List of Legitimate Members

remember WB-- you are more in your element using personal attack and straw man tactics, not appeals to popularity.

I'm betting that the people who are actually paid to do hatchet jobs on writing sites over the net are very few. Most of the individuals who set out to destroy a site's reputation are site owners themselves who do not need to get paid to be properly motivated to make attempts at ruining the competition. Still, I believe that there are "professionals" who have above-average writing skills that some companies use to take on the perpetual duty of launching campaigns to mar the competition. These select few devote a ridiculous amount of time gathering "evidence" while hiding behind some practically unbelievable cover story such as being some sort of successful philanthropist just making contributions for the common good. In order to make the cover story believable to lesser thinkers, these people utilize their above-average writing skills to make them look credible.

The battle fought in the message boards which are the battlegrounds of these professional hatchet workers is far more simple than they make it appear. They boldly proclaim that they are out to take down particular sites by presenting one supposedly damaging evidence after another but in a span of years, these evidences fail to do anything. If people would look into why this is so, one thing would become apparent. This is that all these evidences are virtually unverifiable unless actual authorities move in to verify them, something that authorities would not do because what they are really concerned about is not that some writing sites are off-shore or that these sites lie about where they are based but rather the fact that writing sites provide homework that students submit for credit. Anyone can verify this by trying to find any evidence that the United States government has actually made any attempt at all to bring down off-shore companies for being off-shore and lying to their clients about it. Despite the overwhelming evidences and confessions made on this message board, no official move has been made because this matter is simply a non-issue. Instead, what people would find are academic institutions trying to get the government involved in clamping down on writing sites in general that provide homework to students. But if this is the case, does it mean that professional hatchet workers are fighting a lost cause? The answer to that is no, because the actual cause of these people is not actually to close certain sites down but to make it seem like these sites would not provide quality work for students by making legitimacy equate to quality. In effect, what these people constantly do is create straw men. In logical fallacies, straw men are arguments constructed to look like they are relevant to the issue when in fact they are not. Hatchet workers construct straw men and then tackle and destroy them, making the illusion that they have won legitimate arguments when really, all that they have one are arguments that they themselves created. Thus, when unsuspecting students looking for a place to buy homework read these people's work, they are automatically made to feel that the sites that hatchet workers point out will scam them out of their money because these sites lie about their location and their writers' academic qualifications when these two have virtually no proven correlation with writing competence (how many great writers actually have MAs or PhDs?).

Still, there are occasions when these professionals are forced to cease their efforts and bluntly speaking, are made to shut up. These occasions occur when they commit mistakes that make them look inept or that invariably hurt their employers' interests. For example, if such a person establishes himself or herself as an excellent writer, proving that he or she is also prone to mistakes and hammering on these mistakes constantly would make the person's employers pull the hatchet worker out temporarily to let the issue die down without the worker ever addressing it properly. Another example is when a hatchet worker inadvertently presents solid evidence pointing out that it is more likely for students to get caught cheating if they buy from the companies that the hatchet worker supports. These things are likely to get the worker suspended for some time and perhaps seriously penalized.

The bottom line is, customers should always be wary of what they read on the internet regardless of how well it is written or how convincing it seems. They should focus on the key questions when looking for a writing service rather than being lured to watch the straw man spectacles that hatchet workers offer. Would the service provide me with papers written in the quality that I desire? Would I be safe in using the papers that I buy for whatever purpose I have? These are the only questions that matter.

Na na. I'm gonna steal your pencil at first recess :)

Dearbats, I don't want to jump to conclusions about your official position.

Just to be clear, do you share EW_writer's twisted belief that because one admits to engaging in fraud and working for verifiably fraudulent companies, that wipes one's hands free of guilt and magically makes one an honest or "legitimate" member who posts selfless information about which visitors actually care?

We're just honest enough to say that the companies we work for are far from perfect. At the same time, we also demonstrate that we are competent writers who consistently win the confidence and continued patronage of our clients.

remember WB-- you are more in your element using personal attack and straw man tactics, not appeals to popularity.

If you had read the post clearly

I'd like to share with you what I like about EW - the fact that he/she is not prejudiced despite his/her excellent command over English language and has to this point, never discriminated members on the basis of their nationality.

up here to personally attack ALL members of the forum

I was attacked and called a show-off or something just because I talked about my experience with A-R. Really don't know why ... but can assume

reveal that the owners of certain companies lie about the geographical location of their companies and nationalities of their writers?

constitute "discrimination" against the wolf, regardless of its guilt?

I am going to report you to the RSPCA!

EW_writer accuses me of being a "bigot" against certain humans. Of course, he's too much of a coward to even attempt to prove it. No surprise there.

Yeah, but did you know that rusty is the latest "innocent victim" of my wrath? He also made EW_writer's "list of legitimate members," while we don't qualify. ;)

Frankly speaking, I care a damn whether or not I'm considered legit on this forum (which is why I preferred to remain silent)

I suggest that you watch the derogatory tone, unless you'd like me to point-out all of the mistakes in your posts.

I read the post perfectly clearly, and asked you to clarify before concluding that you support fraudulent business practices.

It seems that you are also incapable of civil interaction.

It's pretty damn low of you to take a pot-shot like that and leave.

So are you a legitimate member of this forum?

How many times have you mentioned foreign company/writer and scam in the same sentence?

Cut the crap, you're a bigot and EVERYONE here knows it.

Please, go ahead. Its the best you can do I'm sure.

This industry isn't even considered legit according to US laws and you have taken the onus to deem others fraudulent?!

Does the fact that you're associated with EssayTown make you less fraudulent than the rest of us here?

What civil interaction are you referring to here? The fact that I openly appreciate EW's posts, makes me incapable of civil interaction?

Actually, the fact that you insulted me after I had given you the COURTESY of not jumping to conclusions about your position on fraud is what makes you incapable of civil discourse.

civil discourse.

would you prefer to continue blowing hot air out of your behind?

The website design is excellent which can be one factor that makes people believe it is a genuine site but in reality it is total scam!

You got that 100% correct, cliff! It's a sickening game plan.

Why not produce a definitive list of those whom NOT TO TRUST?

I challenge you to show that I am incorrect. What have I stated, at ANY time, that is verifiably incorrect?

Proof of your lies:

Man - you guys get really nasty, don't you?