julie, your posts are so random it's silly. you post to nitpick and harass people about dumb topics on this board and you continue to not provide any evidence to back up your accusations of cheating. i could post the number of times that you've promised to provide that evidence for a laugh, maybe i will later.

the most recent academic research shows that 1-3% of all cheating students do so by buying essays and turning them in. that is far less than the number of students who cut and paste off the net, less than the number of students who cut and paste out of books, and less than the number of students who cheat off of their friends either in or out of class.

stop claiming that everyone who uses these services cheats, that's not even remotely offering an accurate description of reality. if you can't separate reality from personal advocacy, then it's good you aren't writing anymore.

that is an interesting point and i hope that you are correct.

i don't, sorry fae. gl if you try them.

i'm sorry but i don't agree with this. well, to be more accurate, i guess i have mixed feelings about this. i can see the value of stopping the fraudulent sites from advertising, but not at the expense of the entire industry. this protestor doesn't mind proactive or cheaptickets or hp or monster or airtran or any of the other companies spamming ads that i just saw on facebook. this protestor doesn't differentiate between the different companies. this person just wants to get rid of all term paper providers - legit or illegit.

"ban the industry" is a stupid move. it just feeds the clear misperception that this industry only supports cheaters, which it doesn't and which no evidence supports. and it makes misinformed educators feel like they are accomplishing significant progress in stopping student cheating, when they are not.

the impact of this action will probably be minimal except that it will cost the sites advertising dollars. if i owned any of them, i'd politely deny the request.

- talk to someone on the phone before you order. their customer service people will reflect the quality of their organization.

- ensure that the company has a writer first before you pay. a company that says they will find you a writer after payment is received is NOT to be trusted.

- 14$/ page is really quite low. closer to 16- 20$ per page is standard for non-rush rates (non-rush typically being more than 2 days to complete). for a rush rate, you may expect to pay closer to 30$/per page. if you want to save money, don't wait until the last minute to order. especially now. this is one of the big busy seasons of the year and ordering early will not only save you money, but it will make it more likely that a reputable company will find you a writer. while companies never like to tell a potential client "sorry, we can't find a writer," it does happen.

well, that is a shame and an academic mistake that should be corrected by the system. understanding statistics can and should make you or anyone a more competent barrister. and frankly, it's knowledge that should be attained for non-professional reasons. maybe i am just old fashioned, but i'm a strong proponent of liberal arts educations where individuals pursuing any degree should be able to demonstrate competency in other subject areas. an individual with an English or Law degree SHOULD understand SD just like an Engineer SHOULD have a grasp of history and literature. and frankly, everyone should have firm background in the sciences b/c that's just basic understanding about the world that anyone should know.

the only people suffering from "angst" are people with an axe to grind with me personally. EW posts to support Joey consistently and i humiliated him with the ad hominem discussion. Margie is clearly an ESL writer with a chip on her shoulder and wanted to accuse me of racism. Apparently, EW and Margie think it's more important to defend sexist morons than it is to be ethical or factually accurate.

And then there is you. The queen of promising evidence that never delivers. i've called you out a few times on that. you've threatened me with legal action. what a shock that you decided to jump in even though you know nothing about SD's. except you looked totally foolish because in your attempt to prove me wrong you actually backed up everything i'd said.

again, anyone who was unclear could have asked for an explanation. that's not what happened. instead, you, EW, and Margie post blanket assertions with zero evidence or contextual understanding of the role of the IQ test determined SD that I was incorrect.


SD isn't brain surgery. It's not rocket science. People like you and Margie need to stop mystifying the math likes it oh so difficult to understand. it's not. SD is a stats term that every college first year student should know. if you haven't been graded on a curve, then you haven't really experienced the height of competitive academic rigor. take an honors chemistry class where the final mean is 40 out of 100 and the SD is 5 and see if you can pull off an A. now that is fun! if you earned a master's or phd and weren't required to take a stats course, then you attended a crappy school, whatever country you live in.

this is an academic forum frequented by individuals claiming to be qualified to write for an academic audience. and yet the posters freak out when a comment actually requires a bit of thought and math knowledge. it's sad and irresponsible... and well, a little bit funny.

should i point out that you've only responded with words? it just seems too easy.

or that this is the root of my frustration (if this wasn't so funny... or fun). yes, my statement required a little bit of thought. that's not a crime.

i'm not responsible for making my posts easy to read. you will encounter texts in your life far more difficult to read than my posts.

if my post wasn't clear to you, the appropriate response would be to ask for clarfication, not attack me.


it doesn't imply that to anyone with decent reading skills. i clearly said the IQ would increase; i didn't comment on the standard deviation size. stop reading posts at 5 am.


i said the collective IQ of the readers of this forum would change, not the mean IQ as determined by Wechsler's test. you agreed with me in your last post that this would happen.


even now, when it's clear that you posted completely backing me up, you don't confirm that and correct Margie or EW. could it be you are blinded by a personal dislike of me? can it be that you aren't objective AT ALL?


you don't know where margie is going to school. i actually did a bit of research on the web and found how long it takes to earn a masters in the country she identified. yes, 3 years is above average. why are you butting in now?

trolling for that shot to bring me into the "lawsuit"? do you really think it is appropriate to talk to me after legally threatening me? is that a how legal professional behaves in the UK?

btw, i personally believe that your attempt to use your daughter's supposed "stats knowledge" as a means to discredit me publicly is really poor taste. what a way to use your child as a tool to further your personal agenda. that's just my opinion of course, and I get to share it.

you answered your own question, good job!


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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


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


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

so... on to your other stuff.


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

look at my original comment:


and then i clarified for the reading impaired:


and then my further explanation:


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

so... thanks for backing me up!

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

here's some light reading for you.

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

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

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

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

wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceWAISWISC.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


never claimed this. learn how to read.


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


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


um, except that it does.

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


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


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

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


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


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


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

any of the services that you list and more. the internet blew the roof off of any limitation to finding a writer qualified to write on just about any topic in pretty much any format imaginable.

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

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

here it is:


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

now, for your other things:


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

let's use an example:

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

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

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

from the post that you link:

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

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

"

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

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

Hi Somasu:

I would categorize writing services and academic writers working as ghostwriters into the following categories:

1. Custom written from scratch - you give the writer the topic and, perhaps, suggest some references, and let them go to work. usually your most expensive option.

2. Editorial services - you write the paper (or partial paper) yourself and then have the writer help you. it can be as simple as having the writer check for grammar and spelling mistakes or more complicated, such as having the writer integrate several different bodies of work into a coherent whole.

3. Some combination of 1 and 2. #3 tends to be a less expensive option (per page) than #1 but more expensive than #2 because the writer doesn't write the complete work (to edit pre-existing work will generally be less expensive than to write it from scratch). of course, both #2 and #3 requires more effort on the part of the client.

4. Pre-written essay papers purchased from essay banks. you just buy a paper that fits your topic from someone. since this is not a custom service, it's possible that hundreds of copies of the paper are floating around in the ether. the upside is that it tends to be less expensive. i don't know much about this option personally.

I hope that helps!

well, yeah. duh, you are. in all honesty, i don't care much about your breaking of the rules. the mod will remove your post or not remove your post regardless of what i post here.

however, you have to understand that making this your first post destroys any credibility you are hoping to have. if you were someone who has been around the board for a while, who has contributed to past discussions, then maybe your post's credibility could survive the initial shock of breaking the rules. by making this your first post, you are clearly communicating that you only came to this board to pimp your services and just posted to the first thread where you thought you could slip it in.

who did that?


this is just faulty thinking. this isn't a company outsourcing to the Philippines to cut down on operational costs. the company that started this thread is lying about the background of its writers. that should make you angry. you should attack them for perpetuating the stereotype that you're a bad writer.

on a holistic level, this is employment in cyberspace, where national boundaries mean very little. why would you choose to earn less when you could earn more with another company? it can't really be that you figure "well, my standard of living here is lower than in the US, so i can do the exact same work as a US writer and be ok with earning less." as a rational actor, you should work to maximize the amount of revenues earned through your labor, period. if you choose to work for someone who pays less, then something is up.

add on: ok, i just read your post saying that you're going to work for yourself, so you probably agree with me on this. good luck to you on branching out. i personally believe that a foreign writer with strong writing skills and topic knowledge will do very well by being honest with potential clients.


well, that seems like a big assertion, don't you think? i'm interested in seeing the evidence to support this claim. i only looked briefly, but i couldn't find a comparative study to support your claim.

in fact, from what I've been reading, the Philippines was known as the leader in English language proficiency in the Asian region for years but the quality of English language proficiency within the nation as a whole has suffered in recent years.

your own senate recognized this in 2006. The evidence you ask? sure, check this out:

senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=13&q=SRN-520

I found this article informative: from the International Herald Tribune, published last month (August 13, 2007) by Carlos Conde:

"MANILA: "We grow our hogs in our own farms so you're sure to get meat that is grown."

"The city's voice is soft like solitudes."

"He found his friend clowning himself around."

"He seemed to be waiting for someone, not a blood relation, much less a bad blood."

Such phrases, lifted from government-approved textbooks used in Filipino public schools, are reinforcing fears that crucial language skills are degenerating in a country that has long prided itself on having some of the world's best English speakers. At a time when English is widely considered an advantage in global competitiveness for any country, many fear this former U.S. colony is slipping."

It would seem that the textbooks in your nation do not teach proper grammar. the article quotes members of your nation's school system to back up the claim. as many as 75% of the textbooks circulated contain these common errors. the article continues:

"For years now, Antonio Calipjo Go, an academic and a supervisor of the Marian School of Quezon City, a private school here, has waged a campaign against bad textbook English.

"I pity our children who are being fed these errors," Go said in an interview. "This is one of the reasons why the level of education in our country is worsening."

Go says he has notified the Philippine Department of Education of dozens of English-language errors in all seven approved social studies textbooks. In January, he testified at a Senate hearing on the subject. And he has written to the World Bank, which has granted an 800 million peso, or $17.5 million, loan to the Philippines government for textbooks.

But when the new school year opened in June, the books were unchanged.

now, before you go all crazy with the accusations, please note that I am not offering racist rhetoric. I am, however, pointing to evidence that demonstrates that your nation's system of teaching English has been recognized to suffer from some big problems.

so, i'll stop now. your turn. where is the evidence?

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

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

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

lol... are you serious? ok, let's take a poll... who likes being lied to? show of hands?

*crickets*

good point. i can't conceive of any legit reason a company would ask you to produce a paper to demonstrate the poor quality of theirs.

use an internet search engine like google. go through the paper, pick out phrases with unusual word choices, copy and put in the search window. repeat a few times. it's a free, relatively useful way of checking for plagiarism.

sarah, your post has zero credibility.

really? this isn't you?


i'll guess by your non-answer answer (ie that you actually answered me at all!) that you just consider me an amateur annoyance rather than an employed instrument of evil.

my reponse to that article mirrored Major's. that article is a hatchet job so it's hard to really determine if the claim about paper quality is true or false.

good luck and let us know how things work out!

ok EW, so am I a "mouth?" You've accused pious and WB. It sure seems like this is a great way for you to attack anyone who disagrees with you and I certainly have fit that category in the past, so i'll pre-empt any accusation of my "guilt" here. let's get it cleared up about me now.

I'll even offer you a fair challenge. you determine how long you think it will take me to get "fired" due to not performing my "job" and we'll check back in this thread after that time has elapsed and see if i'm still around. you said yourself that these mouths get fired for not producing results pretty quickly, so what will it be, 1 month? 2?

i'm sure other folks know more about them here than i. just as general advice:

see how their response is and how quickly they can find you a writer (make sure they find you a writer before you pay, not after).

that should help give you a better idea about their service. Personally, I've heard positive opinions about them (not only from students by my colleague freelance writers).

EW, it must warm the cockles of your shriveled heart to see joey has your back.

seriously, this sounds like an urban legend. folks getting paid by essay companies to post on forums? like exactly the sort of jibberish that individuals wanting to discredit truth-seekers make up.

but if any essay companies want to throw some money out the window, look me up. i'll gladly take it to keep doing what i've been doing for free.

sweet, we all agree that you did threaten me. and just for the record, the PUBLIC PROMISE:

still no promised evidence to support the claim that all patrons of the industry are cheating cheaters. still no promised evidence to support the claim that American companies claiming to hire only American writers will actually hire foreigners. we know what it means when we break a promise, right?


promise? you won't post again? like, really? not like... well you know...

there are other problems with the defamation accusation.

like the fact that "julie24963" isn't an identity that can be defamed. no one knows who that is.

the second being "fair comment." julie chose to introduce the subject of her complaint into the public realm by posting about her communications to the mod. so i get to offer my opinion on subjects that she chose to present in the public sphere. my comment that i believe julie's posts to be distasteful is no different from julie's posts claiming others are rude. that's not defamation, it's opinion and it's legal, even in the UK.

while i realize that British defamanation law does favor the plaintiff, to try to accuse me of that is just a wee bit of a stretch.

ok, this is cool too and deserves its own post. right at the very end of the ruling if you want to skip to the end:

"As Rosenthal points out, the congressional purpose of fostering free speech
on the Internet supports the extension of section 230 immunity to active individual
"users." It is they who provide much of the "diversity of political discourse," the
pursuit of "opportunities for cultural development," and the exploration of
"myriad avenues for intellectual activity" that the statute was meant to protect.
(§ 230(a)(3).) The approach taken by the Batzel dissent would tend to chill the
free exercise of Internet expression, and could frustrate the goal of providing an
incentive for self-regulation. A user who removed some offensive content might
face liability for "actively selecting" the remaining material. Users in this
position, no less than the service providers discussed by the Zeran court, would be
motivated to delete marginally offensive material, restricting the scope of online
discussion. Some users, at least those like Rosenthal who engage in high-volume
Internet posting, might be discouraged from screening third party content.
Although individual users may face the threat of liability less frequently than
institutional service providers, their lack of comparable financial and legal
resources makes that threat no less intimidating."

If julie's interpretation of the case was correct (it's not but let's pretend that it hypothetically was), and the mod made changes to the content of some posts on this forum b/c of julie's complaint, then the person who wrote the posts could file a legal complaint for the action.

so WB, if your posts are the target of Julie's proposed corrective action, as they likely are given her posts, you would actually have a legal complaint against any censoring of your posts. yay free speech on the internet.


you had zero reason to post that the complaint had been filed. zero. zip. nada. none. you posted the information as a means of attacking WB and attempting to silence her dissent. the posts are there. there is nothing illegal about my criticizing that distasteful act.

so where is the promised evidence for 20% or more of all customers using their custom essays to cheat?

where is the promised evidence that companies reporting to only hire American workers will hire anyone?

2 weeks is plenty of time to find the evidence and post it. would you like me to quote again your PROMISE to provide the evidence?


you really think that the U.S. just gives up its citizens to any frivolous foreign case?

wait i need a moment... lol


your THREATS do not get to silence my free speech, bully.

my goodness, how many times are you going to say you're done posting and then post anyway? i'm starting to not believe you.


and all those students in the UK don't see the need to quote citations in their essays.


good job reading only the first page of the ruling. something you would have read if you had made it to the second page:

"We further hold that section 230(c)(1) immunizes individual "users" of interactive computer services, and that no practical or principled distinction can be drawn between active and passive use."

"By declaring that no "user" may be treated as a "publisher" of third party content, Congress has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users."


That's either a blatant lie or you didn't actually read the case. Either way, that is factually false as an integral component of the complaint was that Rosenthal was warned and refused to remove the offensive material (further from the case):

"They alleged that Rosenthal republished various messages even after Dr.
Barrett warned her they contained false and defamatory information."

Furthermore, notice does not confer liability because that would destroy free speech on the net. From Barrett v. Rosenthal again:

"Similarly, notice-based liability would deter service providers from
regulating the dissemination of offensive material over their own services. Any
efforts by a service provider to investigate and screen material posted on its
service would only lead to notice of potentially defamatory material more
frequently and thereby create a stronger basis for liability. Instead of subjecting
themselves to further possible lawsuits, service providers would likely eschew any
attempts at self-regulation.
"More generally, notice-based liability for interactive computer service
providers would provide third parties with a no-cost means to create the basis for
future lawsuits. Whenever one was displeased with the speech of another party
conducted over an interactive computer service, the offended party could simply
'notify' the relevant service provider, claiming the information to be legally
defamatory. . . . Because the probable effects of distributor liability on the vigor
of Internet speech and on service provider self-regulation are directly contrary to §
230's statutory purposes, we will not assume that Congress intended to leave
liability upon notice intact." (Zeran, supra, 129 F.3d at p. 333.)

Now, I realize that your a big time barrister and all, but I'll rely on a state supreme court's interpretation of law before i rely on yours. that's just a judgement call.


exactly why i criticized you in the first place. your actions are distasteful. if you truly felt that you had an actionable complaint, the classy thing to do would have been to take it up with the mod privately. instead, you post all over this forum about it even while claiming that your senior partner wants you to stop posting:


oh, and since you hinted at negligence, section 230 has also been used to protect against that too.

wow, you finally cited your sources. it only took 2 posts to do so. so the lesson we can all learn from you is that it's ok to plagiarize on a forum, just not elsewhere. it's amazing how adept you are at rewriting ethical rules to suit you.


that is defamation, hypocrit. i am quite adept at paying my bills, no need to concern yourself.

anyone with a 2nd grade education can read that i didn't accuse you of blackmail. maybe you just have an aversion to the word? if you don't like the word "blackmail" then how about criminal coercion?

from my dear friend Green once again:

"As defined in theModel Penal Code, the offense of criminal coercion consists of "unlawfully . . . restrict[ing] another's freedom of action to his detriment"

by threatening to: (1) commit a criminal offense; (2) "accuse anyone
of a criminal offense"; (3) "expose any secret tending to subject any
person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business
repute"; or (4) "take or withhold action as an official, or cause an
official to take or withhold action."14 Criminal coercion is thus distinguishable
from extortion and from blackmail (at least in the narrow,
informational sense of the term) in two important ways. First, as
noted, it does not involve obtaining any property from the victim.
Second, it can involve threats to engage in either lawful or unlawful
conduct, so long as it is intended to be detrimental to the victim."


at this point, i'm almost hoping this site decides to close. i'd love the opportunity to provide a forum for discussion and deal with your THREATS personally.

you had better brush up on your section 230 law. i'd suggest starting with Barrett v. Rosenthal. You know, it's the State of California Supreme Court 2006 unanimous decision that ruled that internet users can't be held accountable for defamatory statements made by others on their websites. the decision further stated that holding internet users who do not originate the defamatory speech liable for defamation would in effect chill free online speech. now, i'm no expert on UK law, but here in the US, free speech is actually pretty darn important. go figure.

your threat that the mod isn't doing his/her job is meaningless and hollow. you don't have a legal leg to stand on. my guess is that the mod of this site is laughing at you. but if not, rest assured, there are plenty of others of us who are.

is your only defense to the blackmail comparison that you didn't make a threat? really?



remember this?


so what further action is it? to send the mod a goody basket? i doubt it.
you've admitted to everyone reading this that you threatened the mod.


do you let your students cite like that? truly horrible, pretty much still bordering on plagiarism.

so where is that evidence about the legion of students using custom essays to cheat?

and the evidence of American companies hiring anyone from anywhere?

i didn't say that your threat IS blackmail, i said that it is very close to being blackmail, so close that it's distasteful.

the fact that you felt the need to distinguish between the two proves my point.

since we're trading legal information, let me point out that, under British Law, blackmail doesn't HAVE to involve the attempt to extract money:

From Green, S. (2005) Theft by Coercion: Extortion, Blackmail and Hard Bargaining, Washburn Law Journal, vol 44, p. 557.

"A much broader use of the term "blackmail" occurs under British
law, which has no separate offense of extortion. Under Section 21 of
the U.K. Theft Act of 1968, a person is guilty of blackmail if, "with a
view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another,
he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces."10 This kind
of blackmail is broader than informational blackmail in two significant
ways: First, the "view to gain . . . or intent to cause loss" language
encompasses both demands for money and demands for something
other than money, such as that the victim give the blackmailer a job,
that the victim permit the blackmailer to take indecent photographs of
her, or that the victim destroy letters written by the blackmailer to
her.11 Second, the "any unwarranted demand with menaces" language
is-at least on its face-broad enough to encompass threats of
a very wide range of conduct, both lawful and unlawful."

Furthermore, a more narrow interpretation of blackmail even allows for the threat of a lawsuit to qualify as blackmail legally:

Green, same source:

"There is also a third, "in-between" sense of the term blackmail.
Unlike blackmail under the Theft Act, this kind of blackmail is limited
to demands for money, as opposed to other kinds of compelled conduct.
But, unlike blackmail in the narrow sense, such blackmail is not
limited to threats to expose embarrassing information; it also includes
threats to do other putatively lawful acts, such as filing a lawsuit, stag-
ing a work stoppage, or even going on a hunger strike."

hence the claim that your threat is pretty darn close to blackmail.

Furthermore, you should probably cite your source, since at the moment you are plagiarzing someone's work by not offering an appropriate citation.