Does this site do oxymoron(ism)?

Then how come "Google Translator" and similar can almost perfectly translate between all kinds of languages? In a few years translation will be close to 99.5%.

Are computer scripts influenced by "geographical location, language barriers, cultural differences, or bias"?

What? There are so many stupid and blatantly false statements that I don't know where to begin. Dude, seriously, just go away.

Nice touch, placing a screenshot rather than quotes to keep me from quoting your argument properly. It's futile, of course.

So your position is that if nothing was sold, then there are no items actually being sold? What kind of a messed up idea is that? Oh wait, I ALMOST forgot who I was talking to, a washed up LOSER who's so desperate to get herself out of a hole that she dug and so stupidly fell into.

Oh.. ho ho... don't tell me that THAT'S ALL your 5-day long legal research got you, is it? ^_______________________^

Actually, I didn't need to begin the case law research process at all. I just waited for you to do the work and post what you ignorantly thought was evidence in your favor. I then used your own evidence against you to indisputably win the debate. Thanks for getting my back, Margie! I couldn't have done it without you (well, not really)!

Considering that it's always the all-star fraudster team of EW_liar, RustyWriter, AND stupid4 against only me, one would assume that they would have the advantage. Funny how it never turns out that way. ;)

funny to you, maybe. what's funny to me is when, limping towards the finish line in last place, you declare yourself the victor. it's almost admirable, a bull-headed, insane sort of way. of course, we're all jealous of you, WB, is what it comes down to. right?

EW_liar + RustyWriter + stupid4 < WritersBeware + Morality/Ethics + Law

What is the result of:

Morality divided by Ethics (Morality/Ethics)? Is it 'Consumer Deception'?

that scam I mentioned earlier was completely legal... and based in the US.

Rusty, you are an absolute idiot. Crawl back under your rock, criminal.

shades of gray, WB... a scam can be legal. what seems a scam can be legit. I'm not getting in a flame war with you about it... it's something to think about, though.

ROFLMAO!!! OMG... YOU REALLY SUCK! Classic WB tactic. Can't win? Write some BS in perfect grammar like so:


and then PRETEND that you WON.

Gawd.... is there a more PATHETIC character than you?

Under the Lanham Act, there is absolutely NO NEED TO PROVE that any sale was made. As long as an advertisement has the potential to mislead customers, a company is legally liable both to customers and to its competition. Your response that if there is no sale, there is no liability is as ignorant as your earlier claims about what a payroll is and about the nonexistence of the C2C business model.

I understand that you can't accept how I have decimated you on an issue that you, yourself brought up as substantive. However, if you have any dignity left in you, it would be good form to stop acting like such a sore loser and keep on humiliating yourself. Then again, did you really have any dignity to begin with? Oh well... ^______________^

Blah, blah, blah. You're the sore loser (and I do mean LOSER). You posted your own evidence and it backfired on you. Shut up and deal with it, crook.

https://essayscam.org/forum/es/solidpapers-anyone-tried-1960/#msg35381

Backfired? Not EVEN WRT would agree with you on that one, idiot. In fact, I challenge ANYONE to agree with you on your asanine idea that it is necessary to prove that a sale was made in a false advertising suit.

In your face, stupidhead:

What is illegal is the potential to deceive, which is interpreted to occur when consumers see the advertising to be stating to them, explicitly or implicitly, a claim that they may not realize is false and material. The latter means that the claim, if relied on for making a purchasing decision, is likely to be harmful by adversely affecting that decision. If an ad is implicitly false, evidence must be obtained for what consumers saw the ad saying, and for the materiality of that, and for the true facts about the advertised item, but no evidence is required that actual deception occurred, or that reliance occurred, or that the advertiser intended to deceive or knew that the claim was false.

servinghistory.com/topics/false_advertising::sub::Regulation_And_Enforcement

Still have anything to say? ^______________________^

Wow, you truly are an absolute idiot. Thank you once again for proving me correct with your own "evidence."


1. IF
2. PURCHASING DECISION

No purchase, no commerce, no illegal act.


Yes, you're an idiot. Stop wasting my time. This isn't Night at the Improv. You're truly funny, but it's not the right venue for your comedic brilliance.

Oh brilliant out-of-context quoting, moron. It's amazing how you keep on trying these pathetic tricks thinking that anyone would fall for them.

Let's show the context of your quote shall we?


ROFLMAO!!! The quote wasn't even originally a sentence (we all know how meanings can change when one only quotes part of a sentence from it, don't we?) Clearly it can be shown here that the quote WB made is NOT equivalent to a false advertisement is viable only if the customers are proven to have made a purchase while relying on the information from the ad, rather it simply states that what needs to be proven is the hypothetical that if the claim was followed, it is likely to lead clients to harm.

Hey.. and nice going ignoring the rest of the statement too:

If an ad is implicitly false, evidence must be obtained for what consumers saw the ad saying, and for the materiality of that, and for the true facts about the advertised item, but no evidence is required that actual deception occurred, or that reliance occurred, or that the advertiser intended to deceive or knew that the claim was false.

Unless you can say anything that can dispute the above statement, this debate is absolutely OVER, and you most definitely LOSE.

You are dumber than a doorknob. Everything that you keep quoting is based on an act of commerce having taken place.

No commerce
No purchase
No service
No goods
No crime

Good night.

Nice try, loser. Proving that a single sale was made is not necessary in a false advertising lawsuit, PERIOD. That is clear as day in the following discussion about the Lanham Act.

What is illegal is the potential to deceive, which is interpreted to occur when consumers see the advertising to be stating to them, explicitly or implicitly, a claim that they may not realize is false and material. The latter means that the claim, if relied on for making a purchasing decision, is likely to be harmful by adversely affecting that decision. If an ad is implicitly false, evidence must be obtained for what consumers saw the ad saying, and for the materiality of that, and for the true facts about the advertised item, but no evidence is required that actual deception occurred, or that reliance occurred, or that the advertiser intended to deceive or knew that the claim was false.

The outcome of this debate is clear cut, YOU LOSE. Now, I challenge ANYONE to reason otherwise. Let's see how many days it takes for someone to actually agree with WritersBeware on this one.

_____________________________________________________________________
False advertisement is a crime only when a customer actually buys something.

fervent, unrelenting, years-long, public support/defense of a belief-in writing-constitutes action in the eyes of the law.

- from the mad imaginings of pretend-lawyer, WritersBeware (2010)

Days since people were invited to agree with WritersBeware's mad imaginings: 0
Number of people who have agreed with WritersBeware's mad imaginings: 0

Retard alert!


GAME OVER

Shut up already, loser. By the way, your constant calls for help and affirmation are absolutely pathetic.

Why can't you quote the entire statement? Oh yeah, because doing so absolutely exposes your stupidity.


Let's go over a little English comprehension lesson, shall we?

The first statement says that what is illegal is the potential to deceive, not the actual deception. This in itself shows that proving that a client actually bought something (i.e., was effectively deceived by the ad) is not necessary. Now, what a lawyer must prove to hold a company liable is that "the claim, if relied on for making a purchasing decision, is likely to be harmful by adversely affecting that decision." Does this mean that the lawyer must prove that the claim was actually relied upon and that a purchase was made because of the claim? ABSOLUTELY NOT. All the lawyer has to prove is that IF the claim was relied upon, it would lead the client to making a purchasing decision that is harmful.

I don't get it, English is a simple enough language and you claim to be an expert in it, yet somehow you can't grasp something as simple as the explanation above.


I'm not calling for help, I'm simply showing that your friends (WRT, pheelyks, FreelanceWriter) won't dare support you on this one because they are absolutely aware that you are undeniably WRONG. Oh, and no use stating that they're not responding because this isn't a substantive issue in the essay writing industry because, HELLO, you handpicked this issue as substantive. ^_________^

You are DONE.

No problem.


Happy, retard?


If that's true, why do you bother refuting me? Its probably the same reason why you pretended to be a male, ESL writer for years. LMAO!

YOU are done, and you know it. That's why you keep frantically posting. I'll simply continue to slap you in the face with the critical aspect of the law on which all other aspects of the law depend: commerce.

Because I am aware of what you're doing. You're trying to keep on repeating a hopelessly illogical yet grammatically correct claim to fool unwitting readers who equate spelling ability to reasoning ability.

But hey, just to shut you up, I did a basic websearch and picked the first false advertsing case that I found. Lookie here:

U.S. District Court Rules SanDisk Engaged in False and Deceptive Advertising
Details of the Case

SanDisk had claimed for months that its products were faster than Lexar's in SanDisk's Capture Time Comparison chart. Judge Breyer's decision vindicates Lexar's position that the chart was inaccurate and was used to mislead Lexar's customers.

The judge's ruling targets claims in SanDisk's chart that the 'capture times' of SanDisk memory cards in particular digital cameras are faster than those for specific Lexar cards in the same cameras. The Court observed that in the digital camera industry, Capture Time, sometimes referred to as 'click-to-click' time, is the measure of the time elapsed between when ``the camera starts to record and store the image (upon depression of the shutter button) until the camera is ready to take another photo.''

In support of its ruling, the Court noted that Nelson Chan, Vice President of Marketing at SanDisk, did not dispute the widely accepted definition of click-to-click. Accordingly, the Court found that ``Lexar is likely to succeed on its claim that SanDisk's 'click-to-click' comparisons are literally false and therefore violate...the Lanham Act....''

SanDisk's Advertising Likely to Deceive Consumers

By SanDisk's own admission, click-to-click speed is a key factor in a consumer's purchasing decision. The two components of click-to-click speed are 1)camera engine processor speed and 2)the write speed of the digital film. As cameras with faster processing capabilities come into the market, the sustained write capabilities of digital film become more critical in click-to-click comparisons. The longer the click-to-click time, the more likely the user is to miss that ``great'' shot while he waits for the camera to be ready to take the next shot.

The Court found that SanDisk wrongly measured 'release-to-click' time and claimed it was click-to-click time. Release-to-click measures the time when the tester releases the fully depressed shutter button until the camera is ready to take another picture. This methodology is inconsistent with industry standards and more difficult to measure objectively.

dpreview.com/news/9909/99092702sandisklooses.asp

Was there ANY evidence shown by the prosecution that even a single purchase of the product that was allegedly falsely advertised was made? No. Was such evidence necessary for the court to rule that false advertising was committed? No. Has WritersBeware just been humiliated again? YES.

SanDisk has engaged in commerce, sold products, and monetarily benefitted from its assertions.

YOU LOSE-AGAIN.

Why do you make it sooooo easy to beat you?

Did SanDisk submit sales reports? Were they asked to submit sales reports by courts? Were evidences of sales necessary to prove that Sandisk engaged in false advertsing?

No.. no... and........... NO.

Give it up, you're just making yourself look even sillier.

___________________________________________________________________
False advertisement is a crime only when a customer actually buys something.

fervent, unrelenting, years-long, public support/defense of a belief-in writing-constitutes action in the eyes of the law.
- from the mad imaginings of pretend-lawyer, WritersBeware (2010)

Days since people were invited to agree with WritersBeware's mad imaginings: 0
Number of people who have agreed with WritersBeware's mad imaginings: 0

LOL! Yawn all you want. ^_^ No matter how hard and how desperately you try to save yourself from this one, it's not gonna happen. You can shrug like it doesn't matter, I don't care. As long as people here see you for the piece of s-i* you are, I know that I'm doing my share of good works. ^__^ The fact that actual sale of goods need not be proven in a false advertisement lawsuit is clear and undeniable.

I'm sure that it must sting to get your a** kicked in a topic that you selected but hey, look on the bright side......

LMAO!!!!

Keep dreaming, crook. I slapped you silly in every way possible. You posted "evidence," and I schooled you with it. You're a hapless joke and an utter waste of my time. Try posing a challenge next time.

LOL!!! You just keep trying, don't you? You just keep on yelling "I won! I won!" like a silly grade school kid just to keep herself from realizing that she got her a** kicked. Well, I'm going to keep reminding the people of this forum how badly you lost. Sorry, I know it's sort of cruel but hey... ya sow what ya reap, right? ^_______________^

So people, here's a recap.

WritersBeware claimed that:

False advertisement is a crime only when a customer actually buys something.

and then I showed evidence to the contrary:

§ 43 (15 U.S.C. §1125). False designations of origin; false description or representation
(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

Which shows that actual deception (that is, a sale) does not need to be proven, only the potential to deceive.

WritersBeware vowed that she would conduct a legal research to disprove my claim


But after 4 days of finding nothing, she flipped:



Finally, out of sheer desperation, she claimed that she didn't do any research because she didn't need to (LOL!!!) and that she's right because:


Which is just a more grammatically flamboyant restatement of her original claim that:


Which as clearly stated from the Lanham Act, is silly since the crime is about a false advertisement and how that ad might lead to a sale (likelihood of deception to occur), not whether or not it actually has led to a sale (actual occurrence of deception).

As a final attempt to beat some sense into her, I showed her the first court case about false advertising that came up on a web search.

U.S. District Court Rules SanDisk Engaged in False and Deceptive Advertising

If you read the court case you'll find that as expected, it was not necessary to prove that there was a single product sold. The fact that SanDisks products were being sold (regardless of whether or not anyone was buying them) and that they were falsely advertising them was sufficient for the court to rule against them.

Did this finally get WritersBeware to own up to her stupidity? Nah.. WritersBeware's existence on this forum depends on her making everyone believe that she's infallible.

But hey, let's hope you know better. ^________________^
___________________________________________________________________________
False advertisement is a crime only when a customer actually buys something.

fervent, unrelenting, years-long, public support/defense of a belief-in writing-constitutes action in the eyes of the law.
- from the mad imaginings of pretend-lawyer, WritersBeware (2010)

Days since people were invited to agree with WritersBeware's mad imaginings: 1
Number of people who have agreed with WritersBeware's mad imaginings: 0

Since (a)(1) clearly indicates that goods, services, and commerce must be present, all that follows in (A) and (B) does not apply to an essay site that has never sold a paper (goods), never sold writing (services), and never engaged in commerce (i.e., sold a product or service).


LMAO! Look at your incessant, frantic responses. You're the one panicking, Margie, not me. You're a proven liar and fraud defender.


To whom are you "talking"? Sad . . . .

Yawn #2.

Are you clinically INSANE? SELLING is commerce in itself in as far as the Lanham Act is concerned. It's all over the court cases. NO PROOF THAT A SALE WAS MADE WAS NECESSARY, YOU IDIOT. It doesn't matter if anyone buys anything. When you're SELLING something, what you say to peddle your products are words used in commerce.

The challenge to agree with this asanine dingbat's messed up idea about what are the necessities of a false advertising claim is still open. No takers? What a surprise! >.<

_____________________________________________________________________
False advertisement is a crime only when a customer actually buys something.

fervent, unrelenting, years-long, public support/defense of a belief-in writing-constitutes action in the eyes of the law.

- from the mad imaginings of pretend-lawyer, WritersBeware (2010)
Days since people were invited to agree with WritersBeware's mad imaginings: 1
Number of people who have agreed with WritersBeware's mad imaginings: 0

I absolutely guarantee that each and every one of those companies had actually engaged in commerce (i.e., sold a product or service). Declaring as a legal defense that they had never engaged in commerce was not an option for those established companies.


Stupid much?


There is no "selling."

In how many different ways do I need to slap you? Backhand? Ghetto? Sissy? Pimp?


Your desperate pleas for help are absolutely pathetic, Margie.

Oh sez you. That's not how the law works, lady. You stick with what needs to be proven or not. You don't suddenly make up rules, and the Lanham Act makes very clear what needs to be proven.

To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove FIVE things:
(1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity;
(2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience;
(3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience;
(4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce;
(5) the deception has either resulted inor is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff.
The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injurea customer.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/False+Advertising

Your contention that it ALSO needs to be proven that a sale was made is utter garbage. False advertising claims can be filed against advertisements of any product ON SALE, it definitely does not need to be proven that a product was actually sold.

You can keep on pretending that you won, I'll just keep on showing people that you lost horribly. Takes less than 5 minutes of my time to do so. ^_^

Have a nice evening. LOL!!!
______________________________________________________________________
False advertisement is a crime only when a customer actually buys something.

fervent, unrelenting, years-long, public support/defense of a belief-in writing-constitutes action in the eyes of the law.
- from the mad imaginings of pretend-lawyer, WritersBeware (2010)

Days since people were invited to agree with WritersBeware's mad imaginings: 2
Number of people who have agreed with WritersBeware's mad imaginings: 0

Correct. It does not need to be "proven" by the plaintiff that any of those particular companies had engaged in commerce. For each one of those companies, having engaged in commerce is an unopposed matter of fact. Plus, none of the companies sought to dispute the matter. If an essay Web site owner were to assert that the site has never engaged in commerce, the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff to prove otherwise.

Hmmm, Margie, I wonder why you're not including the ENTIRE quotes now. You're pathetic.


WRONG. It is the second most heavily weighed factor, after establishing that the site has engaged in commerce.


You lost. Deal with it, you freaking charlatan.

Wow.. I don't even know what you mean by that. Those ARE the five things that must be proven. Nothing more, nothing less. You said so yourself:


Plus, those five requirements really are everything there is to false advertisement. Everyone can click the source below and see for themselves

law.jrank.org/pages/6727/False-Advertising-Proof-Requirement.html


Your nuts. No matter how many court cases I post here, you're just always going to claim that the company sold a product to back up your insane assertion.


First of all, it wasn't me who claimed that it's the most heavily weighed factor. It was the source. So unless you can back up your claim with a court case, you LOSE.

Secondly, when a company attempts to convince people to buy something, they are in fact engaging in commerce. They are liable for any false advertisement that they use in convincing people to buy something. Once again, NO FALSE ADVERTISING COURT CASE whether it involved large companies or very small companies has ever required evidence of sale to prove the claim. Sales records may be needed in determining damages (although damages can also be sought even without sales records), but the claim of false advertisement itself only needs the following.

LOL!!! Guess what, I just found another piece of evidence that's going to bury you EVEN deeper. Now, unless you cut your losses and own up to your mistake in your next post, I will post that evidence and make you an EVEN BIGGER LAUGHING STOCK THAN YOU ALREADY ARE.

Hey, but we both know that you'd rather be a laughing stock than admit to being wrong so I'll go ahead and write my next post and just copy-paste it after your anticipated response.

Oh and as you well know, unlike you, I actually deliver on my promises.

LMAO! Bring it!


Yeah, right . . . .

commerce
1. an interchange of goods or commodities, esp. on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.

2. the activity embracing all forms of the purchase and sale of goods and services

SOURCE: dictionary.reference.com/browse/commerce

Funny, I don't see any definition involving "attempts to convince."

You lose.

Let's say that a new essay writing site was established, wewriteessays.com. On the site, it was discussed that websites which hire only American writers should not be used because "Americans are dumber than oxen when it comes to writing." Clearly in this hypothetical case, the company's own product is not even being advertised. The company may well not have any writers at all. Regardless of whether the company ever sold an essay or not, damage has been done to companies that claim to use only American writers.

Now, answer these questions if you're not too chicken:

1.) Is the company wewriteessays.com legally liable?
2.) Is there a need to prove that they actually sold anything to prove their liability?


Riiiiiight.. another showing on how much of a pretend-lawyer you are. We all know that you can't quote the dictionary when interpreting the law. There's a common definition, and then there's an operative legal definition. Legal definitions are for terms pertinent to a law, and you can always find all of those definitions in the text of the law itself (not in some online dictionary). If it's not clearly defined in the particular law, it means that the term is irrelevant to the law.

Gosh.. way to go giving me another paddle to whack your arse with. ^____^

1. If wewriteessays.com is not engaging in commerce (i.e., not selling goods or services), there is no legally actionable false advertising.

2. If there is no commerce, that is strictly a matter of libel that may be legally pursuable by other essay Web site owners.

So, where's your "operative legal definition"? Funny, I only see the definition that I provided.

Foolish bag:

Legal definitions are for terms pertinent to a law, and you can always find all of those definitions in the text of the law itself (not in some online dictionary). If it's not clearly defined in the particular law, it means that the term is irrelevant to the law.

You say that proving "commerce" is important, that places the burden of proving that a legal definition exists ON YOU. WHERE'S YOUR LEGAL DEFINITION OF COMMERCE? ^____________^


Libel? Is that your final answer?

I have to go now but when I return, I'm going to show people here why #1, the above example CAN'T be libel and why #2, it most CERTAINLY can lead to a false advertising claim.

The hypothetical situation:

Let's say that a new essay writing site was established, wewriteessays.com. On the site, it was discussed that websites which hire only American writers should not be used because "Americans are dumber than oxen when it comes to writing." Clearly in this hypothetical case, the company's own product is not even being advertised. The company may well not have any writers at all. Regardless of whether the company ever sold an essay or not, damage has been done to companies that claim to use only American writers.

My questions were:
1.) Is the company wewriteessays.com legally liable?
2.) Is there a need to prove that they actually sold anything to prove their liability?

Your answer to the first question:


You mean "sold", right? If wewriteessays.com has not sold a single product but is claiming that is does have essays for sale. Be clear with your answer.

Your answer to the second:


Bye for now.

I'm terribly backlogged so I'll have to make this quick.

A company that hires American writers can't win a libel case against wewriteessays.com because wewriteessays.com did not write a libelous statement against them. The libelous claim was against Americans in general as writers. So no go there.

What competitors can instead file is a false advertising claim under the product disparagement type. That is,

Product disparagement involves discrediting a competitor's product. The 1988 amendment to the Lanham Act extends claims for false advertising to misrepresentations about another's products.

law.jrank.org/pages/6729/False-Advertising-Types-False-Advertising.html

Thus, a competitor can hold wewriteessays.com liable under the Lanham Act for falsely advertising against them. As with all the other Lanham Act cases, there is no need to prove that a single sale was ever made by the accused. However, this fact is much more highlighted when it comes to the product disparagement type of Lanham Act cases.

Well, we all know that WritersBeware will continue to be unable to accept that she just keeps getting her a** kicked, but hey that's not what matters. What matters is that writers, ESL or otherwise should feel safe that they are in no way liable for any false advertisement crimes being committed by their employers.

Gotta get back to work. Bye for now.

False advertisement is a crime only when a customer actually buys something.

fervent, unrelenting, years-long, public support/defense of a belief-in writing-constitutes action in the eyes of the law.

- from the mad imaginings of pretend-lawyer, WritersBeware (2010)

Days since people were invited to agree with WritersBeware's mad imaginings: 3
Number of people who have agreed with WritersBeware's mad imaginings: 0

No surprise here, WritersBeware can't face the evidence, so she just goes on to quote her silly claim that not being able to actually sell product despite openly advertising to sell the product absolves a company of false advertising claims.

Not only is this wrong, based on ALL of the evidences presented, this position is absurd. Proving a false advertising only requires for the claimant to prove that an advertising for or against a certain product is false. Period.


True, but because employers commit the crime of false advertising ALL ON THEIR OWN, and freelance writers play no part in the commission of the crime in anyway, they are in no liability. In fact, they can even be considered victims of the misrepresentation.

I already schooled you with your own evidence, so just STFU already. You're a joke. Nobody cares about you or your stupid, irrelevant, personal agenda, despite how many times you desperately plead with them to affirm you.