ADMIN: irresponsible posting and disciplinary action

Admin, I think that the EssayScam.org forum is in serious need of higher standards. As far as I am concerned, there is no place in this forum for accusations that are not accompanied by PROOF. This forum has become a virtually unchecked sounding board for the many liars, cheaters, and crooks who desparately want to discredit my regular stream of verifiable evidence against their immoral and often illegal operations.

I guestimate that at least half of the posts in this entire forum are by representatives of EssayWriters.net (and other fraudulent companies) who post nothing but complete lies and false accusations about my affiliations, physical appearance, and personal character. There is no line that these propagandistic charlatans will not cross in their pathetic, single-minded mission to discredit the verifiable evidence that I provide against their fraudulent websites for the public good.

With these facts in mind, I'm sure that all of the responsible members of this forum would appreciate it if you would amend the TOS to warn about disciplinary actions against ANY member (including me) who posts accusations that he/she does not immediately accompany with verifiable evidence from independant, trustworthy sources (that have not been produced by the poster or his/her associates). Here is an example of such disciplinary actions:

1st offense = Post(s) deleted, and preliminary warning to member
2nd offense = Post(s) deleted, and final warning to member
3rd offense = Post(s) deleted, and member's username/IP banned

Admin, this forum has no credibility unless you force people to provide verifiable evidence from independant, trustworthy sources. Once this warning is part of the TOS, members can immediately report baseless accusations for your review.

Thank you

I think people who threaten people over the forum and flame people should be removed immediately. I'd start with that Joey punk.

the collective IQ of the readers of this board would increase by at least one standard deviation through the implementation of fae's suggestion.

O.o... This post is a real gem. You should keep from using words that you don't understand. Would you like me to translate your sad use of statistical terms in plain language? I bet even you would find it funny. :D

i suppose you could try, but i strongly suggest you rethink your threat to avoid getting squished once again. like when you tried to claim knowledge of logic and the ad hominem.

i'll give you a hint before you post, however. the term "standard deviation" means something quite specific in the context of IQ. so if your intent is to ONLY focus upon the general term and not its contextual use, don't bother. we all know grasping context isn't one of your strengths already.

Indeed.

What a nice excuse. :p Standard deviation is a measure of variation. When you say "x differs by one standard deviation say s", it means that the values range between x-s and x+s. Therefore when you say:


What you actually said was:

The collective IQ of the readers of this board would vary by one standard deviation.

Standard deviation doesn't "increase" scores. It just makes them more variable meaning that a random selection can be both higher or lower than originally expected.

Standard Deviation is of course different from IQ deviation. :D

You can check out this site for the difference. :p

iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx - IQ Basics


Dream on. :)

what a lie. you are such a con artist that you're incapable of posting anything truthful. your link NO WHERE says "IQ deviation," period. it does, however, explain my usage of "standard deviation" rather nicely.

from the post that you link:

"It compares people of the same age or age category and assumes that IQ is normally distributed, that the average (mean) is 100 and that the standard deviation is something like 15 (IQ tests sometimes differ in their standard deviations).

What is a standard deviation (SD)? Simply put, the standard deviation is a measure of the spread of the sample from the mean. As a rule of thumb, about 2/3 of a sample is within 1 standard deviation from the mean. About 95% of the sample will be within 2 standard deviations from the mean (3).

"

thank you for the link, saved me the time of having to find evidence. standard deviation in the context of IQ is roughly 15 points. hence, joey leaving this forum would increase the average IQ of all the forum's combined readers by 15 points. yes, my post contended that his IQ is so ridiculously low that it could impact the mean in such a clear manner. there, you got me to explain my put down so that even joey will understand. seriously, is he your brother or something that you always feel a need to interject to semi-defend the sexist?

i realize that my sense of humor requires a bit more cognitive ability than calling someone a "donkey" but do try to keep up. my usage of standard deviation was 100% correct. and you, once again, prove yourself a poser.

EW_writer, is "Cavemen" your favorite show?

Isn't it humilating to be proven wrong by your OWN example? Ouch!

From the site:


I didn't lie about anything. Read the site again. Oh I get what you wanted it to mean, but using "standard deviation" in that way doesn't make your statement mean what you want it to.

What you want to say is that if joey didn't post anymore, we'd have to take out his IQ score therefore decreasing the overall average of IQ scores. Assuming that joey's score is incredibly low (which I doubt), then what you wanted to say was this:

The average IQ of the readers of this board would increase by x points.

You see? That's what you wanted your statement to mean, right? You just wanted to be able to say it in a more should we say "sophisticated" manner. The problem is that your misuse of a word that you don't quite understand made your statement sound confusing and made it mean nonsensical. I do hope that you don't write in this manner for your customers.

Furthermore, if joey's score is very low (or very high for that matter) as you contend it, taking out his score would actually decrease the variability by a fraction of the standard deviation. >.<

There was no "misuse." You simply did not grasp the "sophisticated" manner is which Lavinia communicated.

This is your attempt to weasel your way out of yet another painfully embarassing loss.

By the way, feel free to invite all of your ESL buddies from PinoyPenster to bring their racist propaganda to this AMERICAN forum. We'll be glad to introduce them to basic logic and morality if they insist on defending the FRAUD of the Filipino charlatans at AccessEssays.com.

to EW:
um no. the standard deviation for IQ is determined by the entire population, not by the subset that is this forum's readers.

let's use an example:

let's say EW's IQ is 71. EW gets a colectomy and an unexpected result of the operation is that EW's IQ shoots up 20 points. it would be entirely correct to explain that EW's IQ has miraculously increased from two standard deviations below normal to a bit less than one standard deviation below normal.

if we all just called each other donkeys, the world would be a less interesting place.

Tsk tsk... the entire population of what? You do know that the term population deviation is used when dealing with the theoretical deviation of the entire population while standard deviation or sd is used for subsets of the population, right? ^_^

The thing is, any statistician would know that I'm right. You just want to have the last say. Well, you can have it. :)


Awww... lil monkey of "general statistics" has to sit on the sideline coz she got no idea what we're talking about? *pity, pity*:D

um, no. i honestly can't tell anymore if you are just making things up or are just very confused. in any case, there is a sample standard deviation and a population standard deviation. frankly, either way works for my comment. my statement could be read to mean that the mean of the readership will increase by a sample standard deviation (x, based on the sample) or a population standard deviation (15).

either definition makes my point, that "joey is teh dumE."

this has just gotten stupid. quote a statistician who contextually agrees with you or just stop posting already.

Good luck, Lavinia. This cretin has NEVER provided legitimate evidence to support any of his accusations. All he does is throw out unsubstantiated claims, which is probably what he does in all of the rip-off papers that he "writes."

A person is either honest, or he/she is not. We will never change this crook's outlook on morality.

Hi,

I think Lavinia, you meant the standard deviation of this forum would lower if Joey (assuming that his IQ is super low; while the rest of those who post here are of the same level) will be banned. SD as you've written "is a measure of the spread of the sample from the mean." Taking out an extreme score from the sample would lessen the sd, not increase it. By the way, I'm studying for a masters degree in Math.

i did not comment on how the size of the SD would be impacted, except when later explaining the standard deviation that is determined by the typical IQ tests (like, for example, Wechlser, where sigma = 15). you are familiar with IQ tests? you understand that they have a designated standard deviation that is used to group, categorize, and describe IQ scores? you understand that the standard deviation of an IQ test does not actually change depending upon the score of one individual?

reread my original statement to see that i was referencing a change in the mean of the readers, not the SD itself.

here it is:


see the word BY in that sentence. it's pretty important. i can understand how for some folks, the translation may be difficult or seem strange, but that doesn't mean that my usage was incorrect.

now, for your other things:


i would NEVER assume that the IQ of the readers of this board are the same level. i am quite convinced that is NOT the case. nor does my statement suggest that. the mean is only the average IQ of the readers. if you are getting a math degree, you should know that. my comment was simply that the mean would skyrocket upon joey's ban. of course, after some of the responses to my post, maybe that isn't quite as true as i'd originally thought. and you do understand that my comment was just a joke right? funny, haha. in fact, much of what i'm writing now is tongue-in-cheek.


context is a problem for you. and translation. my discussion is quite specific to the IQ scoring system and the use of SD in that context. and i didn't comment on the size of the SD but the change in the mean that would be the equivalent of a minimum of one SD. see my explanation above.


that's nice. where are you earning your degree? where did you earn your undergraduate degree? have you published anything related to standard deviations and/or IQ? i assume that you will face word problems during your studies. comprehension can play a big role in the determination of the appropriate math functions.

and this is your first time posting on the forum. what a coincidence! amazing really.

Are you really serious? Ha ha ha. I wonder who gave you that idea. SPECIFIC IN THE CONTEX OF IQ. What a nice way to show how knowledgeable you are. Where did you get your degree (IF YOU HAVE ONE)?. And please go back to your math professors and ask them again if standard deviation was formulated specifically for IQ measurement.

Maybe you are indeed familiar with IQ measurements but please never say that "standard deviation" means something quite specific in the context of IQ. Before I'll get to waste time talking about a subject I have taught in a university (yes, I was teaching statistics for three years), go ask real university professors what indeed is a standard deviation. I am amazed at that statement, really.

And to actually say that standard deviation "is determined by the entire population, not by the subset that is this forum's readers." Wow, such ignorance, Lavinia. Standard deviation is taken from a sample, believe me, I know that for a fact. If you want a computation that involves the entire population, there's another one for that. But I won't tell you. You have to figure that out for yourself. Or better yet, go ask MATH PROFESSORS before you start defending your statement.

And about my undergrad degree? From one of Asia's top 10 universities. Hint, it's in Japan. But of course, a degree from a Japanese University doesn't count for anything since it's not in America, right?

Oh well, life's like that.


Oh, and now you've restated your position. How nice, Lavinia. That's not what you originally stated. See what I quoted above.

For Lavinia: You see, your writing style needs improvement. The way you state your position is confusing, not a very good way to go into debate. You write this, but you mean this. Won't do at all. Tsk.

Marge, what's your purpose here? Which disgruntled criminal--embroiled in a losing argument--beckoned you?

Do I need to dignify that with an answer?

I'll humor you, anyway. No one paid me to say anything, WritersBeware. I was looking for freelance work and happened to come across this site. I've been reading your threads but didn't comment because it doesn't concern me. If you have gripes with whoever and whatever, that's your problem. But reading about something that is obviously not right, that's different.

So you find that defending a proven criminal is the best use of your time?

Defending a proven criminal? Get real. I wasn't defending anyone.

marge, you're a mr-n. please explain how these two statements are inconsistent:

your posts are just a demonstration of how poor translation skills and faulty comprehension of the English language lead to complete misunderstanding. i pointed out that you clearly misunderstood my original post and now you've gone on the offensive instead doing the wise thing and backing down. your lack of comprehension does not prove that i have poor writing skills.


a better school than you. and I have more than one, thank you for asking.


never claimed this. learn how to read.


if it's so clear that i'm wrong, provide some evidence. come on, one publication, one author. let's see it.


hey mr-n, i mentioned both population standard deviation and sample standard deviation. either one works for my statement. go ahead and explain how they don't. really. we're all waiting.


um, except that it does.

hey i know, why don't we take a moment and reflect upon the site that EW linked for everyone, which explains standard deviation in the context of an IQ test. I realize that IQ tests are usually only described to the smart kids so you should find the information particularly informative:


OMG, that link actually explains the use of standard deviation in the context of IQ. can it be? can it BE????


you said originally that you're earning your masters degree, now you claim to have taught math for three years at the university level... hm... either you're lying or the university you work for has no standards b/c it lets individuals with only an undergrad degree teach other undergrads. you tell me which it is.

and if it's actually taken you three years to earn a master's... well...


do you know how many standard deviations below average formally distinguishes an individual as a mr-n? yeah, i bet you do. there are many very intelligent people all around the world. you just aren't one of them.


lol, not a debate. i wrote the post as a joke. do jokes that require thought really just go right over your head? did my joke give you brain freeze? do you hate irony? sarcasm? do you need things clearly spelled out for you all the time?


if that's true, which i doubt, your total lack of comprehension skills and your tendency to draw faulty conclusions should be a clear message to potential clients to stay away!

Marge, you got owned!

Lavinia

I will post more later but apparently you are wrong on the subject of standard deviation and IQ. MY daughter is doing this precise topic the moment at the university and read your post and said the way that you expressed yourself on the subject of standard deviation was wrong. She tried to explain the way it is calculated to me in the terms of IQ and the formula used to calculate SD but it was 5am in the morning and I really wasn't taking in much she said.

I will get her to come on later and explain were you went wrong according to her books and lecture notes etc. She is at present doing her degree at Hull University in the UK. I don't pretend to know anything about SD since my degree in law did not involve this in any way shape or form. However, my daughter's course deals extensively in SD so she tells me so I will leave it to her to post here later when she returns from Uni later today. As she does not have her own account she will be posting under my user name.

Julie! I was so wondering when you would check in.

So where is that evidence you promised to provide on the high rates of students using essay mills to cheat?

and the evidence supporting your contention that companies based in the U.S. that claim to only hire American writers will hire anyone?

have you decided to specialize in posts that promise evidence and yet don't deliver? do you really mean to provide the promised evidence this time or will it just be another to add to the list of unfulfilled promises?

since it was 5 am, i'm more than content to let you later decide that you and your daughter did not understand my original post.

my goodness, my decision to post a brilliant put down of our resident sexist mr-n sure has caused a commotion. WB please post something controversial!

I see dead people.


Dogs are pets, not food.


Fraud is wrong.

(Believe it or not, EssayWriters.net's cronies attempt to make that statement controversial.)

Don't waste your breath, Julie. Lavinia's too proud to accept that she was wrong about standard deviation. Despite the bad sentence construction and muddled thoughts, Lavinia probably can write a page or two. And because she can string words into semi-coherent thoughts, Lavinia now thinks she's a statistics expert.

I don't agree with fraud either, but calling Lavinia's erroneous put down brilliant? How cow!


Duh... Don't you have another one of your brilliant put downs? I'd like to see real wit coming from you, that would be refreshing.

why bother? you wouldn't get it anyway. explaining a joke kills the humor. clearly, anything beyond name calling is lost in translation.

here's some light reading for you.

First, from the Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, 2002, written by Paula Anne Ford-Martin at healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requ estURI=/he althatoz/Atoz/ency/wechsler_intelligence_test.jsp

"The Wechsler Intelligence Scales are standardized tests, meaning that as part of the test design, they were administered to a large representative sample of the target population, and norms were determined from the results. The scales have a mean, or average, standard score of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The standard deviation indicates how far above or below the norm the subject's score is. For example, a ten-year-old is assessed with the WISC-III scale and achieves a full-scale IQ score of 85. The mean score of 100 is the average level at which all 10-year-olds in the representative sample performed. This child's score would be one standard deviation below that norm."

do you give up? or do those doctors just don't know statistics?

What about the Wechsler developer? Surely, someone who had to design and standardize the test would be correct about identifying the calculated standard deviation of the test?

wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceWAISWISC.html

"The WAIS(R) was standardised on a sample of 1,800 U.S. subjects, ranging from 16 to 74 years of age. It was a highly stratified sample, broken down into 9 different age groups. Equal numbers of men and women were used, as were white and non'white subjects, in line with census figures. It was further broken down into four geographic U.S. regions and six occupational categories. There was also an attempt to balance urban and rural subjects. The mean I.Q. for each age group on this test is 100, with a standard deviation of 15. The WAIS scales have impressive reliability and validity."

Ok, one more. It's not really fair to talk about IQ without at least mentioning the Stanford Binet. This is from "Use of the SB5 in the Assessment of High Abilities" by Deborah Ruf, published by the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scaes, Fifth Edition Assessment Service Bulletin No. 3.

assess.nelson.com/pdf/sb5-asb3.pdf

"Most major intellectual assessments now use a mean of 100 and a standard
deviation of 15. All major tests also have normalized their scores by fitting the
results from their normative sample into a normal bell curve and assigning
standard deviations and percentiles. This allows assessment professionals to more
confidently compare ability scores across tests."

you have no argument, period. do i need to quote more evidence to demonstrate my correct use?

btw, way to prioritize. supposedly you've been reading the boards for a while, so when sexist mr-n posts you do and say nothing, but when i post criticizing sexist, you try to go after me. that shows integrity, really.

Margie, you got owned--again.

Oh one more thing: Why not to pay attention to the monkey posting on the sideline. :)

Ooooooooooooooooh, another bout of "monkey" name-calling from Mr. Cerebral.

EW_writer, thank you for proving the point of this thread. You purposely posted a link that you falsely lead people to believe is somehow a negative against me, which it is NOT. You figure that most people won't even bother to open it, anyway, so you might as well try to throw yet another piece of bogus propaganda into the mix to distract from the fact that you have gotten OWNED by at least three members of this forum in the last week.

Hmmm, I wonder why you didn't post the FINAL PAGE of the thread? No worries, here it is: /forum/ot/read-takes-regular-critic-325/

Is this the best you can do, little man?

We're all still waiting for ANY evidence to support your lies and absurd accusations against me.

Lavinia

The Wechsler Intelligence Scales do not mention the number of the cross section of the public that is being tested. This would therefore lead to the conclusion that regardless of the number of participants the mean score for IQ would be 100 and that the SD would then be 15.

Using this as an authority for quoting that the SD would increase by 1 if a member were to be excluded cannot follow as the mean IQ of the forum would remain at 100 regardless of the number of participants ergo the SD would remain the same.

Your error in your posting is the assumption that the SD would increase if you removed one element from the equation.

Using the usual method of SD which is effectively the mean of the mean SD would be calculated by working out the mean score of the forum members and then finding the mean of the mean ie the SD. Removing a participant would remove their score from the equation but would not necessarily increase of decrease the SD significantly if at all. It would alter the mean IQ of the forum which is what I think you should have put instead of the SD. I can post the exact equation for the calculation of SD if you would like but it would take a mathematician to be able to understand the formula.

that's exactly what i've been posting. read my posts. scroll up this page and see that i posted 3 pieces of evidence that say exactly this just on this page alone. do i need to paste them again? was highlighting them in BOLD not clear enough?

it's been EW and Margie claiming that the SD will change:



so... thanks for posting that Margie and EW are wrong and I'm right. not that I needed your validation but still.


never made this assumption. quote where i said this. oh wait, you won't find anything to quote because i never claimed that. In fact, when Margie tried to make this same accusation, i answered her, explaining:


ok, the bold is new, but i didn't want you to miss it again.

so... on to your other stuff.


that's exactly what i wrote... really, your post is embarrassing. you are making my arguments and trying to pretend that i didn't make them already.

look at my original comment:


and then i clarified for the reading impaired:


and then my further explanation:


so why exactly did you post? Reading at 5 am doesn't seem to inspire strong comprehension skills. I did not say that the SD would change. i did say that the collective IQ (ie the mean or average) would change.

so... thanks for backing me up!

Sigh...

Let's say scores of the sample are

18 <---WB's ^_^ 84 78 74 79 96 35 78 85

sample mean (simple average) = 69.66....

standard deviation = 25.61738

Let's take out WB's score. This gives us:

sample mean= 76.125

standard deviation = 17.91597

Well lo and behold, while the average did increase by taking out WB's IQ score, the standard deviation ended up decreasing. This was because WB's sore was so low that it taking it out made the distribution more clumped together which results to less variability which means less sd. That is why you can't say that a sample's average score would increase/decrease by a standard deviation when you take out an element of that sample. It's not right to use sd in a sentence such as:


This was what I meant, nothing more, nothing less.

Just had to comment, my inner statistician was screaming murder. >.< Anyway, you can still have the last say after this post. :) Be my guest. :D

EW, you want to claim that I'm stupid? Go right ahead--it only proves YOU to be the idiot, especially with your twisted need to type childish symbols in nearly every post.

We're still waiting on your evidence to support your accusations against me, little man! Are you a man at all, or a giant lie with skin?

i think i finally understand your confusion. you think that the SD of the readers matters, as demonstrated in your example calculation, but no one cares about the SD derived from the IQ's of the board readers. that would never be used in a comparison or any discussion about IQ. the only SD that matters is the one that the test was normed to. that's the block of evidence you keep ignoring.

for Wechsler, it's 15, for Stanford Binet it's 16, for some others it's even 20 or 24. the actual number doesn't matter until you pick a test. the standard deviation that the test is normed to is essential to comparative measurement and is always considered when evaluating a test score. 100 is the average IQ of the population. so when you get your iq test, you can see how you much up against the rest of the population. since IQ is a bell curve, the SD tells you how close to the middle you really are.

let's say the board had four readers: Joey, WB, EW, Margie. All four take Wechsler's Assessment. Their IQ's according to the Wechsler Test (100 = average IQ, SD = 15) are as follows:

Joey: 2
Margie: 60
EW: 110
WB: 120

The Mean of the 4: (2+60+110+120/4) = 73
73 is roughly 2 standard deviations from the average (100) b/c the SD = 15 according to the TEST, not the population. not smart.

Take out Joey, the mean of the remaining readers is (60+110+120/3) = 96.66
the average for the test is still 100, the SD is still 15, period. pretty much average.

the collective IQ of the readership of the board just jumped up over 23 points, which is over 1 standard deviation... making my comment...


both grammatically correct and true. julie got it, why can't you see that?

Since you asked:


So when you say:


How does the "increase" occur? I know that you are pertaining to the fact that 73 jumped to 96 and the difference between the two is roughly 2 population deviations, but saying that the score "increased" in this manner is incorrect where statistical terminology is concerned. Won't explain it all over again. >.< Good night. :)

Evidently, the who called me a mr-n for lack of anything brilliant to write, DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the definition of deviation. Lack of comprehension, eh? Didn't you know that it takes a 140 IQ to understand the complexities of mathematics?

And her pigheadedness is amazing, it's almost brilliant if it weren't moronic.

My guess for the posters IQ here would be:

Margie: 140
EW: 140
JULIE: 120
WritersBeware: 100
Lavinia: 84

Take a guess who got the lowest? I'm quite generous as it is.

Here's a hint, Lavinia: when you try to defend a mathematical ehrm, error, you don't use too much words. Only stupid math posers do that. The real math geniuses would understand an explanation without the verbiage. Have you seen how theorems are proven?


Hahaha, you're actually bothering to explain it? You're a saint. Ops! Now, I'm going to get accused of defending you -- the proven crook. ",)

"How dare you call a crook a saint?" "You are in league. You are paid by these fraudulent writing companies." And so it goes...

Buh-bye. Don't get too pissed. I'm not really serious about EW being a saint. :D

you answered your own question, good job!


you're awfully cocky for an individual who either 1. lied about her teaching credentials or 2. is attending a crappy school that lets individuals with undergraduate degrees teach other undergraduates. so it's taken you three years so far to work on your masters... will you be finishing it before the end of this decade?


your guess is way off. i've taken an IQ test, have you? since you still don't understand the way standard deviation works to evaluate the IQ test... i'd guess no.

you are so far behind the conversation that the 60 fits. you skipped all the evidence explaining the standard deviation of IQ tests. ouch.