Paper Examples from Essaywritingservice.com, *********, and CustomPapers.com

Topic Title -
Derrida, Plato, Foucault, Aristotle

Number of Sources -
4

Essay Topic

Please respond to the following question in the form of a short essay of 1000 words
maximum: It is sometimes said that Plato is to Derrida as Aristotle is to Foucault.
What do you think? (To respond to this question, you;ll need to summarize relevant
points from all four theorists and organize your paper schematically and carefully.
One could write a dissertation in response but not in this context! Try to cut to
the chase and construct a logical argument in response to this cryptic challenge.
You may use, but are not limited to the material in the Norton Anthology of Theory
and Criticism). Recommended Sources: Plato - Ion; Phaedrus; Republic Derrida - Of
Grammatology (1967); Dissemination (1972) Aristotle - Poetics; Rhetoric Foucault -
What is an Author? (1969); Discipline and Punish: The Birth of The Prison (1975);
Truth and Power (1977)


===========================From ESSAYWRITINGSERVICE.COM===============================

What Plato is to Derrida, Aristotle is to Foucault

2009


Aristotle (384-322 BC) was a disciple of Plato (c.427-347BCE, one of the world's most commonly read philosophers and student of Socrates) and studied at Plato's Academy for 20 years. He developed on Plato's philosophical teachings. In the same manner, Jacques Derrida, a French linguist, expanded on Michel Foucault's poststructuralist theory that rules and structures are not given in the world but evolve on the basis of power and knowledge by saying that texts can be 'deconstructed' to discover multiple meanings.
Plato's later works, including the Republic, combine morals, political philosophy, critical study of human knowledge and metaphysics into an interrelated and orderly philosophy. It is primarily from Plato that we get the theory of Forms, in keeping with which the world is just a replication of the wholesome, undying, and ageless world of the Forms (The Internet Encyclopedia, iep.utm.edu). From Plato, we learn that a man is good, because of his involvement in The Good ("anypothon", in Greek). Aristotle discarded the theory of forms ("eidos") as learnt from Plato. For Plato, forms (eidos) were the main concerns and indispensable conditions to make things comprehensible area as against the knowledge obtained through the senses. The main attention of Plato is an ideal society. He makes a plan for a "utopian" society, in his book The Republic, out of his scorn for the conflict in political life (Hacker, 24). This proposal was an attempt to a new society where such problems would be relieved (Hacker 24). Plato tried to heal the sufferings of both human society and human qualities (Hacker 24). Basically what Plato desires to attain is a faultless society. Derrida is not considered with the politics. Though Derrida himself does not grant deconstruction as a method or school of philosophy, or anything beyond reading the text itself, the term has been used by others to depict as Derrida's methods of textual analysis related to finding, identifying, and appreciating the causal that is tacit and implied— suppositions, ideas, and structures making the foundation for idea and belief, for example, in muddling the plain difference made between nature and culture. Deconstruction unsettles an idea like text triggering questions about the borders, the edges, or the boundaries drawn to define its place in the history of ideas, denotations assuming their identity, coming to denote what they denote, by just such a demarcation of frontiers, resisting ideas to each other, defining terms by their distinctions. So deconstructive reading starts by asking about the borders and the limits and how they come to pass.
In Aristotle's metaphysical study of nature and relations of beings, there are only tangible matters (this horse, that goblet, this urn etc.) and in discussion of the specific stuffs we use notions, but the objects - substances - get the main concern before the idea or forms, which we attribute to them. Aristotle built a theory of the good life (eudiamonia) for human beings according to Nichomachean Ethics. He argued that the good life is the most pleasurable one. But that does not mean that the pleasure-hunter's life is the good life. Rather, those who look for pleasure get it from incorrect places, with the consequence of being sidetracked from leading the good life. For Aristotle, Goodness is an indispensable element of the good life. But the good life cannot be related to righteousness since just being righteous is at one with leading an idle life or with misery greatly (Aristotle's Ethics, bcc.ctc.edu). Hence, happiness, which is related to morality, is different from simple pleasure. Moral Virtue is not the ending of life, for it can tone with idleness, unhappiness. He also says that personal good cannot be explained with precise accuracy. Ethics tries to make general values to be used according to the situation within reach (i.e., original conditions). The policy of the average is not a principle of relativism but principle applied to definite state of affairs. For example, the difference between the diet chart for a weight-lifter and a ballerina -- nonetheless, good diet has rules and standards to be applied differently in relation to different original conditions. Pleasure, itself, is a byproduct of action resulting from uninterferred action. As Aristotle articulates, pleasure is the normal adjunct of unhindered actions. It is, per se, neither good nor bad, but something helpful as the consequence of pleasure sharpens the use of that activity.
In his philosophical works like Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality, Foucault stresses that the body and sexuality, which result in pleasure, are cultural concepts rather than natural occurrences, as Aristotle found. Since the 17th century, the progress of and attention towards people became the main concerns of the state gradually. New systems of power surfaced centering around the supervision of 'life', that Foucault defines as 'bio-power', a new form of power combined around two poles, one concerned with the management of the life processes of the social mass, controlling such happenings as birth, death, sickness, disease, health, sexual relations and so on and the other pole that Foucault tagged as 'disciplinary power', aiming at the human body as an object to be maneuvered and educated. Foucault's idea that the body and sexuality are cultural creates has attracted the modern by relating power with and the body, albeit some of them have also drawn notice to its supposed weak points. In Discipline and Punish he depicts the way in which the most important method of disciplinary power, that is constant watch to be snatching the mind other than disciplining the body also. This is to generate a psychological condition of 'conscious and permanent visibility' (Foucault 1977: 201), sense of self- alertness that makes the modern individual. Foucault best exposes the systems at work in the building and upholding of the socio-cultural aspect of embodied sexuality. In spite of some significant indications where "bodies and pleasures" might challenge conventional steadiness, Foucault openly describes the striking display of disciplinary methods aimed at the singular body in all its facets, but primarily in its sexual pleasures (Foucault 1979, 1980). He shows that distant from begin in an intuitive, biological ground, sexuality continuously is in a state of vibrant development that is neither programmed nor totally open to intended options. Instead, sexuality is "organized by power in its grip on bodies and their materiality, their forces, energies, sensations and pleasures" (Foucault, 1979: 155).
Thus, it can be said that what Plato is to Derrida, Aristotle is to Foucault, the earlier two philosophers being the forerunners of the latter though separated by centuries. Aristotle, contrasting Plato, was not bothered with improving society. He only wanted to perk up the existing one. Before making a plan for the ideal society, Aristotle advised, in his work, The Politics, that the society itself should achieve the best promising orderliness that could be arrived at (Hacker 71). Aristotle trusted in the deductive method (Hacker 76). Aristotle found the best achievable had been acquired and what could be done was to strive to get better on the existing one. Foucault, too, says that the world is defined by the power relations and can hardly be changed. On the other hand, Derrida tries to deconstruct texts to unearth an utopian society.





Works Cited
Foucault, Michel, Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings, 1977-1984, L. Kritzman (ed.), London: Routledge, 1988a.
---- Power/Knowledge, U.K.: Harvester, 1980
----- The History of Sexuality, translated by R. Hurley, Penguin Books, 1978.
------ Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. A. Sheridan, Harmondsworth: Peregrine, 1977.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics in Introduction to Aristotle. Trans. Richard McKeon ,New York: The Modern Library, Ch. 1, 1094a, 1-3, 1947
Aristotle's Ethics, retrieved from <http://facweb.bcc.ctc.edu/wpayne/aristotle1.htm>
Plato, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/plato.htm>
Aristotle, <http://www.findlink.dk/?Aristotle>.
Hacker, Andrew. Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science. New York: Macmillan, 1961.

Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Spivak, Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974


==================== From *********=============================================

Topic: Philosophy
If you would like the same writer to complete future research development for you, please specify the writer's username (see above) when placing your next order.

The paper below is an example from which certain passages, ideas, and/or information may be referenced and correctly cited. This paper in its entirety may not be sold, reproduced, transmitted, or claimed in any manner without the written permission of Student Network Resources Inc.
IMPORTANT: Please remember that the charge on your bill or statement will appear as "Student Network Resources." It is illegal to claim that you have not received your order. This delivery email is documented proof that your order was delivered to the email address you provided. Student Network Resources will prosecute to the fullest extent of both state and federal law anyone who attempts to commit fraud against our service.
Disclaimer:
When you requested and paid for the services of Student Network Resources Inc., you agreed to be bound by our terms and conditions. Student Network Resources Inc. is not responsible, in any way, for your use of the research materials drafted by the author. Student Network Resources Inc. employs independent contractors who are solely responsible for the researching, editing, and delivery of the materials that you have purchased. You have agreed to reference the research materials at your own risk and will not use any passages, ideas, and/or information from the materials without proper citation. You are further reminded that Student Network Resources Inc. retains all rights to the research materials purchased by you and that Student Network Resources Inc. reserves the right to resell the materials at some point in the future. Since the research materials are provided to you by human beings, and may be based on numerous sources, it is strongly recommended that you conduct independent research to verify that all information is complete and accurate before referencing the material. This reminder does not contain all of the terms and conditions that govern your purchase.


Opposing Philosophical Views
Philosophy is often mistakenly viewed as a single trajectory, leading from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle and through the rest of the classical period, hibernating somewhat during the Dark Ages, and being restored again with the Enlightenment thinkers during the Renaissance. This simplistic view about the progress of Western thought could not be further from the truth, however. Philosophy is built on disagreement and the careful and skeptical analysis of other viewpoints, and most of civilization's greatest philosophers find themselves in disagreement with other leading thinkers quite often, if not absolutely every time they advance a theory.
This was true of ancient times just as it is now. Socrates was famously killed for propagating many of his beliefs, many of which ran counter to the prevailing logic and philosophy of the day. It is perhaps less well known yet arguably more important that Aristotle, who came directly after Plato as the leading philosopher of his age, disagreed on many important points with his predecessor. Their views on many things, but especially literature and other arts, are widely divergent and contradictory. Whereas Plato was rather conservative and even dismissive in his view regarding art, Aristotle celebrated it as a natural part of humanity.
This is, of course, a broad oversimplification of one of the many areas of disagreement between these two philosophers. Yet this view is not entirely inaccurate, and similar disagreements persist to this day. Two of the most prominent philosophers of the twentieth century, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, also found themselves opposed to each other in many views, not the least of which was the nature of art and the role of the author. In fact, its has been said that Plato is to Derrida as Aristotle is to Foucault, and such a comparison is not without merit.
To understand the ways in which these philosophers and their philosophies intersect and diverge, it is perhaps best to start with the earliest among them. In works like The Republic and Ion, Plato set out a clear stance against art, including poetry and drama (the established and virtually indistinguishable forms of literature in his day). At the same time, he considered beauty to be among the greatest of goods; a sign of divinity or near divinity. Though it might seem strange for beauty to be considered so good and art so evil, it is the very relationship between art and beauty and his immense appreciation of the latter that led Plato to his dismissal of the former.
Mimesis, or imitation (from which is derived our modern word "mimic"), was in Plato's mind one of the great evils. His conception of reality was that the world inhabited by humans was merely a shadow of the perfect world of the gods, and that this made the mortal world an imperfect imitation of a perfect existence. Any form of mimesis of representation consciously engaged in by mortals in this shadow world was, therefore, simply an imitation of an imitation, and fails automatically because it originates in representation rather than reality (Republic 603b).
In Plato's shortest dialogue, Ion, he seems to argue that an actor's portrayal of emotions is either a form of madness or inspired by simple greed. Neither of these would be considered good either by Plato's standards or our own, and the dialogue is constructed to exclude all other possibilities (536d,e). In short, Plato believes that we inhabit a world of imitation, and that any further imitation only separates us more from the truth. Plato believed that a search for the real truth—or at least a rejection of known facsimiles—was the only moral way to live.
Jacques Derrida has been accused of writing in a deliberately obtuse and obfuscated manner, so the relationship between his work and that of Plato's might not be immediately discernible. Perhaps the clearest connection between the two can be derived from Derrida's Of Grammatology, especially as it compares to Plato's aesthetics and view of reality. In this rather dense treatise, Derrida first outlines the phenomenon of what he calls logocentrism—the attitude that speech (logos in Greek) is the most basic and essential form of language, while writing is secondary in development and its ability to reflect meaning. Derrida claims that logocentrism has long been a silent and foundational part of Western thought, even from the time of Plato.
Plato believed that truth and meaning existed in a pure state somewhere, with the shadows of meanings existing in our own world. Derrida sees this as a flawed worldview, though not without potential. He uses some of Plato's thinking to deconstruct logocentrism. If speech is merely a representation of thought, and writing just a representation of speech, than writing is a representation of a representation—the evil mimesis of Plato's aesthetics. Through his method of deconstructing such binary oppositions, Derrida makes it clear (or at least as clear as he ever makes anything) that both speech and writing our subservient to each other, and actually create meaning. This has to do with the deceptively simple concepts of presence and absence—writing is present for the reader, whereas speech is always-already absent, having passed before the thoughts it contains can be processed. Derrida then claims not hat writing is more important than speech, but that both are equally adept at creating meaning and not merely represnting it; there is no meaning without presence, and so the speaker (or author) ceases to matter.
In a sense, this argument could be summed up as saying that the medium is meaning, precisely the opposite of what Plato proposed. Aristotle proposed another opposite to Plato's conception of mimesis. He agreed that all art was mimesis—an imitation—but noted that humans were naturally imitative creatures. But despite the fact that all humans had the capability of mimesis, it is also easily noted that some are better at it than others. That is, some imitations were better at achieving the emotional release or catharsis that Aristotle thought should be the aim of all art, especially drama (Poetics, 1449b). Therefore authorship was of immense importance to Aristotle. Each author was an individual conduit of imaginative imitation that could never again be produced, and meaning was created by individual interpretation.
Foucault's essay "What is an Author?" can be read as a direct extension of such Aristotelian beliefs. He comments on our tendency to imagine authors as isolated beings, not admitting that they are products of their times. He also nots that their words do not exist in a vacuum, and thoughthe words of a book would not change if it was discovered to have been written by a different author, our perception of those words and their meanings would. Meaning—not just words themselves, the representations of meaning—is subjective, according to Foucault. This makes the question of authorship of great importance in establishing truth.
It should be clear now why it is said that Plato is to Derrida as Aristotle is to Foucault. The concepts of aesthetics and truth follow a convoluted path over the millennia between the two sets of philosophers, and the issues are still unresolved.

=========================From CUSTOMPAPERS.COM=================================

Derrida, Foucalt, Plato and Aristotle

There is no shortage of discourse or influence of the famed thinkers, Derrida, Foucault, Plato and Aristotle. Both singularly and in conjunction with one another, virtually volumes have been written discussing their perspectives and even their relationships with one another to a degree. In terms of those relationships, it is sometimes said that Plato is to Derrida as Aristotle is to Foucault. In an effort to analyze this statement, the general thematic related to the individual's respective theory will be analyzed. In short, there is much veracity to the afore mentioned statement and the way in which the patterns of though interact between them makes this proclamation solid enough for a general understanding of their respective positions. The statement, "Plato is to Derrida as Aristotle is to Foucault" requires a close reading in order to make the necessary critical connections. First and foremost, the relationships between the thinkers can be classified according to time periods. Derrida and Foucault were living and propagating their theses as contemporaries of one another. Similarly, Aristotle was a student of Plato so they too can be considered contemporaries of one another to an extent. In terms of these relationships between contemporaries, each formulated conflicting theses from the other. For example, Derrida was an advocate of deconstructionist thought and Focault was associated with the structuralist movement. In the case of Plato and Aristotle, Plato saw the possibility of a political institution with classes that would not clash with one another that was ruled by the aristocracy. In contrast, Aristotle did not embrace the oligarchy favored by Plato in a favor of a system that was between a democracy and an oligarchy. In essence, Derrida and Foucault were in opposition to one another based on their position much in the same way that Plato and Aristotle for. When the collision between the doctrines of Derrida and Foucault are weighed against the classical debate present in Plato and Aristotle's doctrine, it can be accurately concluded that Derrida's position is more akin to Plato and Foucault's is more akin to Aristotle's. To better understand this relationship, specific references to their respective works are necessary for critical comparison. The philosophies of Plato and Aristotle differ on many issues (Northeastern 1). One of the most important things on which their differences appear are on their ethical theory (1). In short, Plato sees justice as a human virtue and Aristotle sees happiness as the ultimate goal to pursue (1). According to Plato in The Republic Book II, "...if each person does one thing for which he is naturally suited, does it at the right time, and is released from having to do any of others" better-quality of goods are more likely produced (56). Aristotle, in contrast has trouble with the aristocratic interpretations of what's best for another person. He has great mistrust of the tyrannical propensities for such an order. He states, "Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms" (345). In addition, he goes on to continue regarding the nature of the men in positions of governance, "There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters" (601). Justice as an individual human virtue, simply cannot holistically be present in the master and slave model or system of governance. The contexts of pursuing happiness would not produce consistent variables as each individual would have different interpretations that would extend beyond a soul starving for virtue. Aristotle presents a more complex and realistic format than the absolutes but forth by Plato. There is, however, a satisfaction and sense of stability present in establishing absolutes in the human psyche. As similar phenomenon can be found when considering Derrida and Foucault. In Truth and Power, Foucault takes a stand akin to the Aristotle argument that looks up on those in power or seeking power with scrutiny. Though perhaps not the same argument, his position in the respective debate of his era is more similar to how Aristotle stood against Plato. Foucault states "...it's not so much a matter of knowing what external power imposes itself on science, as of what effects of power circulate among scientific statements, what constitutes, as it were, their internal regime of power" (200). Power, in this model, has a disposition to influence things potentially quite negatively thus moving in a direction potentially detrimental to humankind regardless of its perceived legitimacy. The accord between classes or powers, as propagated by Plato, simply would not exist as historically, Foucault believes, chaos has been a result of colliding powers (150). Derrida, on the other hand, takes on a position more akin to Plato in his respective debate and has actually referenced Plato a great deal during his writings. Derrida, however, during his discourse on Plato, deconstructs the text and actually finds an number of inconsistencies in the dialogue of Plato. As a result, it is important to note that the commonality between Derrida and Plato is not a literal acceptance by Derrida of Plato's doctrine but an overall mood of the role he plays in the Derrida vs. Foucault debate. Derrida, though akin to Plato in this model, is not actually literally subscribing to the same doctrine and this notation is critical for understanding how the relationships between the thinkers work. Derrida, using deconstruction, could do the same thing to virtually any argument that he did to Plato's. In contrast, however, his focus on self reflection or self-consciousness is similar to the innate human desire for virtue that Plato expounds. In contrast, however, justice or virtue would be impossible to achieve by the nature of deconstructionist thought. Like the Plato perspective of aristocracy in the necessity of rule, Derrida does not agree with aristocratic control, however, he does admit that the combination between sovereignty and democracy is a contradiction of terms (Derrida 100).
Describing how "Plato is to Derrida as Aristotle is to Foucault" is somewhat of a cryptic task. In this capacity, it is laden with brevity and hidden meanings that extend far beyond simple literal explanations. In this regard, Derrida does not directly subscribe to Plato's school of thought and Foucault does directly subscribe to all that which Aristotle propagates. In reality, the relationship is much more informal and spirited. Spirit, in this capacity, can be defined as in the same vane or taking on similar qualities. In modern times, the debate between Foucault and Derrida is much like the ancient debates between Plato and Aristotle. If viewed in a classic sense, the way in which Derrida's role is characterized in the contemporary debate would be similar to the role that aristotle played in the classic argument. Similarly, the role in which Foucault plays in his respective debate would be more akin to the position of Aristotle. While the examples provided illustrate how the debate manifests and classifies itself in relationship to the statement relationship, this is only one example. There are countless ways in which the relationships between the famed thinkers can be explored. Furthermore, it is probable that the scope of their respective debates and their individual positions will continue to invoke future philosophers who will also debate the subjects.



Works Cited

Aristotle. The Complete Works of Aristotle. Ed. J. Barnes. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984. Derrida, J. Rouges. New York: Stanford University Press, 2004. "Ergon: Plato V. Aristotle." Northeastern University. 2009. <http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/rar/ PvA.htm>. Foucault, M. The Foucault Reader. Ed. P. Rainbow. New York: Pantheon, 1984. Plato. The Republic. New York: Penguin Classics. 1955.

These appear to be written by ESL students who don't know how to use spell check.
Essays are from valwriting.com, essaytown.com, custompapers.com and essaywritingservice.com

http://www.essayscam.org/Forum/11_1007_0.html

and

http://www.essayscam.org/Forum/11_983_0.html#newreply

hmmm the middle one has no citations at the end? did you forget to paste here or was it sent to you without citations?

See also

http://www.essayscam.org/Forum/9_1008_0.html

and

http://www.essayscam.org/Forum/11_983_0.html

No citations or works cited list were given

Where you see the stars is where someone deleted the word E.S.S.A.Y.T.O.W.N

Philosophy is built on disagreement and the careful and skeptical analysis of other viewpoints, and most of civilization's greatest philosophers find themselves in disagreement with other leading thinkers quite often, if not absolutely every time they advance a theory.



Philosophy indeed! :D

Korrupshun: The writer could be a native speaker and may be made these mistakes in a rush. Writers are prone to mistakes that is why proofreaders exist. Nevertheless, the paper is of poor quality. But you can not do anything. You agree to get screwed. A fraudulent company would do that without telling you, however a legit company would take your consent first.
LMAO

Ok, some1 is deleting my posts, so this one will probably be next. I was trying to give you ppl what I think is a good reason to write your own papers. So much for that

Don't worry I took prints of the web page before it was censored :D

Why do you think so? I see nothing wrong with the papers. Are they plagiarized or something?

Major my eyes are hurting so I cant read all of them. Just a quick skim revealed several instances of poor usage, poor sentence structure and grammatical errors.

"Philosophy is built on disagreement and the careful and skeptical analysis of other viewpoints, and most of civilization's greatest philosophers find themselves in disagreement with other leading thinkers quite often, if not absolutely every time they advance a theory."

this is from the middle one. It is an example of pathetic expression. Too many points squeezed into one sentence. This is definitely not by a native speaker. Well it could be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
LOL

Humble, I agree with Major, in general. The first paper is very questionable. However, there are no significant problems whatsoever with the second and third papers. You need to get your false accusations in check.


There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that sentence, neither grammatically nor intellectually. You should not comment on the writing proficiency of others, as your commentary has proven that you are not qualified to judge.


You are completely wrong.

I will ask one of my linguist friends to comment on it :)

Any qualified, native English-speaking writer will confirm that my statements are true.

A bad expression does not mean it is grammatically incorrect.

In no way is it "a bad expression," either. You may think that to be the case because you were taught an ESL form of English, but you are wrong.

Your false statements about "poor quality" are inexcusable.

The paper written by ET shows absolutely no signs whatsoever of an "ESL" writer. In fact, the writing is excellent, to which any impartial person will surely attest. Similarly, I see no evidence of "ESL" writing in the paper by CP. You obviously have some sort of foul agenda to defame, with subsequent help from Humble.

I have already contacted ET and plan to contact CP, as well. Korrupshun, you are guilty of both defamation and Federal copyright infringement. I assume that you'll be hearing from the attorneys of at least one of the companies very soon.

Guesswork!
What made you wonder I was taught an ESL form of English?

And that expression is poor :D

It is obvious that you are paid by someone to promote and defend ET here.

If you do not agree with any of our terms and conditions, or intend to commit any form of academic fraud by not properly citing our service as a reference, you may NOT do business with our company.

5. Copyright Notice: All Materials are protected by copyright law and by international treaties. Aside from a reasonable number of copies for personal use, you may not otherwise reproduce, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, or create derivative works of this material, unless authorized by ********* and/or its affiliates/partners.

Is there a legit company that would actually sell the material with copyrights?

Do you deny it? I can tell from your writing. You're NOT American, and your native language is NOT English. In fact, you admit on your user page that you are not American:

"Location: I am not from US"

If I had to guess, I'd go with Pakistani. Why? You've commented on local concerns in Pakistan. For example:
That sentence was obviously typed by an ESL person, by the way.


So, you think you're more qualified to judge? Prove it. What's your precise justification? I'll tell you exactly why you are stone-cold wrong.


Here we go again—you post lies, I prove you wrong, and then you start with the false accusations because you can't handle me in a legit debate. First of all, you have absolutely ZERO proof to support your ignorant accusation. Secondly, I defended TWO papers against your false accusations, one from each of TWO different companies. Why do you not accuse me of working for CP, as well?

The only thing that is "obvious" is that I am going to embarrass you if you insist on challenging me to prove who's correct about the overall quality of the papers.

A fact is a fact. Two of the three papers that you irresponsibly referred to as "poor" are anything but "poor." I'd grade one as "good" and one as "excellent." Major echoed that obvious fact before I even posted in this thread!

Well, what do you know? I was correct.


http://www.essayscam.org/Forum/9_16_0.html#msg12338

I attended a school that has British English as medium of instruction.


May be you work for SNR and your primary job is to create this USP (Legit American) for ET. This is because they have loaded terms. They can resell the papers, they will retain the copyrights, the purchaser has to delete the paper. The purchaser can only read and cite the paper if any part of it is used in any form.
May be CP is owned by SNR or is an affiliate of SNR so you could defend them as well.

There is a probability! and there definitely is.

What happened to this brazen denial?


Whoops!


Whoops!

Bit of advice, humble: don't start a fight with me, and you won't get embarrassed.

You know what whenever something comes up that hints at a possible relationship between you and SNR or its affiliates, you overreact.


I just questioned your logic. I was not taught an ESL form of English. I also graduated from an American university. My works have been excepted by American and British clients. I am not here to promote myself or any organization that I work for.

Why do you have an issue if someone has a negative opinion about a certain company? or if someone violates Copyrights.

Time to hit the bed you can get back to work in the morning :)

HAha, ya, I'm sure they're gonna pay retainers to sue for copyright infringement on 100 dollar essays. Way to go, stoolie. Hmm, 2500 posts and a finking law-lover... OCPD anyone? Anywho, I just posted these for the benefit of other prospective buyers. I hope they stay on here a while so folks can judge for themselves if they're legitimate or not. I still think they're poorly written given I specified college level or higher when ordering. I won't be back again, so gas up your flamethrowers and fire away.

There was no "hint." You made a blatantly false accusation. What—you expect me to look the other way? Sorry, won't happen. Keep your baseless jabs in check, and I won't have to react.


Yes, and I explained my logic quite clearly. I also proved that I was correct.


Your first language is not English. Therefore, you were taught an "ESL form" of English. ESL instruction is not the same as English instruction for children whose first language is English. For example, ESL instructors often have to overcome serious pronunciation problems in the pupils' existing language. Verb/object/subject placement in English may also be different. Native learners do not have to overcome any "bad habits" as part of a transition to English. Native learners have a clean slate; hence, the form of instruction is much more clean and straightforward.


You did not post an "opinion." You posted a clear misrepresentation. There is absolutely nothing of noticeably "poor" quality about Papers 1 and 2. Major brought that fact to light, and I verified it.

You have a comprehension problem there. I did not learn English as a second language. And you were wrong because I grew up with British English and not Pakistani.

The second paper is without citations. A paper that does not give credit or lacks proper citations is plagiarized be it intentional or unintentional.

Uh oh, don't break Rule #5 just because you're getting frustrated with your losing argument.


Not only did I know for a fact that you are an ESL writer, I guessed correctly that you are Pakistani. Do you think it was a lucky guess on both accounts? Nope. I was able to immediately recognize the ESL nature of your writing; specifically, your writing includes mistakes that are common to native speakers of Hindi and Urdu.


There are three possible reasons for the absence of a bibliography in Paper #2:

1. not necessary, as the text is strictly the product of the writer's knowledge and there are no direct citations;
2. not requested and/or paid for by the client;
3. not included by the poster.

In short, your "plagiarism" statement could not possibly be any more incorrect. Please tell me that that poppycock is not how you are now going to try to justify your "poor quality" accusations, as well as your accusations that the company is not legitimate and that it "screwed" the customer. Why don't you simply admit that you blatantly mischaracterized the quality of those 2 papers and issued false accusations?

can u list those common mistakes

Take your time and find out what such common mistakes are. Then point out wherever you find them in my posts. Let every one see your 'fact based evidence'.

Happy Hunting!

Sorry, but I won't be wasting any more of my time in proving you wrong. Been there, done that. I proved that my methods are valid by correctly stating that you are an ESL writer AND, specifically, an ESL writer of Pakistani descent. The proof is in the pudding.

The main point of my posts in this thread is that you made clear misrepresentations about two of the Papers and the companies that provided those papers. There is no excuse for your defamation. You should prove that you have integrity by admitting that you made unjust misrepresentations.

Had I not disclosed my location and nationality, there was absolutely no way for you to find out.


You can immediately recognize (LOL) so there is no need to search and waste time. I would give you more space. Just list the common writing mistakes that an ESL writer of Pakistani decent would make. You would be wasting time only if you try to find those mistakes in my posts, If in the first place you are able to list those immediately recognizable mistakes.

You need to decide which paper has problems. In one post you said the first and second have no problem and in another you said the second and third have no problem.



[qoute=WritersBeware]The first paper is very questionable. However, there are no significant problems whatsoever with the second and third papers. You need to get your false accusations in check.[/quote]

The facts are:
1)The 2nd papers lacks a a list of references at the end. There are references to Poetics and Republic in the text. There should have been full citations at the end.
2)As claimed by the customer 4 sources were requested.
3) I confirmed if the he/she forgot to paste the references here and here is the response.




WB you may have always been right but you just lost here. Now stop whining and move on!

3) I confirmed if the he/she forgot to paste the references and here is the response.
humble:
(made a typo :P)

Since the customer posted the paper here and privacy is obviously not a concern for the customer, I have emailed the company to request a copy of the customer's order specs. We'll just see what the customer did and did not request.


That is HILARIOUS.

Humble, I bet you feel just fantastic about yourself, having pointed-out a TYPO in one of my posts (Papers 2 and 3 are the solid papers). Congratulations on that monumental victory. LMAO!

Feel free to entertain yourself with your senseless, nonsensical ramblings. You are no match for me, and I will not waste a second more of my time on you.

Redundant. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Oh, and before you go off shooting "No.. of course they're not redundant! I'm a master of the English language and nonsensical has an entirely different meaning from senseless" let me just point out that "ridiculous" would have been a better word choice for that meaning of nonsensical that you would be referring to.

Have a nice day. ^___^

The fact remains. You were simply unable to back your statement with any sort of evidence.
This following statement was slander. If you think otherwise please provide evidence.





"Privacy Policy

We do not save or store customer information.

We delete all order information after emailing our product to the customer."


I never claimed such a thing.

1. Wrong.

2. Your posts, in general, are replete with so many mistakes that there's not enough time in a day to even entertain the possibility of publicly correcting them.

3. It takes infantile desperation to even mention that instance of word choice. That would be like me bringing attention to the fact that in the same sentence in which you incorrectly "schooled" me, you ended that sentence with a preposition.