Prospect solution - a reliable company to work for?

You are clearly confused, as usual. My original challenge was (and still is)-since you claim that Rusty is NOT a liar-for you to reference the "global errors" that Rusty claims infest my posts. You have still failed to do so. Either admit that Rusty is a liar and you have been a blind supporter of his propaganda OR reference the frequent, repeating, global errors that confuse the intended meaning of my posts. Choose.

Awww.. and yet your first retort when I bought up my challenge was:


When that clearly wouldn't fly, you thought that perhaps you expand the rules you made to include "challenges" on other threads (which by the way, I already answered by saying that I never sided with rusty on his allegation of your specific global errors).

Sigh.. childish, desperate and well.... so WB. ^__________^

And you think people will believe it?

err.. yes, you can check the thread if you want to. ^_^

Here's other stuff you'd find there:





^___^

hello, i find it huuuuuugely derogatory and huuuuuuugely demeaning and discriminatory..but it's true. I couldn't fool anyone and I never wished to. Plus it would be ID fraud so whoever went along those lines would be very wrong to think I (or any of my colleagues in fact) would ever think of doing anthing that bad. It'd be a crime if nothing else. But there is a world of difference between claiming to be of a different origin and becoming good at writing academic essays. Academic English is (or should be) shorn of inflections and accents (therefore the British-nonBritish line of defense cannot be maintained. So anyone whose PHd and Mphil was good enough to write whole double thesis in can write the sort of research jobs I do, regards, Raffaella Cantillo

You find the truth derogatory and demeaning? The world must be an awful place for you.

It's not an issue of inflections and accents. It's an issue of improper grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and word usage. Maybe your professors thought you wrote well enough for an ESL student to give you a pass. Maybe your ESL customers like the fact that they're buying obviously-ESL papers. You are not qualified to write for anyone that wants academic research/writing that is correct in terms of grammar, etc. It's that simple. It isn't derogatory or demeaning--it's great that you can write as well as you do in a foreign language--it's just the truth.

So, does that make Rusty a liar and/or you a blind supporter of liars and propagandists? Be specific, please.

im just asking, out of boredom and stupidity: how do you know? You don't know me, so how do you know? Regards, Raffaella Cantillo

Err... what does anyone being a liar have to do with any of this? I already gave my answer and it was quite specific:


Now you on the other hand, have yet to answer any of my challenges which are:

1.) Show any evidence that you were involved in the SEC-Uniwork affair.
2.) Claim that MeoKhan's writing isn't flawed.

^__^

I challenged you to prove that Rusty is not (as you assert) a clueless, lying propagandist by simply referencing my "global errors." If you cannot do so, you must acknowledge that Rusty is a clueless, lying propagandist and admit that you blindly support the idiot. It's quite simple. There are no other legitimate options. Choose.

After you make your choice, I will gladly provide a detailed answer to both of your challenges.

go challenge your womanhood poor Egyptian assylum seeker, we busted you nowadays you are toothless.

All you do at this point is quote large blocks of text and then make completely vague and baseless claims. That's not an effective way to communicate.

Errr... your (as you assert) is misplaced. >.< More proof of what I (not rusty) think are your "global errors." :p

Sorry, now you want me to prove that rusty is not a liar? I never claimed that he wasn't and I am not claiming that he is. I have no interest in doing so and have never expressed any. What I did claim was that I do not think he is clueless or stupid. Tsk tsk.... reaching much? :p


Haha!! Riiiiight.. I already made my choices several posts ago. You can continue to stall all you want. It just makes you look that much sillier. :p

Wow, do I really need more proof of your sidestepping and cluelessness? LMAO!


That's some good ol' snake oil salesman bulls-i* right there, folks!

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is. I did not have sex with that woman!"

OK, so your official position is that Rusty is NOT stupid or clueless. Got it. It's complete bulls-i* and many others also know that it is bulls-i*, but let's move forward. You will not take a position on whether he is a liar because you know that you are majorly F!*KED either way. I don't give a crap if you have no "interest in doing so." That's a lame excuse. I wouldn't expect you to be "interested" in incriminating yourself, but you don't have much of a choice (unless you're OK with being known as a spineless coward). Don't worry-I will not stop demanding that you step up to the plate. You might as well just take a position now.

No, I'm taking no position because it matters not to me. I gain nothing from proving or disproving that rusty is a liar. What you're trying to do is to get me to defend you from rusty's accusations of your global errors. Sorry, that's not going to happen. Please don't ask me to fight your battles for you. It's sickening. >.<

Nice try. You're transparent and weak.


LMAO! That lying, rusty piece of s-i* ran away after I cornered him with the exact same demands to reference my "global errors," Margie. Predictably, you're following in his footsteps.

No, but I know you are for attempting to goad other people into fighting your battles.


I actually did reference what I believe are your global errors, which are different from the errors that rusty claimed. So again, you lose. :p

You didn't "reference" anything, Margie. You made up some cowardly, baseless claims about my "understanding" that I quickly denounced and disproved. Nice try at salvaging some dignity via more lies, though.

1.) They were not cowardly. I made them openly and directly.
2.) They were not baseless. I have sufficient evidence to prove your failure to understand plain English.
3.) They were not just about "understanding." For example, in the case cited in this thread, I specifically stated that you misplaced a portion of your statement.

4.) You denounced them, but you clearly were not able to disprove them.

Post your "evidence," coward.


I quickly disproved your nonsense, as usual.

Yawn.

I already did. For example:


No you didn't. Your reaction to my criticism in this thread was:


Does that count as proof in your world? :p

EW_writer, when are you going to learn that your intentional misquoting will not work?

Sorry, your "proof" is nothing more than just another lame excuse. If we look back in the thread your initial reaction to my challenge was:


and then later on you said...


Which is wrong. I did not ask you to provide emails. I asked you to provide evidence, say emails. Your focus on the hypothetical instead of the actual shows your skewed understanding. Any English teacher can explain the difference in meaning of those two statements to you.

Wrong. As I have stated numerous times, I INTENTIONALLY chose to highlight your stupidity, cluelessness, and ignorance in including "emails" even as a "hypothetical" option for proof. If you weren't a clueless propagandist, you would NEVER have mentioned "emails" at all. Got it yet, Margie?

I have proven that you are ACTUALLY ignorant and clueless when it comes to debating certain topics with me. There is nothing "hypothetical" about it.

Then you were intentionally wrong. You chose to highlight a part of my sentence that had little to do with my message and my argument. So now you have two options, either your understanding of the English language is flawed or your mind is prone to fallacious argumentation (in this case, a red herring). My bet is on both.

Also, I already explained why I mentioned email as my example, and my explanation clearly showed that the example is not as preposterous as you were desperately trying to get people to think. This explanation has been left unanswered. You chose to ignore it (like you always do when you get cornered) and simply pretended to have won the argument. Good luck with that.

Sorry, but I will not continue to go around and around in circles with your crooked, dishonest, lying ass. I have already refuted the garbage in your previous post. Again, if you are so confident that you have "won" anything, feel free to ask for feedback in a dedicated thread. You're like one of the mindless, "victorious" Kenyans who've recently infested this forum.

No response, huh? An argument that totally disproves your idea that emails cannot be part of official communication between one individual and a government agency and in both the times that I brought it up, you're completely dumbfounded. ^___^

Sorry, ya miserable fraudster, but-as I stated-I will not continue to repeatedly waste my time disproving your pathetically failed propaganda. All you do is intentionally misquote and repeat the same s-i* that I have already crushed numerous times. Have fun playing with RustyWriter, ya low-paid, unethical, lying, fake, hypocritical scumbag.

Translation: I got absolutely no defense against your perfectly reasonable argument, so I will just keep on rambling about "propaganda" and "misquoting" to get people to believe that somehow, your argument shouldn't matter.

I think that everyone's used to this WBull by now. ^___^

The gang of bullies that think they own this forum do not care to have their errors pointed out to them. That would just fuel their ire at you for bruising their ego. Ego matters very much to the now defunct Phyleeks, who, after being such a severe bully suddenly decided to drop out of the forum that he worked so hard to make unwelcoming to new writers. Thanks for calling him on his error though. He badly needed that ego slap.

What is the purpose of providing an email address that the applicants cannot use to contact the company? What is the intention behind providing this email address on the page then? The writer cannot even follow up his application using this address? Why is the company so afraid to have people use this email address? There are a lot of questions surrounding this email contact. Considering that it is not an actual, physical address that someone may try to go to for some reason, there is no reason to tell people not to use the address. Email addresses are automatically used for contact. If the company does not want to be contacted through this address, then they should not have published it in the first place. Based on this experience, I cannot say that they are a reliable company to work for. They have no idea what an email address is used for.