Paper Examples from Essay Writing Service, College Editor, and Custom Paper

I am offended at this baseless accusation.

WritersBeware:
I was able to immediately recognize the ESL nature of your writing; specifically, your writing includes mistakes that are common to native speakers of Hindi and Urdu.

FYI, one is not "offended at . . . ." One is "offended by . . . ."

WB

FYI There is a subtle difference between the usage of 'offended at' and 'offended by'. I do not have the time to teach you English, you may refer to page 107 of "The Correct Preposition - How to Use It a Complete Alphabetic List" By Josephine Truck Baker

Published by READ BOOKS, 2008 ISBN 1443729671, 9781443729673

Limited preview of the book is also available at Google Books.

Since you have simply failed to list even a single common mistake by native speakers of Urdu/Hindi. Here are a few:

1) Confusion between the usage of have/has, which/that, like/such as, and so on.
2) Using past tense verb with did.

It is very likely that native speakers of other languages may also make to these mistakes.

LOL! I'm glad you're busy.

For the THIRD time:

You have the time to do this?

There is nothing wrong with "Offended at". You have the guts to argue back when you are totally wrong and have no evidence to support your claim.

WB you are not good at this. Investigate frauds!
Age qoud agis!

When one is "offended," it is because some sort of perceived offense has been committed against him/her by an outside source. Therefore, it is proper for one to type "offended BY" to communicate that the offense was committed by an outside source. For one to type "offended AT" wrongly leaves the door open to the possibility that one could be feeling this negative emotion at someone/something who/that has done absolutely nothing, neither actual nor perceived.

Now, I would appreciate it if you would stop harassing me.

I have given you the source that explains the usage of 'offend' with different prepositions. You may be a native speaker, you are definitively not an authority on English Linguistics.

Offended by - has a notion of getting annoyed.
Offended at - has a notion of displeasure.

You can get offended at things. There is nothing wrong in it. It was absolutely correct in the sense I used.

"I suggest that we cease this useless spat."

LOL! You think that you are superior to me because you can do a Google search? Unlike you, I don't have to "look up" information to prove my points about linguistics.

You were "offended BY" statements that I posted here. End of story.

LOL
I was offended at that baseless accusation. You only made fun of yourself by pointing out that one can not get offended at things.

When there is an argument it is better to quote a third party that is neutral.
I wish you had Googled before telling me that I could not get offended at something.


Why wrongly? Source?
Don't want to waste time?
Oh yea you won't get paid for it.

As usual, you resort to false, personal accusations and insults. That is a sign of frustration.

If you care to take a peak at other, new threads in the forum, you can see that my time is better spent in actually HELPING people to avoid scams instead of wasting my time on your personal crusade of being "offended AT" my statements.

Have a nice day.

Did someone from India just make a fool out of WB's fabled grammatical expertise? ^_^

Sorry. My explanation proved my point quite correctly. Please take your tired act of fight-starting elsewhere.

You could do the same and when asked for evidence make silly excuses, "I will not waste my time."
I just shared my opinion once on this forum, and admitted that it was my opinion. I have no proof to support it. I don't even say it any more. You just keep accusing me of being an incompetent writer without giving any factual evidence.

Should I pay you .25 cents per word to give evidence to support your baseless accusations against me?

EW_writer: I did not. She did it herself.

WB: I am really sorry. Please forgive me :D

Humble, as I have communicated to EW_writer, jealousy is an ugly thing.

Indeed it is and so is arrogance.

Actually, it seems that he got you stumped when he asked you for proof on your claim that "offended at" is always grammatically incorrect. Do you really have proof on this one? ^_^


Hey.. don't be too hard on yourself. You've got a few good angles. ^_^

So humble from now on, every time the green-eyed monster tries to pull either the grammar card or the evidence card, we'll just have this thread to slap her with and she'll be silenced. ^_^ Many thanks to you.

LOL. Too bad that I already explained why I am correct. Even if I were incorrect, which I am absolutely not, THAT is the victory on which you will hang your hat? ROTFLMAO! There are countless posts and threads in which I have utterly schooled you, finally leaving you with no other response but to FRUSTRATINGLY ADMIT to being a liar and a fraud.

EW_writer, you really need a cure for your obsession with me. It's sad. Move on with your life. Even though I have to refute multiple frauds and stalkers on a near-daily basis, your combined efforts have NEVER been enough to defeat me or prove me wrong in any regard. I, on the other hand, have dealt so many devastating pieces of evidence against you and those like you, including your fraudulent employers, that I wouldn't even know where to begin in listing them individually. It's probably easier for unbiased people who want REAL, TRUE information about fraudulent companies to simply refer to my PROFILE to see the huge number of scam-busting threads that I have posted. What you guys don't seem to understand is that I could not possibly care any less what YOU think about me or what agendas you have that lead you to constantly attack me. Bottom line-I post verifiable, third-party evidence to protect consumers. The more you hate me and protest me, the more you fuel my fire and push me to conduct more investigations for the public good. Thank you.

so EW is doing good in a way :D

WB,
I am intentionally ignoring some parts of your post for obvious reasons.

The hell you did. ^_^ Oh, and I don't pretty much care about your evidences. Post away, we love reading about how ew fakes their fire drills. ROFLMAO! I just can't wait for the next time that you criticize another poster's grammar. ^__^

Just my two cents here but I tend to agree with WritersBeware. Before anyone accuses me of being affiliated with any of the websites in question, just want to tell you that I own and operate a company affiliated with none of the mentioned. I just do not see the point in calling a piece of writing which is good, bad. What purpose does that serve? WritersBeware is right.

Well, one of them lacked citations. Though there were two sources cited in the text, a list of full citations at the end was not there. This is poor quality. When judging quality, a good piece of writing is not all that matters. It has to conform to the requirements of the customer. If a customer asks for 10 pages and you give 2, though written well, the paper would most likely be classified as poor.

As previously asked by humble... source? ^_^

A source for what-common sense and reason? If you had a better understanding of the word and the context in which it was used, you would understand that I am correct.

Please take a look at the source I referenced in one of my posts. The fact that you are biased is


If we consider this explanation true for a moment. Why wrongly?

Source must be a neutral one.

My usage was absolutely correct. 'Offended at' has a meaning of displeasure. It also sounds a bit more polite.

Humble was able to provide a reliable source that "offended at" is not a grammatically incorrect expression in the context that he used it in which disproves that this


is always the case. ^_^

Why are you asking the same question for which I have already provided the answer? Again, for you to have typed "offended AT," in that context, wrongly left the door open to the possibility that you could be feeling that negative emotion at someone/something who/that has done absolutely nothing, neither actual nor perceived. The fact is that you obviously took personal offense to my assertions, meaning that you felt that I did something negative TO you. Therefore, you were offended BY me, not AT me.


Your obscure source (published in 1911) does not at all take into consideration the personal context in which you used the phrase; the fact is that you absolutely did NOT use the phrase to indicate "general displeasure." You used the phrase to indicate your focused, personal grudge specifically brought about BY my specific stance.

where did you get that from. Baker is obscure? why? so Bacon would also be obscure, and what about, Shaw, Russell, all obscure?
If only you had a chance to look at the book before commenting :D
Even if you think it is obscure.
It is not the only source. There are more classics, and Susan Gass is amongst modern linguists. She is Currently at MSU, she is the Director of the English Language Center, Co-Director of the Center for Language Education And Research, and Director of the Second Language Studies Ph.D. Program. She is also President of the International Association of Applied Linguistics.

I was specifically offended at the comments you made.
This phrase 100% grammatically correct and does not wrongly leaves any door open.
It was 100% correct. It conveyed my focused displeasure. And in my opinion it was politer than "offended by."

Well, you are free to believe whatever it is that you believe. As far as Susan Gass is concerned, I would be more than happy to discuss the issue with her.

I think it's pretty clear from this statement that humble was saying that he was offended AT the statement and not BY you. Sigh.. why can't you just ADMIT that you just made a mistake, meathead? >.< Everybody make mistakes, but it takes a real psycho like yourself to refuse to admit it till the bitter end. You're really funny that way though... >.< ROFLMAO!

Oh, and I think that nobody, not Lavinia, FreelanceWriter, or exwriter will back you up on this one. Well.. maybe MAK would, but then that wouldn't really be a good thing for you now, would it? :p

Where are the Rule 5 supporters? Funny-they just disappeared.


Sorry, but I will not admit a mistake when a mistake did not occur. I'm sorry that you can't understand my sound reasoning.

Keep up the completely one-way insults and name-calling. You continue to prove precisely who the real trouble-maker of the forum is.

Still no actual proof disproving humble's claim. Say, for someone who's supposed to be a fan of factual evidence, you seem to come real short of it when it matters. :)

Let me play devil's advocate for a second. Let's say that I am incorrect-what's your enormous victory? That I was wrong (according to a 1911 source), ONCE, on a linguistic issue involving the use of "at" versus "by" in a particular context? Congratulations-you would have proven that I am not a superhuman who is incapable of even the slightest mistake. Well, duh!

Wow, you surely would have taught me a thing or two!

LOL.

Hahaha.. what do you call it? Red herring? ^_^ The issue is about nothing other than you not being able to admit a mistake. Do you or don't you have any formal evidence to counter humble's claim regarding his use of the phrase is question? Yes or no?


Is this you FINALLY admitting your mistake or do you really have the delusion of being a superhuman? :D

EW - you really have a way with words :)

Thanks. ^_^

My question remains unanswered though.. :) We'll probably read something along the lines of "I'm not engaging your childish blah blahs anymore blah blah.." which is translated as "I'm wrong but I just CAN'T admit it without having a nervous breakdown so now I'm gonna try to forget this EVER happened" :D

and you know why :)