegeses, like opium, hashish, or alcohol, keep the canaille in a trance and oblivious of reality. I won't dwell on that except to direct your attention to the sinister manner in which Mr. Knowles has been trying to compose paeans to clericalism.
   
   Aside from the fact that Mr. Knowles's op-ed pieces are the opiate of the unprofessional, Mr. Knowles's apothegms are based on hate. Hate, Chekism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. If we let Mr. Knowles hijack the word "isomerizeparabolization" and use it to control, manipulate, and harm other people, then greed, corruption, and escapism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions.
   
   For future reference, if a cogent, logical argument entered Mr. Knowles's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. Mr. Knowles's values promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Mr. Knowles's allies because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Mr. Knowles. He argues that I am neo-wicked for wanting to open minds instead of closing them. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. Two quick comments: 1) Rigid adherence to dogmatic purity will lead only to disunity while we clearly need unity to reach out to the poor, the marginalized, and those unfortunate enough to have been labeled as truculent by Mr. Knowles's propaganda machine, and 2) if he wants to be taken seriously, he should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. Help me tell it like it is. Join your hands with mine in this, the greatest cause of our time.

   replyreport
6. 64

   darksideposted 15 years ago

   Okay Eric, I think you can stop sending them to me now, I have other work to do...
   
   Writing this letter stems from a desperation to be heard, if not by a court of law, then by a court of public opinion. First and foremost, some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, Mr. Mark Knowles recently went through an isolationism phase in which he tried repeatedly to stretch credulity beyond the breaking point. In fact, I'm not convinced that this phase of his has entirely passed. My evidence is that Knowles argues that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing him and the pathetic, caustic goofballs in his claque. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: He is so confident in his own intellectual and cultural paradigm that he is blind to global realities. I, not being one of the many confused meatheads of this world, could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. Knowles's assistants believe that it's okay to arrest and detain Knowles's enemies indefinitely without charge, without trial, and without access to legal counsel. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable in our society—the sick, the old, the disabled, the unemployed, and our youth—all of whose lives are made miserable by Mark Knowles.
   
   Knowles's perspective is that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. My perspective, in contrast, is that Knowles is extremely loathsome. In fact, my handy-dandy Loathsome-O-Meter confirms that Knowles is rarely shy about speaking from the depths of his ignorance. In view of that, it is not surprising that I must ask that Knowles's minions shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas. I know they'll never do that so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to delegitimize our belief systems and replace them with a counter-hegemony that seeks to create a system of simplism characterized by confidential files, closed courts, gag orders, and statutory immunity.
   
   To pick an obvious but often overlooked example, when Knowles is gone, all that will be left from his legacy of hate is the hate itself. And I can say that with a clear conscience because Knowles deeply believes that the world's salvation comes from whims, irrationality, and delusions. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: Some day, in the far, far future, Knowles will realize that he disguises his iron fist with a velvet glove. This realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a comprehension of how by Knowles's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you're definitely an unbalanced mendicant. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from his. For instance, I warrant that Knowles somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point), distortions (ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by dishonest, ostentatious barbarians for the purpose of population reduction), and misplaced idealism (the existence and perpetuation of interdenominationalism is its own moral justification). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "counterrevolutionary". Knowles uses the word "pathologicopsychological" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated.
   
   Daily, the truth is being impressed upon us that neocolonialism doesn't work. So why does Knowles cling to it? Before you answer, let me point out that Knowles is a mad, reckless gasbag. I use that label only when it's true. If you don't believe it is, then consider that Knowles plans to drive us into a state of apoplexy by the next full moon. I'd like to see him try to get away with such a plan; that should be good for a laugh. You see, most people have already observed that Knowles wants me to stop trying to spread the word about his heartless pranks to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers—even to strangers. Instead, he'd rather I leave the country. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily.
   
   Some uncouth, insensitive desperados have raised objections to my viewpoints but their objections are all politically motivated. This is the precondition for my crusade against blasphemous communism. It is also worthy of note that Knowles truly believes that profits come before people. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is he living in? It is only when one has an answer to that question is it possible to make sense of his ideals because everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that I recently overheard a couple of militant, warped derelicts say that he can walk on water. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Knowles-induced era of slogans and propaganda.
   
   I, speaking as someone who is not a deluded imbecile, no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by Knowles's self-indulgent sophistries, but he likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what Knowles is pushing is both cacodemonic and contumacious. That fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. Some people don't seem to mind that Knowles likes to evoke a misdirected response to genuine unresolved grievances. What an impetuous world we live in!
   
   Once you understand Knowles's credos, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Knowles skewer me over a pit barbecue.
   
   To restate the obvious: If I thought that Knowles's tractates had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that I unquestionably hope you're not being misled by the "new Knowles". Only his methods and tactics have changed. Knowles's goal is still the same: to create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions. That's why I'm telling you that all the deals Knowles makes are strictly one-way. Knowles gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations.
   
   Everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, "The Naked Aggression of Mark Knowles". In it, I chronicle all of Knowles's roorbacks from the unconscionable to the moonstruck and conclude that not only does Knowles call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules, but he then commands his helpers, "Go, and do thou likewise." He has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but Knowles keeps saying that sin is good for the soul. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, if anything, by following his suggestions, we have become such poor caretakers of the tree of liberty that it has wilted and is sagging dangerously close to the ground. Yes, I could add that the whole thrust of his obloquies bothers me, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that Knowles's inclinations are uncalled for. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time Knowles tried to burn his opponents at the stake.
   
   Knowles fits the description of a neurotic grizzler to a T. Sounds pretty rummy, doesn't it? But is it any more so than Knowles's disingenuous smears? When I first heard about his stratagems, I didn't know whether to laugh, because his personal attacks are so fork-tongued, or cry, because if he wanted to, he could create a kind of psychic pain at the very root of the modern mind. He could panic irrationally and overreact completely. And he could work both sides of the political fence. We must not allow Knowles to do any of these. To conclude, I am not particularly fond of Mr. Mark Knowles.

   replyreport
7. 60

   Eric Graudinsposted 15 years ago

   You Mongrel Darkside.
   I'm not very happy that you have shared these confidential writings on a public forum.
   
   The $500 payment has now been yanked out of my Paypal account as a result, and now this extremely accurate assessment of the old bugger shows the whole world what he's really like.
   
   Even worse, my carefully crafted persona of using plain english has been shot to smithereens by this public display of my Sesquepedalian verbiage.
   
   Not happy. You'll keep darkside!
   
   [invisible  text mode = ON]
   Great stuff darkside. Where did you get that?
   I assume it's a generator of some sort.
   Or knowing you - you probably wrote it :-)
   It probably should be posted as a thread in the religious forums. Would keep them going for months!
   [invisible text mode =OFF]
   
   I'll have my people contact your lawyers soonest!
   
   And "lummoxes" indeed. Everyone knows that the plural is lummoxii.
   Eric G.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      darksideposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      What's the bet he reads them all the way through. And quite possibly agreeing with many of the points.

      replyreport
8. 68

   Christoph Reillyposted 15 years ago

   I got one yesterday too. What a joke.  uh, one from the spammer, not a darkside diatribe about one Mark Knowles, whoever he is.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      B.T. Evilpantsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      So how many articles did you send? I stopped at 20. Don't want to draw attention with big bank deposits, ya know?

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Frieda Babbleyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Now I'm jealous.  I don't think I got one of these here letters.  What's wrong with me?  Am I not good enough?  Hmmmph.

         replyreport
9. 60

   Eric Graudinsposted 15 years ago

   @ darkside.
   
   Nice post in the Religious forums.
   Would be good if some of the hard core dwellers there will bite. :-)

   replyreport
   1. 80

      earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I'll second that Eric. It is good stuff from the darkside

      replyreport
10. 60

    Madison Parkerposted 15 years ago

    LOL, I loved your answer, but you should have asked for $50!  What's up with the cheap writing compensation offered on line!  PGrundy wrote a piece a couple of months about that topic, too, and I totally agree; at least here, I might not make much money, but I choose what to write, how to use it and if I want to use it again in another context!
    
    I got so annoyed at a publisher offering to pay $20 bucks for a very detailed article that would have taken time and research to write; at least to write it well. And, if they don't choose yours, what you have is a BIG waste of time to write about something you could care less about.  So, I had a bit of Chardonnay, and wrote them a very detailed story about what they could do with their "maybe" assignment.
    
    Needless to say, I'm no longer welcome on that particular writer's site; not a big loss since they were getting more and more annoying to work with!  Now, I just write here and on Triond, at this point in time. 
    
    Thanks for the head's up!

    replyreport