Prospect solution - a reliable company to work for?

All you have to do is repost my statement about Meo in its ENTIRETY and we'll go from there. Scared?

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.

Margie. To this point, you have FAILED to post my "global errors."

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. ^___^

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.

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.

I never sided with rusty

And you think people will believe it?

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

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

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

MeoKhan is a crappy writer

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.

i find it huuuuuugely derogatory and huuuuuuugely demeaning and discriminatory..but it's true.

(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?

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

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.

I challenged you to prove that Rusty is not (as you assert) a clueless, lying propagandist by simply referencing my "global errors."

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

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

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.

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.

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

Nice try. You're transparent and weak.

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

cowardly, baseless claims about my "understanding that I quickly denounced and disproved. "

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.

Post your "evidence," coward.

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.

I quickly disproved your nonsense, as usual.

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

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.

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!

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

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

Your focus on the hypothetical instead of the actual shows your skewed understanding.

I INTENTIONALLY chose

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.

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.

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

^____^

I will not continue to repeatedly waste my time disproving your pathetically failed propaganda.

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. ^___^