The "all students cheat" argument

Fraudulent dimwits always try to justify their fraudulent practices by claiming that their customers deserve to be defrauded because "they all cheat the system."

WRONG

The only hard evidence exists, in black and white, in the docket of the "Boston University v. The Paper Store (et al)" case of 1995-7. BU's attorneys obtained from the term paper sites, via subpoena, records of all students from BU that had bought papers in an attempt to establish direct damages sustained by the university. Of the eight (8) BU students found to have purchased papers, seven (7) of them referenced the sample papers properly. This was BU's own evidence that the victorious defendants ultimately used against BU!

Now, unless you cowardly dimwits have equally legitimate, relevant, trustworthy evidence, I invite you to shut your traps.

First, I would like to clarify that I am not in any way siding with the "fraudulent dimwits" who have recently flooded this message board with horrendously substandard writing.

Second, I also agree that not all students use the papers that they buy as is. Some do paraphrase and others do rewrite some of the content to integrate their style. I know because I have such clients. However, I still find it hard to believe that any student would properly site the source of a purchased paper. I think that any professor would raise an eyebrow at reading that one of the sources that a student used was purchased from an essay mill.

Nevertheless, I do believe that a great majority of students do submit purchased papers for credit. Whether this is right or wrong is none of my business. I only write the papers and have no control as to how they are used.


1. While this evidence did exonerate the essay mill, it is statistically invalid to infer that only 1 out of every 8 students submit papers that they buy for academic credit. Please, not your "general statistics" again... >.<

2. Even if we assume that only 1 out of 8 students submit purchased papers as their own, it's still a significant enough number for academic institutions to be concerned. If there were 800,000 students who were clients of company X, a 1:8 ratio would mean that about 100,000 of them cheated their way through college.

When and where did I "infer" anything? I didn't. Learn how to read. Did you miss the title of the thread? Seriously, you just can't maintain any form of civility and leave personal garbage alone, can you?

MOD, please delete any off-topic, personal commentary by EW_writer. It has no place in this thread.

I know how to read. Apparently, you don't. Here's my question for you: where in the post that I made did I claim that you were inferring about anything? I simply wanted to ensure that people reading this thread don't jump into any conclusions using your "general statistics."


I think the MOD knows better than that. ^____^

Why don't students just cut the chase and do their own assignments. It's the highest form of academic ethics.

These essays writing companies are leading to production of mentally handicaped graduates.Americans, Europeans and Austarian handle your own assignments.

Yeah, you lazy Austarians!

You directly quoted me and then made your statement! You were suggesting that I was making a false or invalid inference. Playing dumb won't help your cause.


Really? YOU find it hard to believe? That's because you are so inherently crooked, dirty, and corrupt that your own guilt prevents you from accepting the fact that many people are honest. Oh, and please continue denying the EVIDENCE that I posted-it proves how desperate you are to justify your own, immoral behavior. Apparently, in your mind, those seven honest BU students aren't people. They don't count. Only your unsubstantiated "beliefs" count.


"Jump to any conclusions"? Oh, I see-people should believe your utter LACK of evidence and what you "believe," rather than form any sort of opinion based on the only legitimate, limited evidence in existence, which I provided? Yeah, nice try. This is one more example of how you try to s-i* on every legitimate thread with your personal propaganda.


To this day, you have not proven that my original statements are false and/or unlikely. I dare you to attempt to do so now. Go ahead-find the thread, quote my original statement, and have the guts to assert that my claim is false/unlikely. Yeah, that's what I thought.

I was quoting the evidence. But hey, I think arguing about whether or not you were inferring about anything is moot since you already admitted to drawing a flimsy inference based on the "evidence" you posted.


Really? Your evidence of 7 out of 8 students versus the experience of many if not all writers here of students asking for papers that can get them good grades? I think (<----here it is, pheelyks) that writers such as pheelyks or FW will agree that most people they write papers for would NOT site ********* as a source. HAHAHA!


their common sense.


That 7/8 students were found to not have used the paper as is? I never contested that. What I did contest was the validity of using that evidence to support the generalization that most students do not use the papers that they submitted for credit which is as retarded as many of your other ideas.

See, this is where I always bury you. You are infamous for conveniently skewing the truth and other people's positions to suit your arguments. I did NOT state that "most students do not use the papers that they submitted for credit." I quite clearly stated that "students often use sample papers properly," which the BU case clearly supports. Do you understand the difference?

Again, where is your concrete evidence of any kind?

err... and the difference between these two statements is? Ooooh... Are you saying that students who submit the papers that they buy for credit are using such papers properly? Ahh.... naughty naughty.... ^______________^ Hahahahaha!!!

I love it when I bury you so badly that you have to resort to playing ignorant. Really-you don't know the difference? LMAO! How pathetic . . . .

The point is that I am countering the direct claim of idiots like you that "ALL students cheat." Get it, ftard? I will not allow you to make that utterly invalid assertion as a means to justify-and feel good about-your own, fraudulent practices (and/or those of your employers).

Oh please, most statements with "ALL" in it are practically impossible to prove. The main issue here is whether or not most of the students who purchase papers use them "properly."

If you want to keep hiding behind that "ALL" sandbag though, don't let me stop you. ^____^

WB: EW is correct. you can't generalize and expand a sample size of 8 papers to represent an industry in which 1000s of papers are sold daily. it's too small a data set; it leaves the door wide open for interference from extraneous variables. this is 101 level stuff.

Because I didn't, unless you would like to openly state on this board that your evidence of 7/8 DOES NOT in any way reflect the actual ratio of students of use purchased papers "properly."

Oh but while we're on the subject of admitting things, why can't you admit that you were wrong about the Lanham Act and that you were ignorant of the C2C business model?

^_____^


Only for someone who didn't major in Grammar and Spelling.

You lost-badly. Deal with it.


This proves that both of you have a reading problem. Once again, for the reading impaired, I did NOT state that "no students cheat." I stated that the mr-ns who claim that "all students who buy papers use them to cheat" are incorrect buffoons. I provided irrefutable proof that I am correct. End of story.

Like I said:

If you want to keep hiding behind that "ALL" sandbag though, don't let me stop you. ^____^

That would first require YOU to prove that I claimed that 7/8 DOES reflect the actual ratio of students who use purchased papers properly. I'm still waiting for you to do so after multiple challenges. Why can't you?


Sorry, but I won't be providing you with an escape route this time. Answer the question.

...and I am more than willing to concede the indefensible argument that "all students cheat."

The matter of contention is whether or not 86% is an accurate estimate of the proportion of students who do not cheat. I say it isn't, and using the 7/8 example from BU to support that it is is just another retarded idea.

Well, it's about time . . . .


How is it a "matter of contention" when I did NOT claim such? How dense are you, exactly?

Again, for all the retards in the house, I used the Boston University case SPECIFICALLY to counter the ignorant claim that "all students who buy papers use them to cheat." Get it?

Hey, great. I'm glad we cleared that up.

You don't believe that 86% is a valid estimate of the proportion of students who do not submit purchased papers for credit. You don't believe that most students use the papers that they purchase properly. That's good enough for me. Have a nice day.

The fact of the matter remains that the BU case presents a more valid estimate than the counterevidence that you have posted. Oh, wait-you haven't posted any counterevidence at all because none exists.

What you would have people believe is that Boston University-after having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring the lawsuit and establish the very same argument that you are making-failed where you would succeed. Right. Your evidence must be very solid. Oh, wait, I keep forgetting that you have no evidence.

Hahaha!!! Are you making a claim now or not? ^___^ Make up your mind. The evidence of students complaining on this message board about not getting the grade they want from the papers they bought is more than enough to topple your 7/8-based inference. Oh wait... were you making an inference?

LOL!!! This pathetic attempt of yours to play safe is as retarded as the idea that 7/8 can be used as a statistically valid estimate of a parameter from a population of millions.

I have made no inferences. Let's get some things straight, simpleton:

1. YOU falsely claim that "all" students who buy papers use them to cheat;

2. YOU falsely claim that my position is that "no" students who buy papers use them to cheat;

3. YOU falsely claim that no sample data and personal assumptions are better than concrete, limited data.

4. I have simply highlighted Facts 1-3.

I posted that opinion almost two years ago and at the resolution of that matter (almost two years ago) I had already conceded to changing my position to "most" instead of "all."


No, I did not.



But if you want to get technical with it, poor evidence is just as bad or even worse than no evidence where the application of statistics is concerned. Attend any basic seminar or 101 class on statistics and you'll hear the same thing. Poor evidence can lead decision makers to make wrong inferences which may have disastrous outcomes. However, this is not the case for this scenario that we have. There is OVERWHELMING evidence of students submitting papers for credit based on the posts of students on this message board alone.

Also, I think that nobody in his/her right mind would side with your implied claim that most students use the papers that they purchase "properly."

LMAO! I knew you'd make that lame comeback. Weak, very weak. That would make sense, of course, ONLY if there were alternate evidence available on either side. Limited evidence ALWAYS has value and is ALWAYS the basis of future study. No evidence is simply no evidence.


Why are you always trying to speak, so to speak, for other people? Can't you stand on your own two feet when losing an argument? Do you need a kickstand?


Once again, you try to skew my position and statements. I have not made that claim. For the third time, just for the mentally deficient, my claim is that not "all" students who buy papers use those papers to cheat-PERIOD.

the funny thing here, WB, is that no one said "all students use the papers to cheat," except for you. first, you put this absolute in phony quotes, as if someone besides you had stated it, and then, you went on to discount it. now that you're backpedaling from your inflated statistics, the only refuge you seem to have is your own imaginary counter-argument. essentially, neither I nor EW needs to say anything else at this point-- you are arguing with yourself.

Really, fukhead?


I'm sure that even EW_writer would concede that I could compile a decent number of additional, similar quotes from multiple members, including you.

Seriously, you're the forum jester, the running joke. You're not worth my time or effort. At least EW_writer is educated and has some experience on which to base her assertions. Crawl back under your rock.


Practically two minutes ago:

Almost two years ago, I did attempt to defend the position that no student spends hundreds of dollars on a model paper and doesn't use it. However, I conceded already conceded that argument during that time and changed my position to "most" instead of all.


I still do. However, is this the same as claiming that "all students cheat"? No. It is a statement of disbelief, not an argument. So editor75 is correct that currently, nobody (except maybe one of the Kenyans) is arguing that all students cheat.

once again, you're just digging yourself deeper-- the "I still find it hard to believe" makes this less of an absolute statement than it seems-- also, EW was talking about citing the papers in a bibliography, not handing them in as-is. I won't tell you to try charming, WB, because I know that's very difficult for you, but I will tell you to try a little harder, next time. till then, enjoy arguing with yourself.

You are a failure, both in this forum and in life. You're a dingleberry. Get lost, human joke.

Again, I knew you'd post that comeback, which is why I left out your preceding statements in full anticipation:


You left no room whatsoever for the doubtless many students who buy papers, read them, and reference them properly (as was the case with the 7 out of 8 BU students, on legal record).

Gosh, you're seeing issues where there are none. I never said that I knew that there weren't any who read and cited their papers properly. I just shared my experience with my clients.

But honestly, the day I see an actual paper on say "Comparing Participative and Directive Leadership Styles" with a reference that reads something like:

Grant, L. (2011). Comparing Participative and Directive Leadership Styles. Bob's Essays.

I'm going to laugh my head off. ^___^

Literally speaking, what exactly is a trap?

STFU and check this evidence

You're an idiot. Seriously, you are very, very dumb. Look up the definition of "all."

In this context, "traps" refers to mouths.

As i told you in another thread, the 'evidence' you purport to present is as old as your thick skull. Look, it has variously been established that over half of students in the US cheat(2012).

However, your dementia and schizophrenia fueled stupidity can only allow you to be stuck to your 1990's obsessions.
No, i am not looking for the definition of "all". That is the work of cretins like you who, lacking any enviable and ACTUAL qualifications, spend their time here trying to impress clueless students with your writing "skills".

I know how hard it is for losers like you to be accepted in the mainstream 'offline' and real America. You can only assert your vacuous 'supremacy' behind a screen.

Hey, ya cluelss, you still don't get it: I NEVER CLAIMED THAT STUDENTS DO NOT CHEAT! Wake up. I very clearly stated that "not ALL students cheat." Understand the difference, uneducated buffoon?

My educational qualifications can make you suffer a massive heart attack.

No, they were educationally handicapped to begin with. They never were never taught, nor did they learn the rudimentary rules of writing, how to do simple research,and how to write opinion and essay papers. That is why those who learned how to complete these papers became academic writers. We are filling a void in the educational system that the teachers are not bothering to fill. The teachers should be thanking us for existing and picking up the slack by teaching these kids how to write through the model papers they pay us to develop for them.