Tracking Perception

Good or Bad, I enjoy reading how EzineArticles is perceived by others. Most of the public postings get a private reply to resolve a misunderstanding.

Someone tried hiring an article writer to produce as many articles as they could for $30: Project: Article Writer

First, their request is absurd…but the reason I share this link is because of this section: “4. If 1 or more of the articles are not approved by ezinearticles, this means that they are not of good quality or not original content.”

–>Ok, while we’re honored that you’re using EzineArticles as a quality barometer, please don’t make us your ‘Copyscape’ because it’s the quickest way to find your account terminated for sending in non-original content.

Author/Blogger Prince John wrote this blog entry last week: My Experiences with

Sorry about this Prince. We were wrong and you’ll be receiving a private reply on Tuesday where our support team will whitelist your name in our system to prevent author name confusion from happening again.

Rick Lomas blogged in his MySpace account this entry: The best email you can get from

Ahhh schucks. :)

There are many others including blog entries on how to scam or game us…including encouraging multiple accounts being setup to submit multiple nearly identical articles. A lot of them go into great depth with videos produced and images showing step by step, etc… but I see two patterns from these bums: Pattern #1) Their EzineArticles account is brand new or less than a month old; Pattern #2) For some reason, their EzineArticles account is missing…   The point: Don’t trust everything you read on the net especially from someone who has not had long-term success with whatever strategy they are promising will be the next breakthrough.


Nancy Chadwick writes:


I’m curious about something. Why does your site permit “ghosted” or written-for-hire articles or ones where “authors” have obtained exclusive licenses to pass them off as their own?

On the one hand, the Editorial Guidelines require the article to be “original” and one “that you wrote”. But then they say that non-member authors can submit the articles under the name of the member or that members can submit articles written by other people as long as they have paid for an exclusive license.

Why not just require ALL articles to actually be written by the particular author member? Or say that ghosted, written-for-hire or bought articles must be identified as such somewhere in the article listing? Of all of the articles currently active on this site, do you know how many were paid for, licensed and thus not written by the author member?


Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 10:57 AM



I think everyone can learn how to write their articles without paying anyone for that. After writing, they can send it for revision, what will give them a better shape.

The revision can be very cheap if you look for the service you need.
Like a dollar per article!

This is much better than anything else.

Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 11:13 AM




We already require all article submissions to be EXCLUSIVE to the author name who submitted the articles…

Meaning, we don’t knowingly accept PLR or non-exclusive rights content.

My current gut feel is that 80% are written by the human who wrote them because 80%+ of our members have less than 10 articles listed… and thus a higher number of unique members have sent in original content that is exclusive to them. Ghostwritter members usually have a much higher volume of submissions.

I do like the idea of identifying content as ghostwritten vs. original written by the member; but identifying as such is difficult…

Dina would say that if a ghostwriter is doing his or her job very well, we shouldn’t be able to tell it was ghostwritten.

Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 11:57 AM


Nancy Chadwick writes:


I appreciate that it may not be easy to determine for sure if a particular author member actually wrote the article, but I think you could use some objective data to draw reasonable conclusions or at least inferences one way or the other:

1. Frequency with which members submit new articles

2. Number of articles a member has submitted compared with the date they became a member

3. Nature and content of the member’s web site and/or their stated profession or business (and years of experience) compared with the subject matter of the articles they submit


Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 12:11 PM



Time for me to jump in here.

While ghostwriting is something that many writers feel an abuse of their talents and skills, it’s also a service that many people do require. Some individuals have great ideas and concepts, but can’t spell or string a sentence together worth beans.

I don’t think anyone submitting ghostwritten articles should suffer from their inability to write effectively. Why would they not have as much right to publish their concepts, even if they didn’t write the material? I also do appreciate that writers have a chance to receive credit for their work here at EzineArticles. In the freelance writing business, it’s nice to get some credit.

The reality is, that’s not always the way of things for many writers. Nor is it the reality of online entrepreneurs needing to use article marketing to drive traffic to their site. Ghostwriting exists as a legitimate service and snubbing it does many, many people a disfavor.

Even if EzineArticles decided that original authors were the only people who could publish here, it’s much as he said: how would one ensure that the submitter is, indeed, the original author who wrote the material?

I don’t believe that anyone can learn to write articles (“without paying someone” followed that statement). Everyone can run, sure. Can everyone make the Olympic games? No. Because a profession or trade exists does not mean that each individual has the natural talent and ability require to learn that profession or trade effectively. I suck at math – does that mean that eventually, by trying to do my own accounting, I’ll become a CGA? I doubt it. (One can always hope though…)

I won’t comment much on the paying someone a whole buck for revising content. I can’t say I agree that’s a fair practice or respectful of the hired person’s skills…

Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 12:52 PM



You don’t need to have too much talent to write an article, but people don’t have time to learn the basic and practice!

Of course, if someone wants to present to the public super articles and he or she has no way to do that, it’s a smart solution to hire someone else for this job.

Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 1:37 PM


Nancy Chadwick writes:


Well, if somone has great ideas but can’t translate them into written material, then quite simply, they’re not authors and shouldn’t be called authors!

People who can’t spell or don’t understand grammar need editors, not ghostwriters. Book publishing companies pay editorial staffs and freelance editors to fine-tune authors’ works, tightening sentences, correcting grammatical and spelling errors, etc.

Insofar as people who can’t write having the “right” to publish their ideas, they can publish them but they don’t have the right to claim the written material as their own. Guess what? They shouldn’t have that right.

Since when are Pulitzer prizes awarded to people who hire others to write the work of fiction or non-fiction for them or “borrow” someone else’s material and attempt to pass it off as their own? Doesn’t happen and in fact, at least one nominee got disqualified (and disgraced) when it came out she had plagiarized another’s work. Image that.

People can learn to write. It doesn’t mean, however, that they can become Bruce Catton. The point is: if they want to be called an author, then at the very least, they should be required to actually write their own articles.

I don’t think it’s as hard as you think it is to figure out if an “author” actually wrote the material. Check out the suggestions I made above. There are other methods that can be used as well.


Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 2:46 PM



This is a commercial world Nancy.
I understand your point of view but if people have no time and no skills they need help.
If they can learn and do everything by themselves, great! That’s what they should do.
But if they cannot!

Article marketing is very effective.
One has to use it to promote his work in the Internet.

Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM



Yup, that’s the problem. Ghostwriting as an ethical profession has long been a debated subject, and I doubt we’ll solve it here – nor do I want to, of course, as I’d be trashing my own partial source of income.

We’re not talking Pulitzer prize material, though note that some very great authors didn’t pen their own works. I do agree it’s best to give credit where credit is due, and I’d love that the world were such a respectful place, but it ain’t, when it’s all said and done.

Words have to be written, people need jobs, and the Internet is what it is.

Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 3:37 PM


Nancy Chadwick writes:

The issue isn’t should articles be used to drive traffic to one’s web site or that the world is commercial or that words need to be written and people need jobs.

Someone can hire all the help they need (including copywriters) and market their sites like crazy. My point is simply this:

If you (generically speaking) want to hire someone to write material for you, fine. Just don’t claim that you wrote it. And if you’re not willing to write your own articles or are incapable, then you shouldn’t receive any benefits flowing from that purported “authorship” — such as being hired by companies or individual consumers who’ve been duped into believing that you actually wrote those pithy articles.


Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 4:19 PM



I agree with you in this point Nancy.
Why has the website owner to be considered as the author of the articles he uses in his work?

He or she can pretend that the writer works in his company and therefore writes the articles for the company, without pretending that he is the author.

Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 4:55 PM


Peter Cutforth writes:

Author purists like Nancy are great, as they add a level of passion and industry credibility to a community like this. But there are other considerations as well. One is the concept of LEVERAGE. This allows one to benefit from the expertise, skills, knowledge and time, of other people, to produce results that you could not necessarily produce yourself.

In some cases I outsource the base content of an article to someone else to research and construct, then put the final touches and flavor to it myself. I get the benefit of someone else using their own knowledge and/or targeted research, and then ensure that its appropriate quality and tone myself.

Nancy, your “Ghost Writer Cop” criteria are blown out of the water when you consider EzineArticles most prolific writer Lance Winslow, who apparently has written all of his over 11,000 articles himself …

Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 4:58 PM


Nancy Chadwick writes:

You raise a interesting point. Why can’t the company be considered the author of the articles where they’re written by people hired by the company’s principal?

I understand LEVERAGE. That’s not what the issue is.

You can hire the knowledge & expertise that you don’t have or pay people to do research. It’s done every day in industry. However, people who don’t write the articles shouldn’t take credit for authoring them. What’s the objection to disclosing in the article that others collaborated on it?

My views aren’t reflective of an “author purist.” Rather they stem from my concurrence with this by Lincoln:

“Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.”

It’s not my job to be a “Ghost Writer Cop,” nor am I pointing the finger at anyone. Chris, no doubt, is better qualified than I am to interpret objective data and draw conclusions or inferences from them.


Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 6:02 PM



Credibility is one of the reasons some people prefer to be seen as the author of a work. If people believe they wrote the goods, then it must be true… so the theory goes.

By tacking “written by” on a book’s cover, other perceptions get tossed into the mix and the individual who wants to appear as the top expert may not achieve his goal.

Another point for the mix in here: ghostwritten articles most often don’t claim a certain person as the author. They simply neglect to name an author at all. People perceive that the name in the resource box is the author, when that may not be true at all. No one has taken credit for the work – quite the contrary. No credit at all was given, and the public’s perception does all the nasty.

Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 6:24 PM


Nancy Chadwick writes:


I disagree with the point in your last paragraph. An article is clearly identified on this site with the particular author. The name of the “author” is used to identify specific articles. Articles are organized by their “authors.” Article and author have been inextricably linked with each other.


Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 6:40 PM



Everyone has to be a writer in the Internet for many reasons! This is a big problem for many people.

On the other hand, it gives work to many writers. Many writers are happy for being able to sell their skill.

I think we can forgive the authors that cannot write but pay ghost-writers to write for them while they are considered the real authors, if they don’t have other solution for this problem!

One may be an expert in his field but unable to write.
It wouldn’t be fair for him not to promote his work the best way he can for this reason.

Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 6:49 PM



Point, Nancy. I was speaking generally, though. But point, yes.

And you’ve got it, Christina. I agree.

Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 7:06 PM


Nancy Chadwick writes:


There are plenty of options for people with writing skills. They can sell their work product in many different ways — writing a variety of advertising, catalog and marketing copy, content for someone’s web site, newsletters, etc. If people aren’t capable of authoring anything, the solution cannot be deceiving others into thinking they are the authors. If that’s considered OK, where is the line drawn? Is any behavior considered OK so long as it provides employment to someone else? Surely not.

An expert can promote his ideas by speaking/lecturing/presenting, not writing, or by collaborating on a work with a writer. How many books have been published with two authors? I’ve seen lots of them.


Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 7:45 PM



I’m with the truth too, Nancy.
But on the other hand I don’t think is such a big deal to pretend that someone wrote something he did not if the public will respect him for this reason, because common people don’t think and don’t try to understand anything.
What James said about credibility is a fact.

And I think that many writers are making money now thanks to the opportunity to write in behalf of somebody else, because this is what pays.
Usually writers make money only if they are famous!

Comment provided September 3, 2007 at 8:01 PM



Chris – I caught a blip on the article marketing radar. You rang? ;)

(Yes, you’re right – I would definitely say that.)

Nancy: what would your solution be, then, for people who are not writers/authors but nonetheless use this site to share information and attract positive attention to their websites?

Would you find another term for these people other than “author?”

Sometimes I write content for people who in a million years would not feel comfortable calling themselves “author.” In this case, they pay me to create articles for their sites, but I don’t use the “by line” after their name. The copyright line at the bottom of their website clearly indicates their ownership of the content, without making the false claim that they wrote it.

But it’s different for a website like this one. I think we all know that we’re trying to build a good reputation based around our own names – so if you’re not using the term “author,” what do you call it? Just expert? And what about that byline? What if you had the dropdown option to change the “by” to “from.” For example:

Six Tips on How to Avoid Being Mistaken as an Author

from John Doe

What do you think about that?? Do you have any other solutions? Many people ARE in fact authors here, so in those cases that’s what they’d want to be referred to as.

Just feeling eager for this conversation to evolve past the “problem” phase. :)


Comment provided September 4, 2007 at 6:11 AM


Jan Verhoeff writes:

Past the problem phase — Dina you jest?

Actually, I have a solution. I was reading this and thought about an email my son received from someone not long ago, accusing him of not writing his content because it “sounds so much like his mom” ahem… DUH who does she think taught him to write? He actually took it as a compliment! He thought it was great and told one of his friends on the phone (I was eaves dropping), “I’m only 12 and they think I write like Mom with all her education!” He was a happy camper.

The solution (beyond my bragging) is to perhaps list the information as “Provided by” in the resource box.

Although, I too am a copywriter and I’ve written articles for other people. Just last week, a client submitted ten articles and I’d written all of them. I ran across one of them as a new article and thought it was particularly interesting, then came across the resource box and realized I’d written it. I love it when I hear their voice so well, I don’t recognize the work.


Comment provided September 4, 2007 at 8:53 AM


Nancy Chadwick writes:


I’ve already made several suggestions above. In summary…

One might be for the author member to include an appropriate phrase/sentence in the listing of the article at the end of it but before the resource box — for example:

1. The above article was not written by [author member name]; or

2. The above article was a collaborative effort; or

3. [author member name] has the exclusive license to the above article

In other words, include whatever verbiage that accurately reflects the particular situation.

Another alternative may be to have entities (company, corp, LLC, etc) as the stated “author” where either the article was a work for hire for the entity or was written by some of the entity’s employees/contractors.

At the very beginning of this topic, Chris said that he liked the idea of identifying ghostwritten material but wasn’t sure how it could be definitively identified. One thing that could be done is to require authors submitting material to specifically check off a yes/no box. E.g., did you write this article or is this article a work for hire or is this article a collaborative effort — however it should be phrased. Yes, some people might not be up front, but why not come out and ask them to affirm one way or the other?

I also suggested that objective data could be used as the basis for reasonable conclusions or inferences.

Writing content for a client’s web site, I feel, is not the same as ghostwriting articles for a non-writer author member on a site like this one. The former is clearly distinguishable. I’m not sure that “from John Doe” would be interpreted by potential clients and visitors to mean that John Doe didn’t write the particular article. It wouldn’t be clear to me, anyway.



Comment provided September 4, 2007 at 3:39 PM


Nancy Chadwick writes:


A P.S….

What concerns me (aside from the matter of principle of someone pretending they’re something they are not–i.e., author–and receiving direct and indirect benefits) is the potential for prospective customers and clients to be misled. Meaning that potential customers/clients may retain the services of Expert Author Joe in part because they read Joe’s articles and not knowing Joe didn’t write them, believed he had the expertise or talent they needed.

Yes, let the buyer (client/customer) beware, and I would hope that Joe would disclose to the client that he didn’t write the articles. But it seems to me the potential for this situation occurring could be minimized if not avoided by simply requiring authors to disclose in the listing of their articles if they didn’t actually write them.

Everybody wins. Joe can still use the articles to drive traffic to his web site, and readers of the articles would know the true nature of Joe’s involvement in the articles.


Comment provided September 4, 2007 at 4:22 PM



And we’re back to the issue of establishing credibility to satisfy those who hire ghostwriters.

The ideas you propose are great, guys, and as a writer, I’d love the recognition for the work and effort I put into my profession, but I’m a realist. In a perfect world, guys, in a perfect world. Few people will check a box or rewrite their resource, fearing they’ll lose valuable credibility and thus, dollars.

A side note: most ghostwriters sell all rights to their work.

Comment provided September 4, 2007 at 4:26 PM


Jan Verhoeff writes:

Ghostwriters as per their title, don’t sign their name, but rather give up writes to specific works for use by others as their work. If, for instance, I wrote a biography for Chris Knight, since he’s an author himself, he probably wouldn’t want it acknowledged that he didn’t write his biography, so he’d pay me real heft to keep my mouth shut and let him take credit for my bad spelling and questionable grammar. Unless of course he wanted me to take credit myself for all that, in which case he might add UNDER his acknowledgement “Ghostwritten by Jan Verhoeff” (or he might just fix my spelling and grammar).

Copywriters on the other hand sell their work on a regular basis without taking credit or acknowledging the Byline because they may or may not write an entire article. For instance, I have a client that I write Resource Boxes and Bios for. I don’t get any credit for writing those, because I get paid so well for letting him/her take credit for those. There are a few people that I write ‘articles’ for, or masses of ‘content’ for and they pay me. They may or may not use an article exactly as I write it, and I don’t care. They paid me to write the article and I did it, and I gave it to them as part of the package. I don’t want credit for that particular article, because it isn’t necessarily “my voice”. I may or may not “agree” with the content.

The point is, just like an auto manufacturer creates an automobile and sells it, I create content and sell it. If the owner adds new seat covers, new brass headlight covers and low rider wheels, the auto dealer doesn’t have anything to say about it, and as a copywriter, the same goes for my content sold to a new owner. It ceases to be mine. The difference is, a ford is still a ford is still a Ford. But my content doesn’t necessarily have my emblem on it.


Comment provided September 4, 2007 at 6:16 PM



Your definition is perfect, Jan!

Comment provided September 4, 2007 at 6:28 PM




Since the theme of this thread is truth and accuracy as per your request for both, let me just correct you when you say:


I’ve already made several suggestions above.”

Actually, you made NO such suggestions until I ASKED you to make them.

I wouldn’t even pick on such a small matter but I’m actually getting rattled by your tone. I find your method of “talking at” people instead of “with” them offensive. Is this how you cajole people into buying houses from you? I’m guessing no, or at least I’d hope so if you expect to survive the current state of the real estate market.

Who are you to be judge and jury of the ghostwriting profession? You’re in real estate. You don’t see me tearing people apart on real estate boards, now do you? And I deal with such people just as you deal with article marketers here.

It just so happens that I know my place with respect to other people’s areas of expertise. Do you?

Comment provided September 4, 2007 at 8:58 PM


Peter Cutforth writes:

Well said Dina

Comment provided September 5, 2007 at 12:30 AM


Nancy Chadwick writes:


You wrote: “Actually, you made NO such suggestions until I ASKED you to make them.”

This is not correct. The following are suggestions I made in these excerpts from my posts above–PRIOR to your post asking me for suggestions:

“Or say that ghosted, written-for-hire or bought articles must be identified as such somewhere in the article listing?”
“I think you could use some objective data to draw reasonable conclusions or at least inferences one way or the other:

1. Frequency with which members submit new articles

2. Number of articles a member has submitted compared with the date they became a member

3. Nature and content of the member’s web site and/or their stated profession or business (and years of experience) compared with the subject matter of the articles they submit”
“Why can’t the company be considered the author of the articles where they’re written by people hired by the company’s principal?” [in response to something Christina said]
“What’s the objection to disclosing in the article that others collaborated on it?”

You wrote: “…I’m actually getting rattled by your tone. I find your method of ‚¬“talking at‚¬ people instead of ‚¬“with‚¬ them offensive.”

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion.

You wrote: “Is this how you cajole people into buying houses from you? I’m guessing no, or at least I’d hope so if you expect to survive the current state of the real estate market.”

I don’t list/sell houses. The “current state of the real estate market” is fine. The RE market always self corrects because the pendulum always swings from being a sellers’ market to buyers’ market to middle of the road, etc.

You wrote: “Who are you to be judge and jury of the ghostwriting profession? You’re in real estate. You don’t see me tearing people apart on real estate boards, now do you? And I deal with such people just as you deal with article marketers here. ”

My concerns (as expressed throughout my posts above) related, not to the “ghostwriting profession”, but rather to people who don’t write articles, want everybody to believe that they do, and claim benefits flowing from such purported “authorship.” I don’t know whether or not you tear people apart on real estate boards. I’m not sure what you mean by the sentence “And I deal with such people just as you deal with article marketers here. “.

You wrote: “It just so happens that I know my place with respect to other people’s areas of expertise. Do you?”

Yes, I do.


Comment provided September 5, 2007 at 3:11 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

Wow, this is extremely interesting indeed, I could make a lot of $$$, not!

Comment provided September 5, 2007 at 10:52 PM



Nancy, I asked you,

Would you find another term for these people other than ‚¬“author?‚¬

None of the above examples that you pointed out (twice) addresses the specific question that I asked.

There’s nothing wrong with generating, say, real estate sales by way of ghostwritten articles.

It only becomes a problem if you then turn around and falsely claim that you’re a writing expert and then try to profit in the WRITING industry.

I’m done with this discussion by the way. I know I’ve maxed out this thread.

Comment provided September 6, 2007 at 8:00 AM



One of the best pieces of advice I ever received about leaving blog comments is to make sure you’re adding something of value to the thread.

Chris is doing a good job of tossing out ideas in his posts; we should respect that and add value with our comments and discussion.

Comment provided September 6, 2007 at 8:27 AM


Jan Verhoeff writes:


I’ve heard that too – and I fully agree. I have noticed that what I believe is valuable and worthy of my time and effort may not be so valuable and worthy to another person.

I’m finding that’s true in life in general.

I’ve never understood the “toy soldier syndrom” that has been moving through society over the past forty years. Why must we all conform to the same mold? Why can’t my individualism shine through and glow with refinement of my differences.

My new political statement – BE DIFFERENT!

Stepping down off my soapbox with pink cheeks…


Comment provided September 6, 2007 at 8:56 AM



*applause and cheers*

I agree. But we’re humans, and humans are social creatures that require acceptance of others to feel well balanced. The “toy soldier syndrome” you mentioned exists because of survival instincts. To be outside the group is a dangerous place indeed.

Ah, the caveman years…

Comment provided September 6, 2007 at 9:04 AM


Jan Verhoeff writes:

I disagree.

As a copywriter, I make my differences a place of value, because I sell from a point of originality. Without that difference, everyone else has the same program and I’m not going to make any real differences. If not original, what are we?

Quite honestly if there’s another person just like me, one of us becomes obsolete.

It used to be said that oposites attract. With all the dating services online, they look for similarities and not differences.

We used to celebrate originality.

Is this survival or is this the demise of our society, of our people, and of our lives? Are we, by creating identities with no individualism, loosing our soul and spirit, giving up our purpose of existence?

I’m thinking this is an article!

I’m gonna copy paste and go write it up… (duplicate content, don’t cha know?)


Comment provided September 6, 2007 at 9:10 AM



Individualism is alive and kicking on the Internet more than ever!

In fact, I think we’ve done a poor job here at EzineArticles to help expert authors build a profile that truly reflects their humanity combined with their expertise.

ie: Readers who come to trust what you write -> always want to know just a little more about you and your personal side.

Comment provided September 6, 2007 at 9:13 AM


Jan Verhoeff writes:

Yes, it is Chris.

The Internet is one place where voicing differences and opinions is still celebrated. It gives me hope for a future of where independence isn’t squelched.

I’m still finding it shocking that compliance of “normalcy” is becoming the cry of our communities. The statement that you have to be JUST LIKE YOUR NEIGHBOR was actually an insult a few years ago, when cookie cutter housing lost its appeal. Last night, I was informed that my “differences” are unacceptable.

And all this because I have a fence that doesn’t match my neighbor’s fence – mine’s been there or more than 30 years and still standing (looks great). Their’s has been replaced in the last few weeks, for the third time in five years.

Ummm, excuse me! I’m thinking I shall continue to celebrate my differences. I’m seriously thinking about painting a mural on my fence. Something in Graphiti! LOL


Comment provided September 6, 2007 at 9:23 AM



Jan, don’t mistake me. I said I agree with you. Being original is a welcome quality and aspect and each one of us is different from the next.

What I said was that human nature and instincts war with us for acceptance from the group. That does not mean we can’t be different from the next guy. It simply means that our instincts tell us that our differences should be acceptable to the next guy.

A small experiment: Take 20 strangers, place them in a room, and tell them that they must insist the symbol of the number 4 is actually the number 10.

Then add one more guy to the group, and tell him nothing.

Groupthink prevails and instincts take over. Eventually, the lone guy will start to agree with the rest that 4 is indeed 10.

We each have small differences from the next person (such as a purple fence when everyone else’s is white). To be *completely* different, to change the way we eat, the food, our habits, speech, dress, etc etc excises us from society.

Alright. More coffee, shall we? Cheers!

Comment provided September 6, 2007 at 9:30 AM



I think the word individualism doesn’t define exactly what Jan expressed. The best term should be an ‚¬“original personality‚¬, because individualism is selfish.

But I fully agree with her, because if everyone only repeats what everybody else does, everyone will make exactly the same mistakes and go nowhere.

Now, about the previous discussion with Nancy, I think that she was condemning the hypocrisy of some people that pretend to be what they are not. She is right in this point.
However, ghost-writing is not responsible for that, but the bad character of those who use other people’s work in an inappropriate way.

Ghost-writing is very good for many writers that need money and for many people that cannot write good texts.
Everyone can write regular articles, but super articles can be written only by experts.
Since articles tell more about our product or our services than simple ads, I think that for people that cannot write super articles by themselves the work of a good ghost-writer is the ideal solution.

Comment provided September 6, 2007 at 12:18 PM


Prince John writes:

Hello Chris,

Thank you for hearing my plea. I know I am a bit late to respond to this, but I have a full time job and blogging/submitting articles is extremely part time hobbies for me.

The fact my name was a cause of dispute really frustrated me, hence the reaction. And many thanks you have responded well.

This forum has discussions about originality of articles. All the articles I submit are written by me. Period. I never copy from other authors, as I am a writer myself.

Prince John

Comment provided September 9, 2007 at 12:04 AM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.