For the record, the moderator edited my title. My original title was something like, "Why are fraudulent sites allowed to advertise here?"

You are obviously misunderstanding my point.

Your original post makes no sense. If a company openly and truthfully charges $5/page for 365-day delivery, there is absolutely nothing "dishonest" about that practice. The company will rarely-if ever-make a sale, which makes your post even more silly.

Wow. Quite dirty. Since you directly quoted me, why don't you provide proof to support your bold, knowingly false assertion against a direct competitor?


Proof, please.

Unless you'd like to get sued, I highly suggest that you retract that statement. Several legitimate, American companies charge less than $20 per page.

That's patently false, and I'm pretty darn sure you realize it. You just mentioned that you worked for a legit, American company for years. Guess what -- that company still charges $18/page, the exact same price at which you wrote hundreds of papers.

Sorry, but that's utter nonsense, as usual.

Legit, American companies don't tolerate or hire crappy writers. Period.
Smiley73, straight up: why do you dig up literally EVERY years-old, long-dead, already-rehashed thread? Something is definitely fishy here . . . .

MavenWriters.com = pure comedy

Wow, really? Why in the WORLD is that utter joke of a dishonest ad allowed to appear anywhere near the "trusted" sites?

One does not submit "an academic research." Once either submits "academic research" or "an academic research paper/assignment/document/file."


That's ILLEGAL!

Google has the ability to defeat those hackers overnight. That's a fact. Google just needs to receive detailed reports. The days of me doing it all by myself are over. Others need to step up.

writologist = clueless

That is utterly false. There are several legitimate sites on the list that were placed there because they were being relentlessly attacked by fraudulent, jealous, foreign competitors. Stop purporting to be knowledgable about the industry. You're clearly NOT.

if you're dumb enough to write anything for FREE, you get what you deserve. That is a well-known scam.

Why is "zakatkins" not banned? You keep his kind here just because they increase word-coint? C'mon . . . .

@SamWrites

Yes, your mom.

SamWrites is almost certainly a Nigerian hack. Don't knock it. I hear you can buy a pretty nice hut for .13¢ (in United State American dollar bill pennies). Financing is a bit*h, though.

Pinewriters.com is jam-packed with lies and deception.

ESL gibberish at its finest . . . .

I love a good sense of humor.

Oh, and FYI, Cambridge University is slightly more reputable than "MyBestDictionary" (which I didn't bother wasting my time to check, especially since you were too lazy to provide a URL).

---------------------
Though meaning 'however'

Spoken English:
Especially in speaking, we can use though (but not although or even though) with a meaning similar to however or nevertheless. In these cases, we usually put it at the end of a clause:

A:
You have six hours in the airport between flights!

B:
I don't mind, though. I have lots of work to do. I'll just bring my laptop with me.

A:
It's expensive.

B:
It's nice, though.

A:
Yeah, I think I'll buy it.
---------------------

SOURCE:
dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/although-or-though


No, I would say that I'm "skilled in applying proper punctuation" or "good at punctuating."

Wrong. Nice try. A comma indicates a "pause" in speech. When spoken, there is absolutely a pause after "punctuation" (unless one is on meth or has some sort of nervous condition). Therefore, a comma is required or -- at the very least -- appropriate.

Oh, yes, please do provide more help. It's great. I particularly love your working examples of incorrect punctuation, such as the missing comma after "punctuation" in your previous post.

Slingblade, you're just too "simple" to understand the point or grasp the irony.

1. You failed in your attempt to "correct" me. I provided evdience from multiple, reputable sources to prove my case.

2. To distract from your embarrasing failure, you suddenly became a psychologist.

3. Ignoring the evidence that I posted, you irrationally claimed that you did successfully correct me.

4. I then asked you, the purported psychologist, to sit down and explain your own delusional denial.

I know that it's a whole heck of a lot to take in all at once, Slingy, but if you loosen your skullcap just a tad . . . .

That's deep.

Pull up a chair, Mr. Psychologist. Let's talk about your delusional denial.

I would call my tone "light olive."

You keep asking entirely irrelevant questions to deflect from your embarrsing fail in trying to "correct" me. It's cute.

You're tone deaf. You lost. Give it up already.

"It is also acceptable to add only an apostrophe to the end of singular nouns that end in 's' to make them possessive."
SOURCE:
grammar.yourdictionary.com/punctuation/apostrophe-rules.html

Yes, I did bait you, as I have done dozens of times to other pompous idiots in the past. I know that pompous tools like you simply can't wait to pounce on even the most insignificant "error" that I make because you have nothing else. You certainly can't prove incorrect any of my substantive statements.

Have a splendid day.

Here's the ENTIRE quote from the Purdue OWL link, you intellectually dishonest charlatan:

"add 's to the singular form of the word (even if it ends in -s):
the owner's car
James's hat (James' hat is also acceptable."

@ProfCrisis
"ProfCrisis's*"

Thanks for playing! I thought you'd bite. I must admit . . . I really do enjoy baiting pompous idiots.

You know, many an idiot has attempted to "correct" me. Each and every time, I have utterly embarrassed the idiot. This time is no different. Truly skilled writers know that only an apostrophe is necessary to create the possessive form of such a noun that needs with the letter "s" (as well as "z" or -- in some circumstances -- any word that ends with an "s" sound). Thanks for playing, peon. This lesson is on the house. The next one will cost you. Now, get back to your mediocrity.

SOURCES:
owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/621/1/
grammar.yourdictionary.com/punctuation/apostrophe-rules.html

"that needs" = "that ends"

At some point in your life, somebody told you that you are funny, and you believed it. That was a cruel joke.

The original post is even more relevant today.

I don't think it's lost on anyone here that you use the same, childish, fraternity-esque language as the J-A who writes the copy for UP.

The fact that you can't or won't follow basic rules is no surprise. Move along, intellectual infant.

saimon22 = Ukrainian scammer (cheapcustompapers.com = spamming, untrustworthy, ESL garbage).

cheapcustompapers.com = spamming, untrustworthy, ESL garbage

I'm done with the days of explaining and proving things to meaningless peons like you. People who matter know who I am and what I bring to the table.

You came here to PUBLICIZE your meal ticket, whether you own the site or not. Your laughably lame assertion that you couldn't possibly be the owner/agent of the site simply because you mentioned some of the site's bad reviews/writers is shallow, transparent, and tired. The people behind that site obviously don't give a rat's ass about reputation or morality. They care only about "mentions." Clearly, they decided to take the "any publicity is good publicity" approach. The very name of the site proves such.


Thanks for proving your utter cluelessness. Not once in the 10 years that I have been a member here have I offered to write a paper for anyone. In fact, I posted a thread warning people to NOT send me private messages asking me to write papers for them or I would publish their request for all to see. So much for your ignorant assumptions . . . .

Oh, please do explain. Tell me precisely what I do -- or have done -- that is civilly or legally actionable. I'll wait.

The shameless, smarta*s owner will eventually get what's legally coming to him. The coin that he makes today will be gone very quickly when he finds himself in court.

BTW, I find it absolutely disgusting that unemployedprofessors.com brazenly promotes the consumption of alcohol/beer to college students, the majority of whom are minors and/or under the legal drinking age of 21. That's ILLEGAL.

In short, I see multiple civil vulnerabilities throughout the site. I also see openings for potential criminal prosecution.

ProfCrisis, take your spamming elsewhere.

Do you really think that we haven't seen your game 100 times? You are here for ONE reason: to post your URL. Everything else is calculated smokescreen.