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

Educate yourself.

1. Slander is VERBAL.

2. My statement is 100% true, and I proved it, despite your attempted smokescreen. You're just mad because I was correct.


Providing the poster's ORDER SPECIFICATIONS to me, minus the poster's name or any other personal details, in no way violates the company's privacy policy, especially since the customer admittedly violated the contract that he signed with the company by publishing the paper here. Nice try, though.

They should have already deleted all information related to the order. I believe they do not falsely advertise that, "We delete all order information after emailing our product to the customer."


Legally yes. Slander was not appropriate there.

You did not provide any proof! You just made a sweeping statement based on the limited knowledge that you have regarding my person, which I myself provided.
I am still waiting for a single IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZABLE mistake that speakers of Hindi/Urdu make.

Again, you're just mad because I was correct. I knew absolutely NOTHING about you when I posted those statements. You denied my assertions and made false accusations against me; I simply did what it took to PROVE that my assertions about you are correct.

You must have missed it, but I clearly explained to you that I will not waste my time pointing out all of your inherently ESL writing mistakes, some of which are especially common in native writers of Hindi and Urdu. In addition to wasting my time, I would be HELPING you by providing that critical information, which you do not deserve after having made false accusations against me.

In general, you seem like a decent person. I really do not want to get abrasive with you. I suggest that we cease this useless spat.

I only ask you to let everyone know one such mistake, if not few. I am not asking you to point out in my posts. The reason I am so confidently asking you to bring evidence is because there is no credible study in my knowledge that deals with the subject. So you must have made that statement on the basis of your experience.

The point is you made false accusations against me too. I did not challenge your statement about my nationality. I challenge your statement that I make IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZABLE mistakes that are common to people from this region. You also without any proof claim that I am a native speaker Urdu/Hindi. It is dumb to assume that every American speaks and writes English as first language when a sizable population of the United States does not even understand functional English.

So did they give you the order details?

Hahaha... yet no proof is provided? :P See, here's another instance where I definitely kicked your sorry arse. I'm going to keep count from now on so that I can give you a number when you question me about it.

Times EW_Writer kicked WB's arse since April 20, 2009: 2.

Absolutely correct—I never suggested otherwise. Experience from my previous job serves me quite well in identifying linguistic tendencies of different groups.


No, I didn't. I stated that you are not a native speaker of the English language, and I was correct. You learned English, in a British school in Pakistan, after having learned Urdu/etc. in the home, right?


I'd love for you to quote where I made such a claim.


No response yet.

Proof of what—that you're infantile? Your incessant fascination with me and stalking is pathetic.


It's all in your head, pal.

Where did the Rule #5 whiners go?

Sigh... there must be a term for what you have (the neurotic inability to admit one's mistakes), but as I'm not a psychiatrist, I don't know what it is and I'm too lazy to google it. :)

Sigh . . . . Please seek help for your obsession with me.

By the way, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with or improper about the wording that I chose. Don't blame me because your vocabulary is painfully limited. LMAO! Allow me to educate you a bit:

"Senseless" and "nonsensical" are absolutely NOT the same word. Yes, they share some similar "definitions" and, in certain situations, may be used interchangeably, but in the context in which I used them together, they carry completely different meanings. I used "senseless" to indicate that the argument is silly and a complete waste of time. I then used the secondary adjective, "nonsensical," to indicate that the actual words and arguments COMPRISING that argument do not make sense.

Now, EW_writer, please leave me alone so that I do not have to continually show why nobody should hire you. To state that you are unqualified is an understatement. Thank you for the FINE example.

Even if you said this based on your experience, the statement is not backed by facts. You have failed to list even a single IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZABLE mistake that is made by native speakers of Urdu/Hindi. You have wasted days because you simply do not know and Google would not help you. It only takes a few seconds to list an IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZABLE mistake from ones experience.


True. I am not a news caster. I have no pronunciation problems I can communicate well.

One in 5 American's do not speak English at home. It is a fact. I never said you claimed such a thing.
I can academically and legally challenge you that my writing skills are better than many native speakers of English.

Even the legit companies do not ask what language one speaks at home. They only look at the writing skills and verify location. I can bet there must be writers working with legit companies who do not speak English as their first language. Every person who does not speak English as first language DOES NOT necessarily write garbage or anything academically inferior.

See, now we get to the REAL reason why you're pissy. I would absolutely LOVE for you to quote where I made such a generalization. You are irresponsibly attacking me without having taken the time to read my previous posts or simply ASK me to clarify my position for the 10,000th time. On numerous occasions, I have clearly and explicitly stated that not all ESL writers are "unqualified." My problem is with the UNQUALIFIED, ESL writers who LIE about their qualifications in order to fool American customers. So, if you are neither a crook nor an UNQUALIFIED, ESL writer, you have no reason to be offended.

'Nuff said. ^_^

Oh wait.. no, you even got the definitions mixed up. >.<

Silly = ridiculous = nonsensical.

Sigh... and YOU'RE the English language expert? o.O

I now repeat my previous explanation since you obviously do not know when to stop an embarrassingly lost argument.

I am offended at this baseless accusation.

WritersBeware:
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.

FYI, one is not "offended at . . . ." One is "offended by . . . ."

WB

FYI There is a subtle difference between the usage of 'offended at' and 'offended by'. I do not have the time to teach you English, you may refer to page 107 of "The Correct Preposition - How to Use It a Complete Alphabetic List" By Josephine Truck Baker
Published by READ BOOKS, 2008 ISBN 1443729671, 9781443729673

Limited preview of the book is also available at Google Books.

Since you have simply failed to list even a single common mistake by native speakers of Urdu/Hindi. Here are a few:

1) Confusion between the usage of have/has, which/that, like/such as, and so on.
2) Using past tense verb with did.

It is very likely that native speakers of other languages may also make to these mistakes.

LOL! I'm glad you're busy.

For the THIRD time:

You have the time to do this?

There is nothing wrong with "Offended at". You have the guts to argue back when you are totally wrong and have no evidence to support your claim.

WB you are not good at this. Investigate frauds!
Age qoud agis!

When one is "offended," it is because some sort of perceived offense has been committed against him/her by an outside source. Therefore, it is proper for one to type "offended BY" to communicate that the offense was committed by an outside source. For one to type "offended AT" wrongly leaves the door open to the possibility that one could be feeling this negative emotion at someone/something who/that has done absolutely nothing, neither actual nor perceived.

Now, I would appreciate it if you would stop harassing me.

For the FOURTH time:

I have given you the source that explains the usage of 'offend' with different prepositions. You may be a native speaker, you are definitively not an authority on English Linguistics.

Offended by - has a notion of getting annoyed.
Offended at - has a notion of displeasure.

You can get offended at things. There is nothing wrong in it. It was absolutely correct in the sense I used.

"I suggest that we cease this useless spat."

LOL! You think that you are superior to me because you can do a Google search? Unlike you, I don't have to "look up" information to prove my points about linguistics.



You were "offended BY" statements that I posted here. End of story.

LOL
I was offended at that baseless accusation. You only made fun of yourself by pointing out that one can not get offended at things.

When there is an argument it is better to quote a third party that is neutral.
I wish you had Googled before telling me that I could not get offended at something.



Why wrongly? Source?
Don't want to waste time?
Oh yea you won't get paid for it.

As usual, you resort to false, personal accusations and insults. That is a sign of frustration.

If you care to take a peak at other, new threads in the forum, you can see that my time is better spent in actually HELPING people to avoid scams instead of wasting my time on your personal crusade of being "offended AT" my statements.

Have a nice day.

Did someone from India just make a fool out of WB's fabled grammatical expertise? ^_^

Sorry. My explanation proved my point quite correctly.


Please take your tired act of fight-starting elsewhere.

You could do the same and when asked for evidence make silly excuses, "I will not waste my time."
I just shared my opinion once on this forum, and admitted that it was my opinion. I have no proof to support it. I don't even say it any more. You just keep accusing me of being an incompetent writer without giving any factual evidence.

Should I pay you .25 cents per word to give evidence to support your baseless accusations against me?

EW_writer: I did not. She did it herself.


WB: I am really sorry. Please forgive me :D

Humble, as I have communicated to EW_writer, jealousy is an ugly thing.

Indeed it is and so is arrogance.

Actually, it seems that he got you stumped when he asked you for proof on your claim that "offended at" is always grammatically incorrect. Do you really have proof on this one? ^_^


Hey.. don't be too hard on yourself. You've got a few good angles. ^_^

So humble from now on, every time the green-eyed monster tries to pull either the grammar card or the evidence card, we'll just have this thread to slap her with and she'll be silenced. ^_^ Many thanks to you.

LOL. Too bad that I already explained why I am correct. Even if I were incorrect, which I am absolutely not, THAT is the victory on which you will hang your hat? ROTFLMAO! There are countless posts and threads in which I have utterly schooled you, finally leaving you with no other response but to FRUSTRATINGLY ADMIT to being a liar and a fraud.

EW_writer, you really need a cure for your obsession with me. It's sad. Move on with your life. Even though I have to refute multiple frauds and stalkers on a near-daily basis, your combined efforts have NEVER been enough to defeat me or prove me wrong in any regard. I, on the other hand, have dealt so many devastating pieces of evidence against you and those like you, including your fraudulent employers, that I wouldn't even know where to begin in listing them individually. It's probably easier for unbiased people who want REAL, TRUE information about fraudulent companies to simply refer to my PROFILE to see the huge number of scam-busting threads that I have posted. What you guys don't seem to understand is that I could not possibly care any less what YOU think about me or what agendas you have that lead you to constantly attack me. Bottom line—I post verifiable, third-party evidence to protect consumers. The more you hate me and protest me, the more you fuel my fire and push me to conduct more investigations for the public good. Thank you.

so EW is doing good in a way :D


WB,
I am intentionally ignoring some parts of your post for obvious reasons.

The hell you did. ^_^ Oh, and I don't pretty much care about your evidences. Post away, we love reading about how ew fakes their fire drills. ROFLMAO! I just can't wait for the next time that you criticize another poster's grammar. ^__^

Just my two cents here but I tend to agree with WritersBeware. Before anyone accuses me of being affiliated with any of the websites in question, just want to tell you that I own and operate a company affiliated with none of the mentioned. I just do not see the point in calling a piece of writing which is good, bad. What purpose does that serve? WritersBeware is right.

Well, one of them lacked citations. Though there were two sources cited in the text, a list of full citations at the end was not there. This is poor quality. When judging quality, a good piece of writing is not all that matters. It has to conform to the requirements of the customer. If a customer asks for 10 pages and you give 2, though written well, the paper would most likely be classified as poor.

As previously asked by humble... source? ^_^

A source for what—common sense and reason? If you had a better understanding of the word and the context in which it was used, you would understand that I am correct.

Please take a look at the source I referenced in one of my posts. The fact that you are biased is
If we consider this explanation true for a moment. Why wrongly?

Source must be a neutral one.





My usage was absolutely correct. 'Offended at' has a meaning of displeasure. It also sounds a bit more polite.

Humble was able to provide a reliable source that "offended at" is not a grammatically incorrect expression in the context that he used it in which disproves that this



is always the case. ^_^