Native Writers vs ESL Writers

There is a mistaken assumption that native writers are opposed to the presence of ESL writers in this industry. That is not true and there really is no Native vs ESL writers' battle unfolding here or anywhere else. It is about qualified vs unqualified writers. The stand is against unqualified writers!

I wholeheartedly concur.

Hi OB!

I agree with you 100%!

Just a thought...

Maybe we can have some sort of INTERNATIONAL WRITERS' UNION (or something to that effect). That way, we can standardize pay rates and create fair competition amongst companies. Instead of competing on the basis of price, companies will have to create systems to accurately monitor quality. In so doing, competition shifts to quality.

Just thinking out loud (like you could hear the words I'm typing... LOL) again as usual.

Boom

essaywriters.net[DND*] beat you to it! They already have what evidence has shown to be a fake organization called "writersassembly.org," which they advertise on their sites (see bestessays.com[DND*], superiorpapers.com[DND*], etc.) in order to entice potential customers and give them a false sense of confidence in ordering. An investigator already exposed it.

Fer cryin' out loud!!!

I'll have to admit... when it comes to cheats, this Yuri fella is a genius.

I hate him!

The widespread presence of UNQUALIFIED ESL writers in this industry have harmed none more than the QUALIFIED ESL writers. Why?
1) rather than try to separate the wheat from the chaff, many legits have simply implemented a `close-door' policy - they do not hire ESL writers, full stop.

2) Customers, following a single negative experience with an ESL writer, subsequently refuse to deal with any but a native writer.
The non-qualified writers are not harming native writers (contrary to popular assumption, we remain in demand) but are harming qualified ESL writers and the reputation of the industry as a whole. Hence, I believe that (IRRESPECTIVE OF NATIONALITY) all qualified writers have a vested interest in opposing the presence of the unqualified ones ... their presence does not constitute a reality which we have to accept.

Yes ... and the union he created only endorses his websites :) But, the creation of a REAL union would be nice

OxbridgeResearchers, you are a scream! Talking about a union! HA! Yeah right! I really bet your little company (one which implies it has Oxbridge writers in its very name which you use to promote it here against the forum rules)would treat writers fairly and recognise a union! HA HA HA! Look at your attitude sister - if you are like your posts you are best avoided by all potential writers - probably, you see them just as your slaves eh...

Honest agencies do not attempt to deceive in misleading advertising actually. You yet again try and disparage the competition - a company which DOES have Oxbridge writers. (I have no connection with this company Oxbridge Essays but do see it as legitrimate unlike companies that claim to have Oxbridge educated writers when they do not like OxbridgeResearchers). Don't like the truth though eh. Bad loser eh? Sad. Never mind, you are being ignored by anyone who matters, as always...

Also, let's be honest here: all essay companies are there to assist students, often EFL students to cheat - yes, CHEAT - we all know that so let's call a spade a spade eh! So noone here has the moral high ground - the moral gutter, perhaps, but... Why not have a Union for shoplifters too or those who seel knives to criminals...

As for 'qualified' writers. Give me a break! There are a great many people with degrees and masters - and many who work at universities - whose academic level is mediocre at best. Especiallly these days when standards have plummeted in the rush to dumb down and attract foreign cash cow students. No-one should EVER trust anyone's qualifications ever again. Everyone has a pirce of paper now and many are as unitellectual as it is possible to be - and many cannot write a decent essay (or a letter come to that, or perhaps even spell their name correctly).

All one can say is this: look at an sample of writing done by a writer (EFL or not) and judge them on that. Loads of bad writers have masters and PhDs for sure, as do loads of bad teachers and mediocrities. This is 2009, not 1959 here! TRUST NOONE AND NOTHING!

But yes, for subject knowledge EFL writers can be as good as native English writers, though EFL writers' work often needs proof reading and corrections, and as this is one thing that essay customers struggle with, so they are not always suitable.

But PLEASE not getting on moral high horses from cheater essay agencies - admit the service you provide exists to facilitate cheating. Not so hard to be honest really, if you try...

Hey, I'm glad you posted this thread.

So to clear things up, those who agree with OR's message are in fact stating that they have nothing against competent ESL writers working for offshore sites that falsely claim to only hire native writers even if such ESL writers are aware of the possibility that they are being misrepresented, right? If people here agree with this statement, then I can most certainly agree that native writers are not opposed to the presence of ESL writers in this industry.

If you actually read OR's posts, it's pretty clear that she agrees with you completely on this count. She has consistently said that she is against the hiring of unqualified writers, whether they are native English speakers or not, and that she has no problem with qualified ESL/EFL writers working in the business as long as they do not promote/advance the needs of fraudulent companies.


OR has also repeatedly stressed that her name on this forum is not meant to indicate that she works with any company with "Oxbridge" in its name. It might be an odd choice of moniker, but she's been pretty open about it.


The number of complaints here regarding Oxbridge Essays, including horrible papers, refused refunds when nothing was delivered, gross overcharges, and more leaves little doubt that your statement is either completely unfounded or incredibly biased, and given the tone of your attack I'm leaning towards the latter. Oxbridge Essays has been proven illegitimate numerous times on this forum and elsewhere. It's run by two spoiled brats in the UK (of which you might be one) who couldn't write their own papers all that well but who knew how to take other people's money. The rest is history--and ridiculous lies, like they have professors at Oxford and Cambridge working on students' essays.

and how does a writer actually "promote/advance the needs of fraudulent companies"? Is simply working for these companies as writers despite knowing at least about the allegations against these companies enough? (this question is directed at OR since pheelyks claimed that the statement came from her)

I cannot judge the activities of others and, therefore, will only respond in relation to my own experiences and activities.

Even though I worked with a number of the legits who only hire Brits and Americans, I stupidly hung around with one of the more infamous of the companies in this industry for two years. I, undoubtedly, contributed to the continuation and proliferation of their fraudulent activities. How?

1) By agreeing to snail mail a couple of docs from the UK to customers. The purpose, as I later discovered, was for them to affirm that they did, indeed, have a physical presence in the UK (I probably knew it at the time but chose to ignore it)

2) By completing over 700 orders for them. These orders, written to the highest possible standards, helped promote the myth that the company was `legitimate' and only hired experienced, native writers. My satisfied customers brought more and more customers to that website.

3) By repeatedly stepping in at the last minute to pick up the slack from writers who plagiarised entire projects or were incapable of stringing words together in a coherent sentence.

The list goes on and on and points to a single undeniable fact. I was complicit. Furthermore, by continuing with the company several months after I discovered who they really were and just how absolutely unqualified the majority of their writers were, I became an accomplice. I had a choice (of not working with them, especially since I was a writer with 2 of the legits) and I was aware of their fraudulent activities - that makes me an accomplice who contribted to the continuation and proliferation of the company's fraudulent activities.

As for the qualified ESL writers who are denied employment with the legits, I cannot judge them. Yes, I realise that the law is the law and that (assuming that they know that the company they work with unapologetically engages in obfuscation and continually lies to customers to ensure that they take out its services) knowledge makes them accomplices to business fraud. Personally speaking, I would not want to blame or condemn them as I rather believe that they were pushed into a corner and given little choice.

OR has-multiple times-clearly communicated the fact that, in both the US and UK, any employee who continues to work for (i.e., enable) a company after becoming aware that the company engages in illegal activity is, by legal definition, a criminal who is subject to the same legal penalties as the employer. I have already posted quotes regarding such laws.


That takes some serious guts to admit, and even more integrity to quit.

Bottom line: EW_writer wants people to believe that fraudulent essay writing is the only possible employment in his country. There are literally no alternate opportunties for him to earn an honest, law-abiding living. That, my friends, is a cowardly excuse to justify fraud.

So this means that you are not categorically stating that it is wrong for ESL writers to continue working for allegedly frauduent sites even after realizing the existing accusations against their employers, right?


I am actually holding my ground that it is not wrong (and certainly not criminal) for a writer to continue working for a company even if that writer knows that the company is making some false advertisement regarding him or her as a writer. Do you agree with me or are you against me on this one, OR? I advise you to think deeply about this before responding. ^_^


Another lie from this forum's most grammatically correct liar. Go back to sucking on that egg.

Wow, you're quite desperate to force OR to reverse her crystal-clear position and take a stance in direct conflict with the law. I doubt that she'll bend. Having been rebuked multiple times, you're now resorting to what one can only assume is some sort of threat against her.


Oh, really? You haven't stated that there are no other decent opportunities? You haven't communicated that you work for EssayWriters.net because there are no better options? "I advise you to think deeply about this before responding. ^_^"


Um, nobody cares about your "opinion." I have already posted quotes regarding the applicable laws. I find it amusing that you deny that the laws exist or apply to you. Tell me-is a crack dealer innocent as long as it's his opinion that selling crack is not a crime?

I 've stated no such thing. I did say that as far as the essay mill industry goes, offshore writers are highly limited to working for offshore companies. Plus, writing homework for students isn't exactly what I'd call making a decent living.


Is that really your stance OR? Am I a criminal for working for essaywriters.net when I know that there are allegations that it is misrepresenting me to its clients? Just answer the question, am I a criminal or not? I'm sorry if I may seem pissed but once again, your being lukewarm over issues where you should be defending competent ESL writers is getting to me.

There you go again, twisting the issues. How many times does she have to state her position, and how many times does she (and others) have to clarify that position for you? The illegal activities of essaywriters.net are not limited to misrepresenting writers' qualifications. Your employer engages in a plethora of other illegal practices of which you are thoroughly aware.

Simple summary of OR's position:

1. unqualified, ESL writers = completely unacceptable

2. unqualified, EFL writers = completely unacceptable

3. qualified, EFL writers = expected by customers

4. qualified, ESL writers = completely acceptable, as long as they do not knowingly enable illegal business activities

NEWSFLASH: OR obviously doesn't want to beat a dead horse or get into a senseless argument with you.

Yeah yeah, like allegations of holding fake fire drills, having fake addresses, etc. etc. let's put those in the mix too.

Is that really your stance OR? Am I a criminal for working for essaywriters.net when I know that there are several allegations against it? Just answer the question. Am I a criminal or not?

I have clarified my position several times:
1) Incompetent academic writers are fraudsters who engage in the selling of a professional skill which they do not possess;
2) Companies which lie about their nationality and location are fraudsters;
3) Companies which lie about their writers' qualifications are fraudsters;
4) Companies which deliberately feed potential customers false information to persuade them to purchase their services are fraudsters.
I am not using the word fraudsters lightly here. Companies and writers which engage in any of the above are in violation of the following UK laws:

1) Consumer Protection Act
2) Trade Descriptions Act
3) Sales of Goods and Supply of Services Act
____________________________
As pertains to competent and qualified writers, I will, yet again, clarify my position:
I personally sympathise with this group of ESL writers. As I learnt from posts throughout this forum, they are denied the opportunity to work with legits in spite of their qualifications. Hence, as I am assuming that they were left with no other choice, I sympathise with the qualified ESL writers who work with companies whose operations can only be described as `shady.' I would not call them criminals. This is my personal position, based on my subjective opinion and it is one which I stand by and will not waver from. The law, however, takes a different position on this same issue. As corporate fraud costs Britain an estimated £72 billion per annum, the law does not sympathise with any employee who 1) continues to work with the company after uncovering knowledge of fraud; 2) does not report the fraud to the relevant authorities. They are regarded as accomplices despite the fact that the law clearly recognises that, as employees or service contractors, they are not the directing mind of the company, nor is their identity inextricably linked to the firm in question. After knowledge of fraud, continuation with the company is construed as a type of informed consent to participation in fraud. Employees and service contractors are regarded as culpable under the following laws and acts:

1) Civil law of obligations
2) Companies Act:
a) general fraud offence
d) general deception offence
c) general dishonesty offence
There are other relevant laws but this should be sufficient.

To clarify yet again - according to my personal, subjective opinion, competent/qualified ESL writers are not criminals or, in general terms, unethical because they could not find alternative employment in the industry. The law takes a different position and regards them as culpable if they remained with the company and continued as was after knowledge.

________________________


That is a different issue altogether. If an employee/service contractor participates in the company's promotion of false information about him/her, that is indefensible. Let's say I work with Company X and have nothing but an O-Level certificate. If Company X promotes me as a PhD writer or retired Oxford University professor and I `play along,' and confirm these falsehoods when asked by customers, I am personally engaging in fraudulent activities and am, as an individual, violating the law.


Considering that you and other qualified ESL writers were denied equal employment opportunities with legits, I do not consider you a criminal - that is my personal and subjective opinion ... it is unwavering.

Thank you very much.


Well said, I agree entirely. However, let's let the courts be the judge as what is and isn't illegal activity by essay mill companies and let's not use allegations as propaganda to sway clients and insult writers (I'm not referring to you OR, but I bet you know who I mean).

Allegations of illegal activities? Allegations? Here are some "allegations" for you:

Fake "corporate events"

Misappropriating the resources of San Diego City College.

Misappropriating a Virginia citizen's home address (as proven by CNN)

Fraudulent business addresses (ranging from non-existent offices in luxurious buildings to empty parking lots)

Falsified and/or inaccurate corporate documents

Unjustified wage-docking and fines

False advertising in too may ways to count

Advertising a fake "writing organization"

Hiring a third party to publicly defame a competing company (major no-no)

Creating at least one forum specifically to smear a competitor (in direct violation of the Federal Lanham Act's section relating to unfair competition)

Reselling custom papers despite advertising the opposite

Potential tax fraud.

associatedcontent.com/article/1687934/the_web_kingdom_of_lies_is_ further.html?cat=17 - Unauthorized Use of Logos of Established UK and US Companies

Violation of UK Trading Disclosure Regulations.

In February of 2009, WARRANTS were issued for "Olga M."

Civil lawsuits filed against both Olga and Yuri.

Court Order to pay nearly $16,000 in damages

Court Order to pay nearly $13,000 in damages

Court Order to pay almost $4,000 in damages

Court Order to pay almost $9,000 in damages

Inventing plagiarism reports and customer complaints.

Improper corporate status.

Unbelievably, there is a lot more, but I'm tired.

Blogs, blogs, oh and guess what? MORE BLOGS. :) What's worse is that the blogs just come from one person who once (if I'm not mistaken) was just a disgruntled writer.

The bottom line is until courts actually order essaywriters.net to cease its operations, working for them is not a friggin' crime. :)

Hey WB, nothing to say about this? ^_^

To repeat and clarify: my personal, subjective opinion is one thing and the law is another. I personally sympathise with, and excuse, Qualified ESL writers who work with AR, EW, etc because they were not afforded equal employment opportunities. I cannot excuse native writers doing the same and would not hesitate to judge them as complicit. The law would label both complicit, however. I am not, therefore, commenting on the law but on my opinion.

I do not believe that this debate would even be valid were discriminatory employment practices to cease. Furthermore, were ABSOLUTELY qualified ESL writers offered employment opportunities with legits, I assume that they would gradually take their leave of the scammers. End result = AR, EW and co. would be left with the unqualified writers they deserve = increased customer dissatisfaction = (optimistically) their going up in flames. I believe that it is the fact that they have a handful of qualified writers which keeps them going.

Fair enough but like I said:

The bottom line is until courts actually order essaywriters.net to cease its operations, working for them is not a friggin' crime. :) Opportunistic jackals will continue to use legalistic bull to try to scare clients away from their competitors. This strategy will continue to fail since customers really only care about two things in what they buy: quality and price.

Cease their operations where? If US or British courts close down EW and declare the company's activities illegal, working for them will only be illegal for Brits and Americans. There are countless other countries and nationalities. Even if they are striked off the Internet, you think Yuri will not re-invent himself and his company?

Given your track record of posting endless claims that you can not and do not prove, I'm going to assume that you are incorrect about the investigator. However, regardless of his/her background (or the chosen venue in which he/she chooses to publish information), the evidence is fact-based and verifiable. I dare you to prove otherwise.


Um, can you please provide legal evidence to support your crooked logic? You're claiming that a crime is not a crime until the perpetrator gets caught. Communicated like a true criminal . . . .

Hello, McFly! I've already commented on her position multiple times. Wake up! She has sentimental leanings, which she clearly reconciles to the word of the law.

As I said, yes, I am judging Qualified ESL writers sentimentally and cannot perceive of them as criminals.

Where any qualified writer who has been offered alternative, legitimate opportunities is concerned, I am totally unsympathetic. They enable the perpetuation of fraud. Fraud here is not a matter of opinion but of law. As per the law, they are, quite rightly, regarded as accomplices (supposing their possession of relevant knowledge).

I've never asked this question before, but I think that it is keenly relevant:

Do you think that EW_writer would stop enabling, engaging in, and perpetuating illegal activities through EssayWriters.net if ET or another one of the legits were to offer him a position (i.e., give him the "opportunity" that he claims to have been denied thus far)?

Hey but that's the thing. It's her opinion on the matter that we're asking about. As far as her legal views are concerned:



How did WB say it... BINGO! ^___^

Um, no. I'm concerned with the law. You clearly have absolutely no respect for the law.


Wow, you sure are clueless about the legal implications and impacts. Ask the gentlemen at ***** how much being in Pakistan prevented them from getting owned, both figuratively and literally.


***** was guilty of less, and it lost all 555 of its sites. All it takes is for a certain company to file a Federal lawsuit in Virginia, and your employer is finished.

Oh please, there are multiple versions of that same court case written all over the internet. Plus, were the freelance writers of ***** (are they an essay mill in the first place) pursued by the law? Heck no. What's your point? :p Oh wait, once again you help prove mine.

Your comeback is senseless, and your tunnel vision is humorous.

Back to my original question for OR:


Or, much more likely, is EW_writer using that excuse as a convenient



?

That's what WB resorts to when she has nothing to counter an argument with. Once again:

Once again, you painfully flaunt your ignorance of American law. The victorious defendants in the ***** case did not specifically pursue any legal recourse against *****'s "freelance writers," as there was no need for them to do so. As the defendants obviously anticipated, the Court ruled that *****'s conduct through its essay sites is expressly illegal and henceforth enjoined (i.e., legally forbidden), and that ruling specifically extends to all of *****'s employees and agents. (I can quote the actual ruling, if you'd like.)

Regardless, a formal Court ruling against a specific person or company need not be in place as a prerequisite for the agents and employees of that person or company to be considered criminal accomplices to any illegal activities in which the person or company engages and the agents and employees are aware. Courts have also established that ignorance of the law is not a legal defense.

Again:

You can pretend to be a lawyer all you want, WB. :p Like I said before there are multiple versions of that same court case written all over the internet. Plus, were the freelance writers of ***** (are they an essay mill in the first place) pursued by the law? Heck no.

I think that I'm fairly confident that what few clients visit here are aware of how you use your pretend-lawyer skills and are unaffected by it. That's good enough for me. :)

smoke crack lick crack cocaine smoke coke mushrooms lick ***

I'm not "pretending" to be anything, but I do know the law quite well. I've read every page of the ruling (and all of the attorneys' substantive filings that led up to the ruling) multiple times. I've also discussed the case in great detail with several of my lawyer friends. Plus, I'm fairly certain that exwriter (who has an extensive legal background) would agree with nearly everything that I've stated.


WRONG. There is one version-period.


Wow, you're like a mule, so I'll state it one more time: *****'s writers were never pursued because there was no need for the defendants to do so. The defendants chose to cut off the head and the entire beast died. The war was over. Plus, it's not exactly cheap for a party to "pursue" any legal action against a specific person or group in a civil suit. One has to pick and choose one's battles. However, a criminal suit does not carry such monetary burdens for the individual because the "state" prosecutes the defendant. As we all know, there is more than enough evidence of crime for the State of Virginia to criminally prosecute the owners of EssayWriters.net, which will inevitably lead to a ruling that extends to all "agents" of the company.

I had earlier clashed with WB on the question of the ***** ruling. I found two versions and two rulings. One was a Pakistani case and the other the American one. When I dug deeper into Westlaw's case study archives I found that it was the US ruling which dominated and was, eventually, implemented. Apparently, ***** had gone after Student Network Resources, accusing them of defamation. SNR countersued and provided evidence which established that *****'s complaints were groundless and, importantly, that it had been purchasing papers off the SNR database and then republishing them on its own for monetary gain, in direct violation of the terms and conditions of sale. The ***** lawyer then came across info which led him to withdraw from the case, stating that had he been aware of the nature of *****'s operations from the outset, or in possession of all facts relevant to the case, he would never have attached his name to the lawsuit. Not only did the court find in SNR's favour but awarded all of *****'s websites to SNR (as well as monetary compensation in excess of 600k). The ruling was enforced and the ownership of *****'s 555 sites was transferred to SNR and all major search engines (including Google) were notified - all complied.

Great summary, OR!

By the way, *****'s people filed the sour grapes, face-saving lawsuit in Pakistan after it became painfully clear that they would inevitably lose the suit that they filed in New Jersey (indeed, *****'s own attorneys-including Andrew P. Napolitano from Fox News-in New York/Jersey unilaterally petitioned the judge to drop the suit). SNR's attorneys ignored that completely toothless suit in Pakistan because 1) the Pakistani court has absolutely no jurisdiction; 2) the precedent had already been set by SNR's dominant victory in US Federal Court, which binds all entities in the US (which is all that matters).

I've said it once and I'll say it again:

There are multiple versions of that same court case written all over the internet. Whether or not one person or another claims which of the versions is true is irrelevant in as far as the purpose of this forum for clients who visit here is concerned. In that regard, I think that I'm fairly confident that what few clients visit here are aware of the use of pretend-lawyer skills to dissuade them from ordering from foreign companies and are unaffected by it. That's good enough for me. :)

Really? Let's see your "multiple versions," liar!

There is ONE official judgement ("Order") from the US Federal District Court of New Jersey, signed by United States District Judge Freda L. Wolfson:

docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/3:2007cv05491/208337/37/ - Order

docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/3:2007cv05491/208337/31/0.pdf - Judge's Official Opinion

Now, stop your blatant lies.