Why i will no longer be backing my truthful opinions with evidence

I am always amazed at members here who always insist on a poster substantiating his/her remarks with 'evidence'. Although as a reputed international scholar I understand the importance of evidence in supporting scholarly opinions/perspectives, I am equally convinced that some opinions are too obvious to demand substantiation. In fact, this is the key reason I rarely support my opinions with evidence because, in most instances, such opinions are too obvious as to necessitate the inclusion of supportive evidence. In fact, I want to declare that from today, all my truthful assertions WILL NOT be accompanied by supportive evidence. Everyone here(at least those who are objective) know that my opinions are generally truthful and based on obvious and visible evidence.

I will therefore not be substantiating my opinions unless of course I feel there is need to. Some contributors here have tried to sabotage my contributions here with their incessant insistence on me backing my claims with evidence. Of course, I am not trying to be lazy but I do possess chunks of evidence that, if presented here, would totally annihilate the essay industry but as a self respecting intellectual , I have deliberately avoided that route.

What do you mean "no longer"? When have you once provided a single data point after claiming to have mountains of evidence to support your bulls-i* claims?

You've sabotaged yourself y claiming to have evidence you know never existed. You're a liar and a scammer, and you're not very good at either.

Point a single lie that i have ever made, moron.
See what? You are perennially bitter because apart from your repelling physique( and thats why you can only manage an online 'job'), your writing skills have ensured that you rarely get clients and that's why you have to constantly spam essaychat in a bid to drag students into your fraudulent cesspit.

There's a nice chunk of lies to start with, queenie. Of course, the only way to demonstrate that you're not lying would be to post evidence, which you don't have and claim to be taking some sort of moral high ground by not posting, so I guess we're all stuck knowing you're a liar without all the additional fuss.

As for "spamming" Essay Chat, you post far more often in your various forms than I do. The idea that "good businesses don't advertise" is also ridiculous.

this is an anonymous internet message board, and there is no evidence of anything here. that's just the nature of the beast. demanding, expecting, or pretending to supply empirical proof within this medium is a farcical, stupid waste of time.

Repeating the same bulls-i* isn't mounting a defense. Where is the evidence you claimed to have n the past, before even being prompted? Where is the evidence that your are "a reputed international scholar"? Where is your evidence that anyone other than amadweeb believe the s-i* you spout?

Do not be mad at me- i am not the one who:
a) Asked a forum member to direct me to your photos
b) Made you fat
c) Created you ugly
I know that is precisely why you are bitter with me. Sadly, i can do nothing about improving your physical appearance, small weenielyks

To the rescue of his only proponent and fellow nut job . . . .

Some claims are verifiable--saying things like, "many customers have contacted me complaining about you" could be verified by things like emails, PayPal transaction numbers, etc.

At other times, queenie herself has claimed to have empirical evidence form statistical analyses she has conducted or through some of her "award winning research," and has consistently promised to post this evidence "soon," but has failed to live up to these promises.

I know you think anonymity means the truth doesn't matter, but that's not how reality works, Buford.

maybe, but these are pretty easily faked here, with no quality control, peer review, or oversight.


I never said she didn't.


this isn't reality, Pugsley.


I understand that what I wrote above sort of torpedoes your last five years, WB, but this isn't a factional thing. besides, queen doesn't need my help.

And yet no one even bothers to fake them. They make empty claims and then fail to even attempt providing evidence.


Without getting into an ontological debate, yes it is. The things that get posted here get read by other people. Whether or not these things are reflective of any external reality is immaterial--or rather, is exactly the material being discussed. Some of us would like the things posed here to be reflective of an external reality. Others would like to create impressions that are very real, however based in lies they may be, Buford.


What you understand is certainly not reflective of any external reality, either.

my point, salad dodger, is that neither of those groups can prove jack diddly **** here.

You're wrong. Screenshots of emails, PayPal transactions, etc. can be posted. Likewise, claims made about what people have or haven't said on this forum can be backed up/refuted quite easily by showing where on this forum certain things were said. You like to pretend no one can prove anything because it gives you leeway to lie and mislead and still act morally superior, but the fact is you're among the lowest of the low.

like I said before, there's no peer review or objective oversight to weed out fakes. you already tried playing this card; is it your only one?


no? this is pretty weak... no wonder you repeated yourself. proof that someone said something isn't proof that what they said is verifiable or valid. I've also seen entire threads here mysteriously disappear into thin air.


that's right, lunchbox.

Yes, and who knows that more than you? You're a master of changing statements, distorting facts, and keep on doing the same over and over. Hats off to your rusted intell.

You idiot! I support queen sheeba only for what I believe to be true. The "truth" is: you are not qualified enough to write assignments for students, and judge the quality of others' writing. Dot.

You support QS? Oh!

Are you sure you read my post?

Most people can use their own eyes and brains. Sure, you can photoshop fakes together, but doing so well takes more skill than most people have at their fingertips. None of this explains why people claim they have proof that they then fail to post.

We've been over this before. You're still either willfully ignorant or stupid.


You're missing the point. Claims like "customers complain about you all the time" could be verified simply by pointing to the posts of customers complaining. The claims are made without the evidence, which ought to be all around/

Honestly, are you misunderstanding on purpose or are you actually this dense?


Evidence?

Your own posts are enough evidence to back up my claim. Please refer to them. Thank you.

That's not exactly how it works. If you think my posts are clear evidence that I'm an unqualified writer, you ought to be able to easily quote a few instances of mistakes I've made that mark me as unqualified.

See, Buford? It's this type of s-i* that could easily be proven, but still isn't. Making claims that can be proven and then proving them would significantly elevate the level of debate around here, and is entirely possible.

Evidence?


Many people out there, including me, have done this already. You yourself know this has happened several times before. Why do you feel amused by playing same boring game over and over? It is your problem that you don't want to accept the reality. Go away.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


You've quoted a few typos, and even those are hard for you to find. You have yet to show any evidence of repeated mistakes or trends in my writing that would make me "unqualified."

Its on public record wikipedia is your favourite source in papers. No need to remind this.

No, you/they haven't, Captain Caveman.


Let me guess, Ukrainian trash, this is another "public record" that you can't reference?

Ask Pheenyks and his disappointed clients who can rewrite wikipedia text themself and for free.

If by "pubic record" you mean you've repeated it many times without evidence, then yes.

Why do you find it necessary to keep reminding us that your supposedly existing research 'skills' are nothing but re-writing/ paraphrasing Wikipedia?
Is it a coincidence that one student described you as horrible?


What is wrong with you, young herdsman?
Tell me: of late your mom(WB) has rarely been coming to your rescue. So, you erroneously assume that by attacking me, she will eventually notice your wimpy posts and offer a back up.

Quoting wikipedia once doesn't mean that's all I know how to do, queenie, and so far it's one more outside source than you've ever cited.

I don't see Wikipedia as being an evil source of information. Nor do I view it as an unreliable source of information. However, I never used it as an actual source in any paper that I created in the past and don't dream of doing so in the future. However, I do understand that for most students, it is the easiest place to get information on any topic they need to research. It is a good starting point but, due to the open editing nature of the website, I always tell students to do further research based on information found there.

One thing that students who do their own research often appreciates about this often maligned source is that it leads to other sources outside of Wikipedia, making it easier for them to gather information, read the data, and decide which sources could be reliable or unreliable information. So don't knock Wikipedia as a source. It has its uses.

Exactly. Certainly not as a referenced source, but it can be an excellent place to get other information that you can then research. Often times, information on wiki pages is cited with peer reviewed articles and books. It's a good starting point for finding what you are really looking for.

That is true. Wikipedia pages cite exterior sources towards the end of the presentation. So students who are looking for extra information or, those who have no idea where to start, can use the references section of Wikipedia to get started. It is up to them to learn to decipher truth from fiction though. Not all the Wikipedia sources are accurate either. Students should use Wikipedia only to help them get to the more accurate and reliable sources. I tell students who ask me that Wikipedia is an excellent information networking jump off point. They are bound to end up with far more reliable sources based solely upon how they follow the research references that started at the Wikipedia page.

I don't know about you guys but I cannot accept an opinion as truthful if it cannot be backed up by the simplest and most easily provable evidence. That is the purpose of this whole forum, to debate the legitimacy of services and give advice to students based upon the evidence that writers and other students have gathered or experienced over time. If one does not wish to participate in such a debate, then they should not be discrediting the importance of presenting evidence either. Just let the debate proceed as it normally does.

This has always been my approach to discussion and argument.