There you go again, sticking with your lame definition of what being in commerce means.

A merchant who is selling something is considered a participant in commerce, regardless of whether he is actually able to sell anything. If the definition of being in commerce and of having sold anything was pertinent to the Lanham Act, it would be defined in detail. It's not because guess what, actual sale is not necessary to prove false advertisements under the Lanham Act.

Like I said, you can repeat your messed up claims to victory all you want, I'll just come back and shove it up your a** ALL OVER AGAIN.

See you in 12 or so hours. ^_^

More worthless banter. Anyone reading this thread can see me launching one reasonable, evidence-backed argument after another while you desperately try to block by repeating your "no sale= no case" statement which is both grossly unsubstantiated and proven ridiculously absurd.

Then you try to veer the discussion off topic by presenting a bunch of new statements that have nothing to do with the current debate. How PATHETIC is that?


I am. They're not just assertions, they're well-substantiated arguments. I have accomplished what I sought to accomplish in this thread:

1.) Show that freelance writers are not liable for false advertisement made and launched by the companies they work for.

2.) Humiliate you thoroughly by exposing your gross stupidity about the Lanham Act and even hah!! libel suits. >.<

Now, I have to finish a ton of work. Feel free to repeat your claims of victory. You may want to create more of those dummy accounts and have them post here so that the thread will go to its next page and people won't see how you got your a** kicked again so easily. I'll be back later to just remind everyone of it ALL OVER AGAIN. ^___^

Sucks to be you. :p

Do we expect any better? No. This is how WritersBeware operates. When completely humiliated, she just pretends like she won and just keeps on repeating it (without any evidence and sticking hopelessly to her obviously and solidly proven flawed no sale = no case response).

It's only fair that my response be just as repetitive, though much more substantive.

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.


I'm not pleading with anyone. I'm challenging them to agree with you, which they can't seem to bring themselves to do. You know why? Because doing so would be forum suicide. If they agreed with you on your "no sale=no case" argument, they'd be affirming that their stupidity is a match to yours. I don't think that your "friends" are stupid. Sucks to be you. ^_____________^

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'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

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.

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.

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. ^____^

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.

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

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

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

I agree. That's why the best course of action that a customer should take is find a writer/company that they can be satisfied with in terms of both quality and price and stick with that company/writer. It's not impossible, it's not even that hard. All it takes is just a little effort, a little cash, and a lot of caution.

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!!!!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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? ^______________________^

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... ^______________^

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? ^_______________________^

Hey.. thanks for posting, Now we can see if people believe you over the law.

So what is it people, do you go with door number one?

(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.

Or... door number two:


Cast your votes. ^_________^

Wow.. you certainly have an English comprehension problem. I'll say it one more time, just for you:

Oh, I don't want you to (assert that you write better than AR's premium writers). ^_^ I'm not "desperate" for you to make a personal assertion because while you're busy not doing so, people are seeing how silly it is for you to berate writers who you cannot even claim to match in skill.


Did I accuse you of anything? My.. my.. my... did you take that Prozac like your doctor asked you to? I think that you have vested interests in posting on this forum, I think that you have more than one account in this forum, I think that you're a crappy writer with perfect grammar but absolutely no talent. I think that you suck. Do I need to humor you with evidence on each of these thoughts, heck no.

I claimed that your statement regarding false advertising laws is in direct contradiction to U.S. legal norms. That is a claim and I backed it up with facts. Have you disproved that claim yet? No. I claimed that you are wrong about essaybay's business model. Were you able to prove otherwise, no. Do you get the difference now, LOSER?

Wow.. thank you for dragging me in here and giving me the perfect excuse to humiliate you even further.

One, I never said that the price of a paper was not related to quality. As a rule, I don't accept projects that pay less than $10/250 words, and that lowest rate is only for projects that I can finish in 30 minutes.

Now on the matter of consumer-protection laws, DOES ANYONE.. ANYONE AT ALL, support WritersBeware's bold, pretend-lawyer statement that:


which falls in direct contradiction against the stipulations of the Lanham Act?

§ 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.

law.uconn.edu/homes/swilf/ip/statutes/lanham43.htm

Oh, I don't want you to. ^_^ I'm not "desperate" for you to make a personal assertion because while you're busy not doing so, people are seeing how silly it is for you to berate writers who you cannot even claim to match in skill.


Oh? I thought you didn't care what I thought? ^___________________^


LOL!!! Thank you for proving to all of us once again that when you cannot engage an argument or answer a question, you resort to nitpicking spelling and grammar. See, I don't mind admitting that I do make occasional writing mistakes when I'm not being paid to write. You on the other hand, are an entirely different animal. Typos are not errors, right? ROFLMAO!!!

______________________________________________________________________
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 pretend-lawyer, WritersBeware made the statement below: 5

Hah.. you wish it was nonsense. You can't even claim that you're better than AR's writers and yet you have the gall to insult them? Sheesh... >.<


I already named the sites. You say the list isn't complete, then feel free to add to it. I really don't care, it really DOESN'T MATTER. What does matter is that you have proven your stupidity time and time again in this forum. You can tout your evidences of false advertising all you want, no one's listening anymore. They know what you have to say and they know that it's not what really matters to them. Oh, and no matter how many more dummy accounts you plan to make to make it seem otherwise, the actual prospective clients who visit this forum would know better. You're done, WritersBeware. Game over.


If this was true, you wouldn't have responded to the first post that I made on this thread, LIAR.

WHAT?!? So you're telling me that you do not even have the guts to claim that you write better than people who you allege to be "completely incompetent, unqualified, ESL writers"?


LMAO!!!! PATHETIC. ^___________________^ And before you type anything, please note that ANY STATEMENT other than a well substantiated claim that you do write better than AR's premium writers won't be worth s-i*.


You're messed up. One, I don't work for AR or EW, not anymore in the case of EW anyway. Two, I have openly acknowledged many of EW's faults in the past. Three, I don't care if customers order from ANY OF EW's customer-end sites or not. See? YOU LOSE AGAIN.

ROFLMAO!!!
_____________________________________________________________________
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)

LOL!!! Are you THAT DESPERATE? You expect me to scourge the web for all of EW's sites? You're just DYING to pin something on me that you'd even settle for something as childish as this? YOU ARE TRULY PATHETIC. You posted those websites first, you ninny. I didn't steal them, I acknowledged that I got them from you and that you were the one who posted them. My point has NOTHING TO DO with those sites actually being active or not at the moment, and EVERYONE BUT YOU KNOWS THAT.


If by "crack" you mean high quality essays and other academic projects, then yes, that's precisely how I feel about it. You got a problem with that?

______________________________________________________________________
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)

I already posted EW's supposed consumer-based websites in the previous page, imbecile. Here, see for yourself. Do you have any more stupid rebuttals?


Nice try. Once again, you're trying to associate employers' bad practices with the caliber of writers that are employed by the company. It's fact that both EW and AR have some exceptionally talented writers. Customers who are able to find such writers stick with them for their entire academic career. Many of these customers are aware of the questionable practices of EW's consumer-end sites, yet they continue to patronize such sites anyway. Why? Simply because such sites DO DELIVER QUALITY PRODUCTS. In this shady industry where both clients and writers wish to remain absolutely anonymous, receiving quality products and getting paid for writing them are the ONLY THINGS THAT MATTER.

_____________________________________________________________________
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)

Didn't I just say EW and AR?

Any site that is able to provide clients with products that they are satisfied with is NOT A SCAM. Get that through that misshapen mass you call a brain.

_________________________________________________________________

YIKES!!!! She just flipped twice over. Somebody get some Prozac and shove em down her throat (or up her a**) before she picks up an uzi and heads for the nearest foreign essay site patronizing campus!! OH My Gawd.. SAVE THE CHILDREN!!!!


Being liable for false advertising charges and being a scam are two very different things. EW and AR may someday find themselves in court because of that, unfair labor practices and some other s-i* (like yeah, selling QUALITY HOMEWORK TO STUDENTS), but THEY ARE NOT SCAMS. Get that through that misshapen mass you call a brain.

Excuses, EXCUSES. Spent hours trying to find something no matter how obscure that you can mount against my argument? I understand that you're frustrated and I understand that you may think that I'm rushing you but HEY, you put the rush UPON YOURSELF when you said:


I don't think that 4 days counts as "shortly" in anyone's book.


You little fool. You really NEED to enroll in some English comprehension classes. I wasn't asking you to list the sites, you dumb oaf. Sorry, but I will not explain what I meant again since I'm pretty sure that everyone who has half a brain understood what my post meant.

_______________________________________________________________

One, I currently don't work for either company (although if ever I hit a shortage of orders, I may try AR). Two, you're crazy. Remember when you asked us to mention sites that weren't scams yet were included in your list and rust and I both mentioned EW and AR? You're response to that was:


After rusty pointed out that:


and I further added that:


You go back to your mudslinging tactics. Did you forget to take your meds again?

Oh and before I forget:

How's the legal research doing? STILL can't find anything to say against my position regarding writers' culpability? Maybe you ought to run for public office, get a seat in congress, and then try and have the Lanham Act revised. YOU ARE SUCH A LOSER! >.<

____________________________________________________________________
Days since pretend-lawyer, WritersBeware made the statement below: 4

ROFLMAO!!!! Once again, backed in a corner and left utterly defenseless, WB resorts to that all too familiar tactic: ignoring the argument, throwing in a couple of unsubstantiated/refuted accusations and simply claiming that she doesn't care.

You don't care what I think? THEN SHUT UP. ^_^ Wasn't it you who bravely said and I quote:


???

Is it my fault that you are utterly incapable of following through on your statements? No, it's yours.

Blah.. blah... BLAH. Name a site already! ^_____^ LOL!!! You haven't? You can't? CNN reported on cheating and DID NOT focus on sites being scams. You've been contacted by news agencies? Right... you're talking about the CNN dude who sent almost everyone emails asking for information. You contributed to the CNN report? Riiiiiight.. was that before or after you wrote John McCain his speech for the primaries? Sheeeesh... The sad part is, EVEN IF all of this was true and you did somehow contribute to the CNN report, it still DOES NOT PROVE that your contributions are critical to proving scams in this industry. Heck, the site that CNN featured isn't even a scam site.

Btw, so how's the legal research doing? STILL can't find anything to say against my position regarding writers' culpability? Maybe you ought to run for public office, get a seat in congress, and then try and have the Lanham Act revised. YOU ARE SUCH A LOSER! >.<

There she goes again with the bold threats. Sheesh.. when are you going to get that your act is OLD. Nobody's afraid of you. The days when the only people who disagree with you are those who can't even put a decent sentence in the English language together ended YEARS ago.

Btw, so how's the legal research doing? STILL can't find anything to say against my position regarding writers' culpability? Maybe you ought to run for public office, get a seat in congress, and then try and have the Lanham Act revised. YOU ARE SUCH A LOSER! >.<

I was talking about such sites' competition, you ninny.


WRONG. I asked you to claim the significance of your evidence in proving even one site as a scam. It is perfectly reasonable to ask if in the absence of your evidence, a site would still have been exposed. This case is true for Peter Richardson's sites (which I believe, are more than a few), and I bet that if I actually spent time to document the forum's activity over the last few years it would become too obvious that NONE of the evidences you've presented have actually been CRITICAL in proving any site as a scam.


Hmmm... how many sites do EW and AR allegedly have in total? Wasn't it you who mentioned that both companies have a plethora of websites? Do we have to list those sites? I'm sure that you can do that for us. Oh wait.. you have. Here you go, loser.

2-pay-secure.com
911essay.com
beckfamilies.com
bestbuyessay.com
bestessays.com
besttermpaper.com
dissertationsexperts.com
essaywriters.net
killer-content.com
resumesexperts.com
resumesplanet.com
rushessay.com
superiorpapers.com
universalresearch.net
wisetranslations.com

"Many" enough for you?

_________________________________________________________________________

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)

Sure you don't, but at the same time, I don't have to believe that you don't write or own a particular company. I'm FREE to believe what I want to believe and to express that belief to others. In the same way, you can't stop me or other people from believing that you do have vested interests in what you're doing. You can't force us to ignore our common sense, which is telling us that you're not just in this out of the goodness of your heart.


Wow.. a grammatical technicality as a rebuttal against a reasonable challenge. That's WB for you. I have made my point very clear. Your actions are not essential to the exposure of sites as scams. Sure, you do present new evidences, but the strongest evidences come from writers and clients who relate their experiences about getting scammed. Once again, it's not about location or nationality. Heck, it's not even about false advertising. If a site is falsely advertising itself, then those who feel like it should mount legal cases against the owners of such sites. That shouldn't stop people from availing or continuing to avail of such sites' services if they are satisfied with what they get.


Yeah, right. EW and AR both fit into the category of sites which are not scams because they do hire writers that provide quality products. If they advertisely falsely, then they should be sued, but that shouldn't stop people from buying if they want to. I don't mind telling people that buying from either site is a hit or miss activity.

Nice try. See here's where you try to take credit without taking responsibility and once again FAIL miserably. You can't PROVE that your actions were critical to proving any site as a scam. Period.

Furthermore, rusty is right. Many of the sites you mentioned aren't even scams. Your continued existence in this forum depends on your ability to look like a scam-buster so that you can influence visitors' decisions when choosing between competing "legitimate" homework writing sites.


Sure you have. You've been trying to sell that s-i* for years now. Tell me, has anyone ever actually bought it?
__________________________________________________________________

[b]EW_writer being exposed as a native English writer with a graduate degree from an American university.

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)