Native Writers vs ESL Writers

There you go, meathead (not you, OR).

For the umpteenth time: 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. :)

Boy, you are one dumb SOB. Those aren't two "versions" of the New Jersey lawsuit, idiot. Those are two separate lawsuits, of which the Pakistani iteration is utterly meaningless in every conceivable way (if you don't believe me, ask OR). As I clearly communicated (and OR confirmed), ***** filed the original lawsuit in New Jersey, and when it realized that it was getting pummeled and would certainly suffer a humiliating defeat (including its own attorneys giving it the ax), it filed a new, absolutely impotent lawsuit in Pakistan in order to save face on its home turf.

Never said they were, idiot.

And once again:

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. :)

I repeat: you are a liar and one dumb SOB. I'm sorry, but I have to LMAO!

Then the above post was a mistake. I should have said multiple versions of the same issue. My mistake, sure but it doesn't change a thing. There are still:


and I still say that:

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. :)

Who's LMAO-ing now? :p

Um, yeah-still me. You got embarrassed and were left with no choice but to admit it. LMAO!

Plus, all you do is copy-and-paste the same, already-defeated arguments over and over, sort of like a mindless robot that can't read the writing on the wall.


Translation = "I got owned, so I'll just use one of my typical excuses to slink away."

Way to go, EW_robot!

Err.. no, I made a mistake and I owned up to it. I know that's a very foreign concept to you but hey, at least you have those eggs to suck on, right? It's actually funny how you try to blow up my mistake and make it seem like it proves any of my contentions false. ^_^


Dude, I'm not doing it for you. I figured that the only way to get my message across is to keep repeating my statement so that every new poster can easily read it. It also allows me to kick your sorry a** over and over again without exerting significant effort. So once again:

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. :)

1. There are no "versions." Get that through your thick, criminal skull. There is ONE ruling, and one ruling only, which was issued by the United States Federal District Court of New Jersey and promptly executed in full.

2. There is no "claim" or contention as to the truthfulness or validity of the Federal ruling. Honorable Freda L. Wolfson decisively ruled in favor of SNR in every possible way, drafted an official Opinion (in which Wolfson communicated her personal disgust with *****'s business tactics, and to which I linked earlier), and issued a Court Order (to which I linked earlier). The Federal Court Order resulted in A) SNR taking ownership of all 555 of *****'s essay site domains; B) Google, Yahoo, MSN, and all other search engines banning all of *****'s domains; C) *****-and any of its agents-being enjoined from ever again owning or operating such essay sites; D) ***** owing SNR nearly $700,000 in cash, which SNR can seize if ***** ever steps foot in the US again.

3. The meaningless, impotent, after-the-fact, face-saving lawsuit in Pakistan resulted in A) squat; B) diddly-squat; C) doodly-squat; D) jack squat.


Irrelevant, hah? I proved, once again, that you are a worthless liar. You made all sorts of bulls-i* legal claims, every one of which I crushed (with repeated confirmations from OR, much to your dismay). Therefore, you have once again helped to further solidify my reputation with visitors ("clients," as you crookedly see them) as one of the most trustworthy members in this forum, and one who never posts invalid evidence. That's why people tend to trust me at face value, even though I always insist that they personally verify my evidence. I sincerely thank you.


You think that you're fairly confident? Wow, you're just overflowing with confidence. LMAO! You should start all of your claims that way. It works well for you.


LMAO! First of all, I have never claimed to be a lawyer. Secondly, I have received DOZENS of "thank you" messages, both via private message and in posts. Plus, I have received much more significant appreciation outside of this forum. (If you think that the CNN investigation marks the end of your fraudulent employer's troubles, you're sorely mistaken. From what I hear, it's just the beginning, actually.) Furthermore, every legal statement that I have made is based on verifiable laws, public records, and court orders. So, unless you're man enough to prove false any of my legal statements (we both know that you're not, and you can't), you'll continue to show everyone just how completely unscrupulous and untrustworthy you are (and always have been).


Lie. Never once have I suggested that anyone use a particular site. I call a spade a spade. If a site is fraudulent, I do my best to warn the public. If a site is legitimate and law-abiding, I simply "let it be" (as this is "EssayScam.org," not "EssayLegit.org") and never bring up its name unless I see baseless attacks against it by liars and morally bankrupt competitors like you. I have come to the defense of numerous companies, even UK Essays. The fact of the matter is that there are literally THOUSANDS of fraudulent sites, operated by dozens of fraudulent companies. (It's not my fault that virtually all of the fraudulent companies are foreign. Maybe you should just get your house in order, eh?) Conversely, there are only a handful of legitimate companies, and those legit companies tend to have only a few sites each. There's much more bad than good in the industry, thanks to your ilk. So, in short, you're just mad because I type the truth and reveal your employer's scams for the benefit of the public. Deal with it, and shut up.

You lose. The end.

Wrong, you lose.

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. :)

See how that's working for me? I don't even need to waste my time reading your responses anymore. :) Clients who come here will read the statement above and know for a fact that all the legal b*llst that you use to generate propaganda against foreign sites mean nothing. What matters to them are quality and price and they should let no one bully them into thinking otherwise.

Crawl back under your rock, crook. I completely outclassed you in every possible aspect of this argument. You lost, as usual. You can claim a delusional "victory" all day long, but if you'd like others' opinions on who decisively won this massacre through the provision of evidence and facts, ask pheelyks, FreelanceWriter, OR, exwriter, boom, etc.


1. The general quality that your employer provides to customers is GARBAGE.

2. Your fraudulent, Ukrainian employer's prices are now HIGHER than the prices of many-if not most-of the American companies.

I just clubbed you like a baby fur seal with your own argument. EW_writer "wins" again! Idiot. LMAO!

Nope, you didn't. I was able to show clients that they shouldn't listen to your scare tactics and that's the entire point.


Oh c'mon.. you're not honestly going to try that again, are you? Every time you ask to be backed up by the other, much more decent members of this forum, you just get even more humiliated. Can't you accept the fact that while they may agree with you on matters that suit their interests, they won't back you up when it comes to matters of your interest? You're their b**-h, they're not yours. :P

Oh sure... you "clubbed" me real well with your counterarguments above. Look at all the evidence and reasoning present in those two numbers that you gave. Like... WOW. ROFLMAO! Take a hike, mike. When it comes to the issues that matter, the quote above clearly shows how little evidence you can really dish out.

I have to get some sleep, retard, but I'll slap you with the evidence for numbers 1 and 2 tomorrow.

Above we see WB's version of a rebuttal. Short, sweet, and completely moronic. :D


Hey.. goodnight. Or should I say, good morning? It should be like early morning in the U.S. by now. Either you're nocturnal or .... :P

True. Unqualified writers are the issue. These barely educated writers have to come from somewhere right? They usually prove to be ESL writers from a 3rd world country. That is why the debate focused on that angle. Although, based on the high school level of writing coming out from INL students these days, it should really be a non- issue anymore. The sloppy and shoddy work my writers edit these days from these students make them wish the dog ate the homework.

Then the stand should be against companies that come out of third world countries. They are the ones who hire the unqualified writers. They need an assured number of writers working at all times. They mostly need a body count instead of quality workers. Those people are the least of their priorities. The battle isn't between the writers. It is between the fake companies and legitimate freelancers. The poor ES2 writers are sadly caught in the middle, taking the brunt of of the blame when they should not be on that end of the arguement. Let's try to focus the debate on the right parties.

ESL writers have a place in this industry; the problem is just that so many of them try to dupe prospective NES clients into believing that they're not ESL writers, because their work is likely to be completely useless to NES customers.