You misunderstood me altogether. I was simply responding to 99Essays' question about whether or not such accusations have been levied against me by others (i.e., not you). I may have misunderstand his question to begin with.

Yes. Pretty much every fraudster I've outed has proceeded to make that claim. They think that it somehow negates or excuses their culpability by making false claims about my associations. I mean, what else are they going to do--refute my irrefutable evidence against them?

Toheeb12 + sam76 = worthless, lying representatives myassignmenthelp.com[DND*][DND*] (ESL garbage)

I hear you and agree. My contention is that if PV wanted to make some sort of point, he shouldn't have chosen me as one of his guinea pigs. It was completely undeserved and irresponsible. I deal with enough crap from all of the fraudsters who frequent this forum. I don't need it from him, too.

Oh, poor baby. I threatened you out of the blue, right? Is that your contention? You did nothing to me first? You didn't mock me about 5 times before I finally retaliated? Did they teach you how to avoid responsibility in the military, too? I don't think so. You sure learned a lot after leaving the military, didn't you?

You think that your jokes are harmless? Who are you to say that I don't find "threatening your livelihood" to be a joke? I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?


The "other members" to which you are referring are all proven criminals who hate me because I exposed them. Congratulations on the company that you keep. They also can't stand the fact that they can never defeat me in any form of legitimate debate because truth and evidence are always on my side. So, they practice the only tactic at their disposal: character assassination.


Um, in this particular instance, simple Whois data is precisely what is needed to prove ProfessorVerb a clueless idiot.

Joking about matters that are obviously of great importance to others is not only not funny, but underhanded. If you don't care about the industry, and the people who've fought to make it a much more transparent arena, why should I go out of my way to help or tolerate you? If not for all of my investigations over the years, you would know a lot less critical information about pretty much every major and minor employer in this industry. Check my threads that I started publishing in June of 2007, and you'll see that I was the person who brought all nearly significant, previously unknown information to light. You're welcome.


Obviously, the incorrect assumption to which I am referring is that your suggestion had anything to do with the creation of this forum. First of all, the essayscam.org domain wasn't even registered until January 31, 2006, which is YEARS after your purported suggestion took place. Secondly, this forum was created in direct response to another forum.

You would certainly know about psychosis, Melissa. Just ask the owner of your previous 17 usernames.


Tell me-where did you develop your lack of integrity? It must have been after leaving the military. It takes a really, really underhanded person to mock the efforts and hard work of those who came before him, and then not admit his mistake when presented with overwhelming evidence. I can only feel sorry for you. It's unfortunate, because you seemed like a fairly nice guy until you started attacking me for no reason and siding with the resident nutcase who's despised by virtually every long-time member of this forum (even most of the criminals who hate me so much for outing their scams).


Unbelievable. Just because you think that everything is a joke and obviously don't give a rat's ass about this forum, industry, or defrauded consumers doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same way. What's clear is that you get your jollies from mocking my efforts to help people. That's sad, and certainly much less than I've come to expect from those in the military.

Yawn. You really don't understand simple English, do you?


Stop copying the phrases that I use. You did the same thing while posting with EVERY ONE of your 17 previous usernames. It's really pathetic.

It already happened in 1997. Boston University sued all of the major (at that time) term paper companies. One of the charges that the DA independently brought (if I recall correctly) was racketeering. To make a long story short, BU eventually lost.

Thanks for posting the obvious. I'm well aware of the current state of Turnitin. FYI, Turnitin was sued in US District Court. Turnitin eventually won the lawsuit because of the judge's completely unfair and biased interpretation of copyright ownership. The judge basically ruled that students have no copyright on their own work, especially since Turnitin manipulates the text; thus, students have no basis to file a claim that Turnitin is infringing their copyright by including copies (what Turnitin likes to call "digital fingerprints" in order to dance around copyright law) of students' work in the Turnitin database. Of course, few people in the mainstream media and academia questioned the judge because they are all shamelessly biased against students and term paper sites.

Neither you nor he can "expose" the slightest bit of "idiocy" in any one of my nearly 9,000 posts. Continuing to make that claim merely proves that you are an ineffectual, out-of-touch.


Clearly, you have a difficult time understanding simple English. Once again, your immediate about-face in trying to openly "relate" to ProfessorVerb as soon as you sensed the slightest bit of ProfessorVerb's ill-informed and completely undeserved animosity towards me speaks volumes about your desperation and utter lack of character. NEVER did I claim that ProfessorVerb was attempting to align himself with you. Try "Hooked on Phonics." What I stated is that your blatant attempt to kiss his ass will not result in him openly aligning himself with your void-of-evidence accusations against me. Do you understand?

Queenie, I don't think that ProfessorVerb is nearly stupid enough to want to align himself with you and your void-of-evidence/reason assertions, so you can stop your spur-of-the-moment ass-kissing.


That assumption is not at all accurate. I'll leave it at that.


If you actually believe anything that that psychotic simpleton posts, I will have no choice but to be alarmed by your gullibility. You do realize that she has not posted a SHRED of evidence to support ANY of her specific claims, right? Every time I nail her to the wall and demand that she provide evidence, she either flat out refuses to do so or posts some irrelevant, off-topic article that she scrapes from Google. Do you enjoy feeding the animals and rewarding lies/misrepresentations? I'm really curious as to how you've apparently come to be a fan of such a well-known, proven liar and ignoramus whose previous 17 usernames have been banned for repeatedly posting some of the most vile, racist, disgusting tripe that one could ever read.


No, it doesn't. The name of this site is "essay scam," not "essay promote" or "essay legit." There is more than enough SPAM as it is; we don't need to welcome "positive" reviews from shills.

Get your eyes checked. What did you "see," exactly? Where are my "vulgar" comments?

BTW, what in the hell have YOU done here except to post a seemingly endless stream of meaningless one-liners and mock those who have actually contributed valuable threads to this forum? People like me invested real effort, resources (including significant money), and time in posting detailed investigations in this forum, which put this place on the map. Smartasses like you come here to reap the benefits and mock those who came before you. It's great to know that you put your "40 years of experience" to such good use. How very mature of you. Keep up the good work!

Really? If you consider the following words to be "vulgar," especially considering the relentless, actual vulgarities to which I have been subjected in this forum for YEARS (simply for exposing scams with verifiable evidence), you need a reality check.

Also, ProfessorVerb, attempting to mock me after I openly supported Fisher House is a pretty low, underhanded move.

Actually, if you want to attack me for no reason, I have the connections to make your employment with a certain company come to an end. So, you go right ahead and decide what you value. Do you want to be a smartass or do you want to keep your job? You make the call.

ProfessorVerb, why do you feel the need to get on my bad side? You should probably think twice about who you're attempting to mock. Obviously, you don't have a clue who I am, so I'll cut you some limited slack.


Firstly, how are you so familiar with extremely old, obscure threads in which I posted years ago (and have not been revived) if "queen sheba" is your first username?

Secondly, in that old thread, I was countering a claim that "all students who buy essays use them to cheat." Despite the fact that it is/was the ONLY such legal evidence on record, it would not matter if the sample size were 1, as long as that 1 student had been vindicated. From what I recall, court records prove that 8 Boston University students bought essays online, with 7 of them having PROPERLY CITED the source. Therefore, in that case, 7 out of 8 students who bought essays online did NOT cheat. Therefore, I successfully proved incorrect the ignorant assertion by and ignorant forum member that "all students who buy essays use them to cheat." Get it, genius? Do you understand the stark difference between my argument and yours? Sample size is irrelevant to my argument. Sampls size is at the heart of your argument. YOU LOSE . . . again.

Please explain how that largely unsubstantiated and unverifiable claim means that "most US customers who buy essays are ESL."


First of all, dumb, your sample size is 100 from a single study at a single university. Secondly, you just proved, based on your OWN EVIDENCE, that less than 25 out of 100 of the cases why perpetrated by "international" (which does not automatically mean "ESL") students. So, at the very most, only 24% of the essays were bought by ESL students. You lose.

So, now you're claiming that it is "obvious" that "most essay customers in the US are ESL"? You've skipped right passed the need for evidence by claiming that it is "obvious." Well, I guess there's no need for debate then, is there, "professor"? Touché!


Crickets . . . .

Sorry, dip. Stop trying to obfuscate the truth. You claimed that "most essay customers are ESL." Prove it.

Don't blame me because you can't prove ANYTHING that you claim.

Few things piss me off more than a misplaced comma before a verb.

That article proves absolutely NOTHING that you have claimed. Learn how to read, moron.

In fact, NONE of the articles that you have posted prove anything that you have claimed. All you have shown is that a small percentage of the student body in the US is ESL, and a certain percentage therein cheats. You have failed miserably to prove that "most essay customers are ESL."

What studies? Are these more of your magical fairy dust studies that exist only in your twisted melon?


You wouldn't happen to have any evidence to support this or any one of your other claims, would you?

Crawl back under your rock, Melissa.

You, sir, are an idiot.

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?

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

And the ability to commit fraud with little to no repercussions.

Traffic school, maybe, because I don't exactly pay attention . . . .

That's a load of crap. There are far more than 2,000 essay sites. In fact, I know of a single, American company that owns over 950 sites. So much for your "evidence."

Where is this "evidence"? Oh, that's right you're referring to "fairy dust" evidence, as usual. My bad.

Well, if you consider completing a paper in 23 seconds a successful exploit, he's your man.

Yes, I do.

Do I really need to school you on the alternate meanings of SPAM again? You may want to look up "forum SPAM," grandpa.


You're not really a fan of details, distinctions, and facts, are you? OBVIOUSLY, the moderator has chosen to allow FW to place his personal URL in his signature. From what I understand, the moderator only allows "personal" URLs in the signature, not commercial/company sites. Plus, the Critical Spoof scumbags continually name-drop their domain in both the content of their posts and in a secondary signature.

Is there anything else on which I can school you today, RustyWriter?

Would you like some more proof? No problem:

forum/ot/random-posts-thread-3256/14/#msg62824 - Plagiarized content (published before on another website) and spam removed.

forum/ot/random-posts-thread-3256/14/#msg62825 - Spam removed.

I'll be adding this latest beatdown of editor75 to my reference file.

Several hours later, the scumbags at Critical Spoof once again SPAMMED the forum (and, as the cherry on top, they used what the moderator communicated is plagiarized text from other sites).

forum/ot/random-posts-thread-3256/14/#msg62846 - Plagiarized spam removed.

Do you even realize how much of a pathetic, hypocritical mr-n you are? You insult and demonize this forum and its "denizens" every chance you get, despite the fact that you are frequently here and have been one of the most prolific posters (of almost entirely worthless nonsense) for YEARS.

Ah, the mind of a criminal . . . .

Editor75 is a lying, dirty criminal who has admittedly engaged in felonious activities by way of luring "clients" into a physical building for the sole purpose of stealing their money for services that he had no intention to render. Now, unlike editor's completely false statements about me, my statement about him is true. He can't exactly deny it, either, since he voluntarily posted the information himself a couple of years ago and I can easily quote it.

I see that the ones at Critical Spoof are back to their spamming, rule-breaking ways.

You sure do have a lot of inside information for somebody who claims to have "absolutely no commercial interests in the essay industry."


You're the only deranged and delirious psychopath in these parts.

* For the record, I was using "serious" in the same way that one uses it in "that dude is serious" or "that's seriously awesome."

* Yes, by definition, all felonies are "serious." However, if you take a look at the following list of the top 20 most common felonies in the US, you can't tell me with a straight face that they are all on the same level of seriousness.

1. Drug abuse violations
3. Property crime (burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson)
2. Driving while Intoxicated (aka Felony DUI)
5. Assault
4. Larceny-theft
6. Disorderly conduct
7. Liquor laws
8. Violent crime (murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault)
9. Drunkenness
10. Aggravated assault
11. Burglary
12. Vandalism
13. Fraud
14. Weapons violations carrying or possession
15. Curfew and loitering
16. Robbery
17. Offenses against family and children
18. Stolen property buying, receiving, possession
19. Motor vehicle theft
20. Forgery and counterfeiting

Sources:
The Uniform Crime Report
Cornell School of Law
Crime in the U.S., and the U.S. Department of Justice

Do all felonies carry the same penalty?

I am finding the commercial tone here a bit nauseating. I think that allowing URL/domains in the signature is a mistake. It's leading to many, many useless posts.

I sincerely hope that that was not a serious question. OBVIOUSLY, the essay industry is fairly unique in that there is a completely fresh batch of MILLIONS of new, gullible, inexperienced students every 4 months or so. The turnover rate in the consumer base is extreme. Plus, the most seasoned students (i.e., those with the most knowledge to potentially impart to new students regarding which sites to avoid) graduate and leave the market. THAT is how fraudulent sites stay in business.


Yes, I have, and I posted the chat in this forum. The transcript doesn't exact mesh with your stance.

Zero.


Oh, I wouldn't dream of asking such a thing. I know that you have very little free time to devote to substantiating your bold assertions due to your extremely demanding lecture schedule at prestigious universities.


I've already done so numerous times throughout the years. Of course, you already know that, Melissa.