EssayScam ForumEssayScam.org
Students, Writers, Essay Services - The Insider News    
Forum / Writing Careers / answers: 72 - page 2 of 2

Prospect solution - a reliable company to work for?


Nov 9, 2011, 08:39PM | #41
WritersBeware:
All you have to do is repost my statement about Meo in its ENTIRETY and we'll go from there. Scared?

Not at all. I'm just going by the rules you set. I issued the first challenge. Answer that, and I'll gladly answer yours. :p

Funny thing, when I use the "i issued the challenge first," you call me scared, but you don't seem to have any trouble utilizing it as your first (yet ultimately futile) line of defense.

WritersBeware  
Nov 10, 2011, 12:04PM | #42
EW_writer:
Funny thing, when I use the "i issued the challenge first," you call me scared, but you don't seem to have any trouble utilizing it as your first (yet ultimately futile) line of defense.

There can't be TWO "firsts," Margie. You think that because you posted your retaliatory challenge in a different thread that you get to slap the "first" label on it? Sorry, that's not how it works, Margie. To this point, you have FAILED to post my "global errors." Until you either post them or admit that you are a dishonest and blind propagandist, you will not have answered my original challenge.

Nov 10, 2011, 04:32PM | #43
WritersBeware:
Margie. To this point, you have FAILED to post my "global errors."

Hahaha... what happened to:

WritersBeware:
Um, you can't intentionally misquote me and then challenge me to defend a position that I did not take in the context that you deviously suggest.


^___^

Make up your mind on what excuse you want to use, dimwit. ^___^

WritersBeware  
Nov 10, 2011, 07:49PM | #44
EW_writer:
Make up your mind on what excuse you want to use, dimwit. ^___^

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.

Nov 10, 2011, 10:20PM | #45
WritersBeware:
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.


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

WritersBeware:
Um, you can't intentionally misquote me and then challenge me to defend a position that I did not take in the context that you deviously suggest.


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. ^__________^


Nov 11, 2011, 02:46AM | #47
MeoKhan:
And you think people will believe it?


EW_writer:
I never sided with rusty on his allegation of your specific global errors).


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

Here's other stuff you'd find there:

WritersBeware:
You know damn well that Meo's writing is flawed—to a large extent—because he is an ESL speaker,


WritersBeware:
Meo admits that he is an ESL writer with certain shortcomings in English-language writing.


EW_writer:
MeoKhan is a crappy writer


editor75:
as EW writer and I have both explained, mistaking "at first" and "in the first place," and "flare" for "flair" (these two examples are the tip of the iceberg) are global errors. rather than being slips of the fingers, they are deep and serious misunderstandings about how the English language is put together, and they make you look like a crappy writer.


^___^

Nov 11, 2011, 08:51AM | #48
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

pheelyks  
Nov 11, 2011, 10:31AM | #49
raffaella:
i find it huuuuuugely derogatory and huuuuuuugely demeaning and discriminatory..but it's true.

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.

WritersBeware  
Nov 11, 2011, 02:37PM | #50
EW_writer:
(which by the way, I already answered by saying that I never sided with rusty on his allegation of your specific global errors).

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

Nov 11, 2011, 03:17PM | #51
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

Nov 11, 2011, 04:59PM | #52
WritersBeware:
So, does that make Rusty a liar and/or you a blind supporter of liars and propagandists?

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

EW_writer:
I already answered by saying that I never sided with rusty on his allegation of your specific global errors


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.

^__^

WritersBeware  
Nov 11, 2011, 07:26PM | #53
EW_writer:
WritersBeware:
So, does that make Rusty a liar and/or you a blind supporter of liars and propagandists?

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

EW_writer:
I already answered by saying that I never sided with rusty on his allegation of your specific global errors

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.

Nov 11, 2011, 07:38PM | #54
WritersBeware:
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.

pheelyks  
Nov 11, 2011, 08:05PM | #55
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.

Nov 11, 2011, 08:17PM | #56
WritersBeware:
I challenged you to prove that Rusty is not (as you assert) a clueless, lying propagandist by simply referencing my "global errors."

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

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

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

WritersBeware  
Nov 11, 2011, 08:44PM | #57
EW_writer:
WritersBeware:
I challenged you to prove that Rusty is not (as you assert) a clueless, lying propagandist by simply referencing my "global errors."

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

EW_writer:
I said that rusty is neither stupid nor clueless.

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


EW_writer:
I never claimed that he wasn't [a liar] and I am not claiming that he is [a liar]. I have no interest in doing so and have never expressed any.

That's some good ol' snake oil salesman bullsh*t 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 bullsh*t and many others also know that it is bullsh*t, 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*CKED 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.

Nov 11, 2011, 09:47PM | #58
WritersBeware:
You will not take a position on whether he is a liar because you know that you are majorly F*CKED either way.


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. >.<

WritersBeware  
Nov 11, 2011, 10:10PM | #59
EW_writer:
No, I'm taking no position because it matters not to me.

Nice try. You're transparent and weak.


EW_writer:
What you're trying to do is to get me to defend you from rusty's accusations of your global errors.

LMAO! That lying, rusty piece of sh*t ran away after I cornered him with the exact same demands to reference my "global errors," Margie. Predictably, you're following in his footsteps.

Nov 11, 2011, 10:17PM | #60
WritersBeware:
Nice try. You're transparent and weak.

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

WritersBeware:
demands to reference my "global errors," Margie.

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

WritersBeware  
Nov 12, 2011, 01:34PM | #61
EW_writer:
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.

Nov 13, 2011, 05:07AM | #62
WritersBeware:
cowardly, baseless claims about my "understanding that I quickly denounced and disproved. "


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.

WritersBeware  
Nov 13, 2011, 01:10PM | #63
EW_writer:
2.) They were not baseless. I have sufficient evidence to prove your failure to understand plain English.

Post your "evidence," coward.


EW_writer:
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.

I quickly disproved your nonsense, as usual.


Yawn.

Nov 13, 2011, 03:13PM | #64
WritersBeware:
Post your "evidence," coward.

I already did. For example:

EW_writer:
Yes, I did. At first, I said I didn't care who did what error. However, since you repeatedly seemed to be unable to grasp the meaning of a simple word "Say," in my sentence, I concluded that you were prone to some "global errors." However, I never said that you always said "peak" when you meant "peek." I said that I am not willing to browse through hundreds of threads to confirm.


WritersBeware:
I quickly disproved your nonsense, as usual.

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

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


Does that count as proof in your world? :p

WritersBeware  
Nov 13, 2011, 03:22PM | #65
EW_writer:
I already did. For example:

EW_writer:
Yes, I did. At first, I said I didn't care who did what error. However, since you repeatedly seemed to be unable to grasp the meaning of a simple word "Say," in my sentence, I concluded that you were prone to some "global errors." However, I never said that you always said "peak" when you meant "peek." I said that I am not willing to browse through hundreds of threads to confirm.

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

WritersBeware:
Wrong, asshat. I grasped your "general" request [as it relates to "say"] perfectly fine (to even suggest otherwise makes you appear like an even more desperate jackass). What I called out is your complete cluelessness regarding the formal SEC complaint process about which you have been attempting to deny my involvement. To request "emails" AT ALL makes you a clueless dipsh*t who has no business debating about the SEC complaint process in the first place. You have no experience with, knowledge of, or details about the formal SEC complaint process, so you've already proven that you're "talking out of your ass." Oh, and would you like to revisit your cluelessly asinine claim that the SEC will reveal my identity and involvement to you? LMAO!

Nov 13, 2011, 03:41PM | #66
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:

WritersBeware:
Emails? Hah! No
emails were involved, genius. You obviously have no idea how the formal complaint process with the SEC works.


and then later on you said...

EW_writer:
1. you asked me to provide "emails" as proof, which is not part of the formal SEC procedure;


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.

WritersBeware  
Nov 13, 2011, 07:23PM | #67
EW_writer:
Your focus on the hypothetical instead of the actual shows your skewed understanding.

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.

Nov 14, 2011, 02:15AM | #68
WritersBeware:
I INTENTIONALLY chose

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.

EW_writer:
Sorry, this isn't even true. Even though I was requesting emails hypothetically rather than specifically, it is perfectly sensible for me to do so (and I challenge anyone else to say otherwise). You see in my world, there are such things as official emails. If I used my official email to contact a consulate (an institution far removed from the one I serve) about some issue, you can bet your a** that they won't ignore me.

WritersBeware  
Nov 14, 2011, 11:45AM | #69
Sorry, wench, 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.

Nov 14, 2011, 04:32PM | #70
EW_writer:
Sorry, this isn't even true. Even though I was requesting emails hypothetically rather than specifically, it is perfectly sensible for me to do so (and I challenge anyone else to say otherwise). You see in my world, there are such things as official emails. If I used my official email to contact a consulate (an institution far removed from the one I serve) about some issue, you can bet your a** that they won't ignore me.


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. ^___^

EW_writer:
Tsk tsk... WritersBeware old, old tactic.

1.) Make up the rules
2.) Change the rules when they don't suit you
3.) Throw random insults when cornered/humiliated

^____^

WritersBeware  
Nov 14, 2011, 04:54PM | #71
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 sh*t that I have already crushed numerous times. Have fun playing with RustyWriter, ya low-paid, unethical, lying, fake, hypocritical scumbag.

Nov 14, 2011, 05:01PM | #72
WritersBeware:
I will not continue to repeatedly waste my time disproving your pathetically failed propaganda.

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 WBullshit by now. ^___^

WritersBeware  
Nov 14, 2011, 05:44PM | #73
EW_writer:
WritersBeware:
I will not continue to repeatedly waste my time disproving your pathetically failed propaganda.

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 WBullshit by now. ^___^

Yawn.


Forum / Writing Careers /

49 users online in the last hour