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

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

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

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

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

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

Like I said:

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

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

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

^_____^


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

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

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

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

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


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


their common sense.


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

Err.. haven't they fired all of you already? o.O

Sorry, my Orc-speak is rusty. What was that about the supreme commander?

It's a feat. You can get it at level 1 as long as you have at least 8 int, 8 wis, 4 ranks in Knowledge: Language (English), and any race except K---.

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

You're right. Nobody needs to believe you, and nobody should. Unless you actually post some of the sentences that you find questionable, your "experience" cannot be trusted.

Let me reiterate that I am in no way accusing this particular writing company that I work for of being a scam. I have made thousands from them already and do not think that they would screw me over for $711. However, I appreciate the well-meaning posts that almost everyone has made. A 41-day delay is a 41-day delay (44 days now) and I don't think that any writer should have to wait for payment for that long. Also, I do not think that a company should take it against a writer to complain about such delay on a public forum.

I will continue to update this thread on the progress of the payment.

Yes it was. It used to ask me out to lunch every other day.

I disagree. An advice from Yoda would be something like:

Answer to your question, simple test will be.


Translation: I'm trying to sell my services as a freelance writer but have poor writing skills in the English language. I tried to look smart by posting a thread that showcased the best of my substandard skills, but it did not work out the way I thought it would.

Well.. another update. It's been 41 days since I was supposed to be paid the sum of $711 for orders completed from late November to December. The Paypal payment that was promised last February 5 has yet to arrive and I was told by my handler that this was because of the problems in Cairo. Since the company is still operating, I personally feel that it should have no problem paying a writer for orders completed over a month ago. Nevertheless, I have considerable trust in my handler as we share a number of things in common, so I will give it a few more days. Needless to say though, this is quite frustrating.

Posting names would do little. Posting the projects that were done for some of those clients and telling them about it, well... that might help you out more.

I currently work for a company that charges $30+/page for projects with 14-day deadlines. This is the same company that I'm currently sorting out a payment issue with.

This is true. I once loaned five bucks to a verb. Instead of paying me back, it kept asking for more money. What a headache that verb was.

That's not true. You also run into a problem with them when your customer pays with a stolen credit card or when your customer pretends to be dissatisfied with an order just so he can get a partial refund. By the time I was through with them, I had completed over 2000 orders. Clients left feedback in about 500 out of those 2000+ orders. Over 350 of the feedback were positive, 70+ were neutral and under 50 were negative. Among the 50 reports that were negative, a great majority came from resume/CV/cover letter writing clients. Most of whom could not substantiate their feedback with anything other than some variant of "I didn't like it."

This means that when I left EW, I had a success rate (success being orders that receive no complaints from a client regardless of justification) of around 1950/2000 or 97.50%. If you take out the resume/CV/cover letter writing orders from the equation, the rate would be even higher. Yet when I tried to reason with them over a measly $40 order that their stupid support personnel had removed from my list without consulting with me just because the client asked her to, they simply ignored me. That was the last straw for me. Funny thing is, they continue to send me messages asking me to take on new orders. They even went so far as to offer me a $40 bonus. Hahaha! I already earned that %^&#^ng $40. They can take turns shoving it up their a**es.

This really is the only thing in the previous post that can be reasonably believed.

IMO, the biggest no-no in this forum is pretending that one is a client to promote one's site. Not only is it downright sleazy, it is an insult to the intellect of each member of this message board.

Hahaha! Because it's the only thing that's left for you to say. Don't you worry though, I don't need to repeat my statement after this post. It's so crystal clear that I'm VERY comfortable with this thread ending here. You can have your last say (I know that that's soooooooo important to you). ^_^ When readers see how much you've neglected answering a simple argument, they'll be able to tell quite unequivocally how RETARDED you and your argument are.

Here it is one last time (at least for this thread) Does actual proof of sale need to be provided to hold a company liable for false advertisement under the Lanham Act?

According to Judge Freda L. Wolfson, No, it does not.

Proof (quoted from actual ruling as provided by WritersBeware)
Aact's misrepresentations and misleading warranties regarding the quality and originality of its products and services WILLunquestionably victimize the average consumer, and constitute an unconscionable commercial practice of deception, fraud, and unlawful conduct in connection with the sale of goods and the performance of services sought by consumers.

Did the ruling say that the "misrepresentations and misleading warranties" HAVE mislead clients? No. The word is "WILL." The misrepresentations and misleading warranties WILL unquestionably victimize the average consumer. This is why Aact was found guilt which is consistent with the Lanham Act. A company can be found guilty of violating it whether or not the company gained financially from a false advertisement. The critical matter is the POTENTIAL to deceive rather than actual deception. Providing this potential is already sufficient for at least an injunction.

And now.. WB's last post on this thread. She will claim that I have the burden of proof, where in fact I have provided the proof above already (thanks to her). She will not make any reasonable rebuttals, nor will she quote anything from the "opinion" that she is so fervently brandishing. Why? Because there is simply nothing left for her to say except a few obscenities. Poor... sad... retarded WritersBeware. Tsk tsk tsk.... the floor and that sweetly pathetic final word that you are so desperate to have are yours. :p

Proof...


Explanation:

Did the ruling say that the "misrepresentations and misleading warranties" HAVE mislead clients? No. The word is "WILL." The misrepresentations and misleading warranties WILL unquestionably victimize the average consumer. This is why Aact was found guilt which is consistent with the Lanham Act. A company can be found guilty of violating it whether or not the company gained financially from a false advertisement. The critical matter is the POTENTIAL to deceive rather than actual deception. Providing this potential is already sufficient for at least an injunction.

Rebuttal?

None. You can't even bring yourself to post anything from the opinion to defend your retarded idea because YOU KNOW that there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING there that you can use.

You're done. ^_^

Aact's misrepresentations and misleading warranties regarding the quality and originality of its products and services WILL unquestionably victimize the average consumer, and constitute an unconscionable commercial practice of deception, fraud, and unlawful conduct in connection with the sale of goods and the performance of services sought by consumers.


Did the ruling say that the "misrepresentations and misleading warranties" HAVE mislead clients? No. The word is "WILL." The misrepresentations and misleading warranties WILL unquestionably victimize the average consumer. This is why Aact was found guilt which is consistent with the Lanham Act. A company can be found guilty of violating it whether or not the company gained financially from a false advertisement. The critical matter is the POTENTIAL to deceive rather than actual deception. Providing this potential is already sufficient for at least an injunction.

Now that I have established using the text from the ruling that YOU PROVIDED that you are in fact, 100% WRONG. It is your turn to attempt a rebuttal. That's how a debate works. I can understand how you may not get this because you've never participated in the WUDC. I have, a**hole. So if you CAN'T launch ANY REASONABLE REBUTTAL against my argument..

You, my filthy, pathetic, sweeeeeet retard are DONE. :p

Now watch this, folks... instead of giving a rebuttal, WB will simply AVOID the argument presented above and just resort to throwing insults. ^_________^ Classic WB "strategy" of argumentation.

OH YOU WISH!!! Hahahaha!!! There you go again with the repetitive posts. I have admitted to reading everything about the case that you have posted on this thread. That is enough for me to fully substantiate my claim that the judge's decision was completely in line with the Lanham Act and DID NOT require proof of actual sale.

Now, UNLESS you can provide ACTUAL TEXT from the ruling that indicate otherwise, YOU ARE DONE! ^_____^

AHahahahahaha!!! Ohhh.. watching you squirm is so sweeeet. ^__________^ Post the ruling then!!! Post the text from the judge that CONTRADICTS the simple logic that can be derived from the verb highlighted in the snippet below:

Ohohohoho!!! You're this desperate? ^________^

"That can't be a valid article on American law, the conference that it was presented in was held in Monte Carlo!!! That's not in the U.S. Plus!! The article was made available online through a SWEDISH website on law!!! Sweden isn't the United States! U.S. Law can only be discussed legitimately in American websites"

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ANY MORE STUPID IDEAS?!? ^__________^ KEEP EM' COMING!!!

Ohhhhh.. so now a "snippet" of text that you posted no longer accounts for anything? Hahahah!!! Feel free to post other "snippets" of text that disprove what is quite evident based on the text that you QUOTED and the explanation about the Lanham Act that I gave a link to.

You won't because YOU CAN'T. The ruling as you quoted it clearly shows that Aact was not penalized for any evidence of actual sale that the company was able to derive from its false advertisement. Aact was found GUILTY because of its ads' POTENTIAL to deceive clients, which is CONSISTENT with the tenets of the Lanham Act as explained in the page linked below.

ficpi.org/library/montecarlo99/damages.html

Ah yes.. the old "OH MY GAWD... I HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING THREATENING TO COVER UP THIS NEW DAMNABLE DEVELOPMENT!!!!" This never fails to amuse me.


I already did that, you ninny. ^_____^


Did the ruling say that the "misrepresentations and misleading warranties" HAVE mislead clients? No. The word is "WILL." The misrepresentations and misleading warranties WILL unquestionably victimize the average consumer. This is why Aact was found guilt which is consistent with the Lanham Act. A company can be found guilty of violating it whether or not the company gained financially from a false advertisement. The critical matter is the POTENTIAL to deceive rather than actual deception. Providing this potential is already sufficient for at least an injunction.

Gotcha! Hahaha ^___________^

Thanks for the evidence. ^____________^

Oh.. and if you want a grammar lesson on verb tenses, please look someplace else. I'm too busy to school you about it.

Yes, and the Judge based on the decision that you posted adjudicated the case exactly as it should have been adjudicated. It was no landmark ruling. The interpretation of the Lanham Act is consistent with its original definition and prior interpretation which indicated that...


ficpi.org/library/montecarlo99/damages.html


No, they won't. I haven't read the actual text straight off the judge's table (and I suppose you have), but based on all of the information that you so graciously shared about the case, there can be NO DENYING that actual sale was not sought by the judge as part of evidence.

Oh, and before you ramble once again about "commerce" and "selling," these are elements of the Lanham Act. The advertisement in question must be targeting a product in the market. However, whether or not that product has actually been sold is not relevant to the case (contrary to your retarded opinion).

and I was trying to be subtle. ^____^

and I find nothing wrong with this as well. I stand by my opinion that anyone who reads the Lanham Act would see things my way.

I know and I am not questioning this. However, when it comes to matters such as the issue brought up in this thread, or others such as the C2C business model that was debated on months ago, which also concern the essay industry, WB's opinions are retarded, pretend-lawyer babblings.


Precisely. These aren't opinions, these are facts. Giving WB the benefit of the doubt over something that you can verify factually is one thing, siding with her on an opinion in an issue is another. If you want to go ahead and agree with her that actual sale needs to be proven to find a company guilty of false advertisement, then state that you do.

Errr... you think I still write for EW? o.O


This is usually my advice. However, I don't advise this when the company is shamelessly trying to advertise its services by having writers pose as clients. Just recently, another "writer" tried to pull a similar stunt. That loser thought that by creating an elaborate situation where the shill first contacts other writers on this site with the supposed purpose of ordering, it would seem less fishy when the shill finally recommends the writer. Didn't work.

Really? Speaking for them huh... who was that who said that...

"members that you reference already know what you're all about-" ^__^

and got "scolded" for it?

They brought up their respective positions on the matter which was precisely what I challenged them to do. If they WERE on your side and if they did give you the BENEFIT OF ANY DOUBT (HAHAHA!!!) They would have agreed with you and taken your word for it.

They didn't. Whether or not they agree with my position is irrelevant to the argument that you have people's "benefit of the doubt." That's just another lie from this forum's most delusional member.

No, it's not. If a company shows itself to be a sleazy operation by orchestrating a lame promotional stunt, customers should be made aware.

Well, that sorts that out. As everyone can see, even this supposed client of mindtreewriting.com now believes that the company is a scam.

CUSTOMERS BEWARE. mindtreewriting.com is a SCAM SITE.