| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 24, 11, 05:26PM
| #1 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
The Indian liars and impostors in the industry never know when to quit. They have now created a fake "reviews" site—CustomEssayWritingServices.com—to ILLEGALLY rate their own site(s) the highest and their most feared competitors' sites the lowest.
These disgusting pieces of trash also own at least the following two commercial sites:
thesiswritingservice.com
resumewritingservice.biz
Surprise, surprise—their own site, thesiswritingservice.com, has the second highest rating at CustomEssayWritingServices.com.
This practice is in direct violation the US Federal Lanham Act. Axact Inc. lost all 555 of its essay sites for engaging in the exact same practice. These Indians' sites are next.
|
|
| stu4 |
Observer |
Jan 24, 11, 07:00PM
| #2 |
Joined: Mar 13, 06
Threads: 24
Posts: 748
|
WritersBeware: to ILLEGALLY rate their own site(s)
You need to back your claim. How this illegal to rate my own site?
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 24, 11, 09:29PM
| #3 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
stu4: You need to back your claim. How this illegal to rate my own site?
Can you not understand simple English?
WritersBeware: This practice is in direct violation the US Federal Lanham Act.
1. FU.
2. The site falsely claims that the reviews are "submitted by users." That is a blatant lie.
3. Read the Lanham Act.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Jan 25, 11, 08:08AM
| #4 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: This practice is in direct violation the US Federal Lanham Act.
ROFLMAO!!!! This is soooo funny I just couldn't keep myself from posting. ^___^ However as I don't really care about the sites mentioned above and am currently completely swamped with work, I'll leave my comment as is. Provoke me though, and I might find it worth the effort to post again (after I'm done with all of my pending projects >.<).
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Jan 25, 11, 11:28AM
| #5 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: ROFLMAO!!!! This is soooo funny I just couldn't keep myself from posting. ^___^ However as I don't really care about the sites mentioned above and am currently completely swamped with work, I'll leave my comment as is. Provoke me though, and I might find it worth the effort to post again (after I'm done with all of my pending projects >.<).
FU, dooshbag. Am I supposed to be frightened by your little threat? Bring it on, fat Maggie.
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Jan 25, 11, 11:53AM
| #6 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
From proposed Order granted against Axact:
71. Furthermore, as set forth above, Axact's PapersHelp.com website deceptively misleads customers into believing that Axact's term paper websites are superior to its competitors based upon objective criteria and customer feedback, when in fact PapersHelp.com does nothing more than consistently rate Axact's term paper-writing sites higher than its competitors, including SNR's example research site, snrinfo.com/academon/. Axact's advertisement of a rating system that purportedly uses objective criteria and legitimate customer feedback is material misrepresentation. It is a deceptive and unfair business practice that has misled consumers on the Internet for years, which, in turn, has seriously damaged SNR's reputation and substantially harmed SNR's actual and prospective economic advantage.
72. Axact has caused all of the aforementioned false and misleading statements to enter U.S.-interstate and international commerce through its PapersHelp.com website. Axact's false advertisements, false statements, and false and deceptive trade practices have caused SNR substantial economic harm.
WHEREFORE SNR hereby demands that judgment be entered: enjoining Axact, Axact's agents, and all those acting in concert with Axact and/or Axact's agents, generally – on Axact's academic term paper-writing sites, on any other type of Internet site to which Axact or any of Axact's agents submit any textual/visual content relating to academic paper sites, in Axact's advertisements in various Internet venues, or elsewhere – from falsely advertising and misrepresenting the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographical origin of its good and services in violation of the Lanham Act and to the detriment of SNR; specifically enjoining Axact, Axact's agents, and all those acting in concert with Axact and/or Axact's agents, from publishing – on PapersHelp.com and elsewhere – fabricated reviews or false and misleading information about any Internet web sites providing term paper or example research services, including but not limited to SNR's sites and Axact's sites, in violation of the Lanham Act and to the detriment of SNR; and awarding compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem just and equitable [, including transfer to SNR of Axact's 555 term paper sites].
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Jan 25, 11, 02:35PM
| #7 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
You asked for it. ^____________^ I'll keep it very short and very sweet though...
1.) You're saying that the sites above are violating the Lanham Act because of their false advertisement.
2.) But not so long ago, you claimed that one cannot violate the Lanham Act if one is not actually able to sell anything despite trying to do so. (silly.. silly... silly...)
3.) So if we follow that earlier, retarded thinking of yours which you so fervently defended, simply ranking themselves at the top of their own list does not make the sites violators of the Lanham Act.
They are, of course. They have violated the Lanham Act because the Lanham Act is violated by the act of false advertisement, regardless of whether or not the advertisement is actually able to entice anyone to buy.
F*ck Y**, you slimy, stupid, retarded b*tch. :p
Gosh, I missed kicking your fat a**. ^__________^
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 25, 11, 03:12PM
| #8 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: 1.) You're saying that the sites above are violating the Lanham Act because of their false advertisement.
WRONG, fu*khead. I specifically stated that they are violating the Lanham Act for publishing FAKE reviews that they claim are submitted by "users." Learn how to read, ya loser.
EW_writer: 2.) But not so long ago, you claimed that one cannot violate the Lanham Act if one is not actually able to sell anything despite trying to do so. (silly.. silly... silly...)
Wow, you sure are ******* dense, you fat-ass pig.WritersBeware: 72. Axact has caused all of the aforementioned false and misleading statements to enter U.S.-interstate and international COMMERCE through its PapersHelp.com website. Axact's false advertisements, false statements, and false and deceptive TRADE PRACTICES have caused SNR substantial ECONOMIC harm.
EW_writer: Gosh, I missed kicking your fat a**. ^__________^
Too bad you've NEVER done so, you retarded cunt. Stop embarrassing yourself. I'm tired of beating a dead horse (i.e., you) that's already been buried.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Jan 25, 11, 03:39PM
| #9 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: I specifically stated that they are violating the Lanham Act for publishing FAKE reviews that they claim are submitted by "users." Learn how to read, ya loser.
LOL!!! and where in that statement do you support you not contradict your "no sale, no crime" banner? :p
The facts are simple, even for you.
1.) You said in a previous argument that people can't violate the Lanham Act if they are not actually able to sell anything. Do you deny this? ^_______^ Haha!!!
2.) Now you're claiming that people violate the Lanham Act by publishing FAKE reviews. As I pointed out, this is correct. However, it falls in direct contradiction with your earlier statements.
Need I say more? :p
WritersBeware: Too bad you've NEVER done so,
Dream on. ^_^
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 25, 11, 04:44PM
| #10 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: LOL!!! and where in that statement do you support you not contradict your "no sale, no crime" banner? :p
Again, you are fu*king retarded:
WritersBeware: 7 2. Axact has caused all of the aforementioned false and misleading statements to enter U.S.-interstate and international COMMERCE through its PapersHelp.com website. Axact's false advertisements, false statements, and false and deceptive TRADE PRACTICES have caused SNR substantial economic harm.
EW_writer: 2.) Now you're claiming that people violate the Lanham Act by publishing FAKE reviews. As I pointed out, this is correct. However, it falls in direct contradiction with your earlier statements.
Wrong, neanderthal. As clearly laid out in the FEDERAL JUDGE'S RULING, the key element of Axact's violations is that commerce was involved. (I love how you pretend to know anything about how the law has been interpreted and adjudicated. You're a clueless, wannabe hack.)
Now, shut your ignorant trap and get back to making peanuts, ya piss-poor sap.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Edited by: EW_writer Jan 25, 11, 08:51PM
| #11 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: As clearly laid out in the FEDERAL JUDGE'S RULING, the key element of Axact's violations is that commerce was involved.
I just LOVE it when you squirm. ^___^
Was any commerce involved in the fake reviews in CustomEssayWritingServices.com? Can you prove that somebody actually bought an essay from thesiswritingservice.com because of the false reviews at CustomEssayWritingServices.com?
Let me answer for you, NO.. and NO again.
If thesiswritingservice.com owns CustomEssayWritingServices.com, is CustomEssayWritingServices.com in violation of the Lanham Act?
YES.
Is thesiswritingservice.com in violation of the Lanham Act?
YES.
Is WritersBeware a silly pretend-lawyer with the nasty habit of putting her stinking foot in her even stinkier mouth?
Oh Yeah. ^_________________^
Oh, and one more thing:
EW_writer: 1.) You said in a previous argument that people can't violate the Lanham Act if they are not actually able to sell anything. Do you deny this? ^_______^ Haha!!! |
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 25, 11, 09:00PM
| #12 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
I posted a FEDERAL COURT RULING that clearly indicates the relevant, legal relationship between a fake reviews site that is owned by a person/entity who/that also owns a COMMERCIAL site (the sales records of which are easible obtainable, via subpoena, from the payment processor) that directly benefits from the fake reviews. There is no debate.
NEWSFLASH: Nobody is paying any attention to you or your old, tired, asinine, personal propaganda-based claims. You're a joke. Keep up the "good" fight, defending fraudsters and liars like you, ya fat, nasty, clueless bi*ch! LMAO!
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Edited by: EW_writer Jan 25, 11, 09:05PM
| #13 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: NEWSFLASH: Nobody is paying any attention to you.
WritersBeware: FU, dooshbag. Am I supposed to be frightened by your little threat? Bring it on, fat Maggie.
ROFLMAO!!!! This is even funnier than what prompted me to post on this thread in the first place! ^_______^
This is exactly what people can expect from WB when she can't take the heat. :p
WritersBeware: I posted a FEDERAL COURT RULING. There is no debate.
Am I debating the court ruling? No. What I am pointing out is that you are most evidently, a self-contradicting worm. :p
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 25, 11, 09:23PM
| #14 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: This is exactly what people can expect from WB when she can't take the heat. :p
What heat—that which emanates from your fat, greasy ass? You're right, I can't take that at all.
WritersBeware: I posted a FEDERAL COURT RULING that clearly indicates the relevant, legal relationship between a fake reviews site that is owned by a person/entity who/that also owns a COMMERCIAL site (the sales records of which are easible obtainable, via subpoena, from the payment processor) that directly benefits from the fake reviews. There is no debate. |
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 25, 11, 09:25PM
| #15 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: Am I debating the court ruling? No. What I am pointing out is that you are most evidently, a self-contradicting worm. :p
FAIL. Nice try. My stance hasn't changed, fat Maggie. I have stated numerous times in this thread that the involvement of COMMERCE is the key factor in the ruling, loser.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Jan 25, 11, 09:44PM
| #16 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: I have stated numerous times in this thread that the involvement of COMMERCE is the key factor in the ruling, loser.
EW_writer: Was any commerce involved in the fake reviews in CustomEssayWritingServices.com? Can you prove that somebody actually bought an essay from thesiswritingservice.com because of the false reviews at CustomEssayWritingServices.com? Let me answer for you, NO.. and NO again.
Care to say otherwise? ^___________^
WritersBeware: What heat—
The heat that comes from being humiliated over and over again. ^____^ Oh, and please feel free to throw your pathetic tantrums all you want. We're all used to it and are fully aware of what it all means. :P
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 25, 11, 11:05PM
| #17 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: Care to say otherwise? ^___________^
Listen, if you're just going to IGNORE the facts that I have posted, please go **** yourself. Pry open those fat eyelids of yours, tramp. Here are the FACTS, yet again:
WritersBeware: I posted a FEDERAL COURT RULING that clearly indicates the relevant, legal relationship between a fake reviews site that is owned by a person/entity who/that also owns a COMMERCIAL site (the sales records of which are easible obtainable, via subpoena, from the payment processor) that directly benefits from the fake reviews. There is no debate.
EW_writer: feel free to throw your pathetic tantrums
I don't throw tantrums. I simply post facts that you don't like.
LMAO! There you go again, trying to reference non-existent supporters . . . . Pathetic.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Jan 25, 11, 11:32PM
| #18 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: I don't throw tantrums.
WritersBeware: NEWSFLASH: Nobody is paying any attention to you or your old, tired, asinine, personal propaganda-based claims. You're a joke. Keep up the "good" fight, defending fraudsters and liars like you, ya fat, nasty, clueless bi*ch! LMAO!
*whistle, whistle*
Ahahaha!!!!
The facts are simple:
EW_writer: 1.) You're saying that the sites above are violating the Lanham Act because of their false advertisement. 2.) But not so long ago, you claimed that one cannot violate the Lanham Act if one is not actually able to sell anything despite trying to do so. (silly.. silly... silly...) 3.) So if we follow that earlier, retarded thinking of yours which you so fervently defended, simply ranking themselves at the top of their own list does not make the sites violators of the Lanham Act.
WritersBeware: has ruled that a fake review site is a direct extension of a company's commercial site(s) that benefits from the fake reviews.
But there is no need to prove that the company actually benefited financially from the fake review site to make the company liable. Otherwise, you would be completely out of bounds in your statement that thesiswritingservice.com is in direct violation of the Lanham Act.
I get it, everyone else gets it (I challenge ANYONE to say otherwise), only YOU don't get it. Pity.. pity. ^___________^
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Jan 25, 11, 11:50PM
| #19 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: I get it, everyone else gets it (I challenge ANYONE to say otherwise)
See, what you fail to realize or acknowledge is that NOBODY here will humor you except me. A US FEderal COURT JUDGE agrees with me, not you. Judge Freda L. Wolfson awarded treble damages to SNR primarily because Axact's infractions through the fake review site were willful extensions of Axact's "trade practices" and "commerce." You're truly pathetic. Nobody will respond to your challenge because you are a proven liar, impostor, and no-good charlatan. Nobody's going to disagree with me because I am echoing the exact sentiments and interpretations of a FEDERAL COURT JUDGE.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Edited by: EW_writer Jan 25, 11, 11:59PM
| #20 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
Wow.. there really are no limits to your skills at playing dumb. ^_^
We're not talking about Axact. We all know that Axact makes money. We're talking about your accusation that CustomEssayWritingServices.com is violating the Lanham Act. Since you obviously have no proof as to whether or not a single customer has ordered from thesiswritingservice.com because of the reviews posted on CustomEssayWritingServices.com, your accusation contradicts your position that a company can only be guilty of violating the Lanham Act if it made money from its actions which I agree, is a RETARDED position in the first place.
Once again, here are the simple facts that are crystal clear in this thread:
If thesiswritingservice.com owns CustomEssayWritingServices.com, is CustomEssayWritingServices.com in violation of the Lanham Act?
YES.
Is thesiswritingservice.com in violation of the Lanham Act?
YES.
Is WritersBeware a silly pretend-lawyer with the nasty habit of putting her stinking foot in her even stinkier mouth?
Oh Yeah. ^_________________^
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Jan 26, 11, 12:12AM
| #21 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: Nobody will respond to your challenge
because they know that if they did, there would be no way for them to rebuild their reputation. It would be downright preposterous for people like FW or pheelyks or WRT or Lavinia or major or ANYONE ELSE who you may think is on your side to agree with you that in order for a company to be held accountable for false advertisement under the Lanham Act, it must first be proven that the company financially gained from their false advertisement. It's silly, it's retarded, it's absolutely, positively BONKERS. ^____^
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 26, 11, 12:14AM
| #22 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
WritersBeware: Surprise, surprise—their own site, thesiswritingservice.com, has the second highest rating at CustomEssayWritingServices.com. This practice is in direct violation the US Federal Lanham Act.
EW_writer: If thesiswritingservice.com owns CustomEssayWritingServices.com, is CustomEssayWritingServices.com in violation of the Lanham Act? YES. Is thesiswritingservice.com in violation of the Lanham Act? YES.
Thank you for agreeing with me, moron.
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 26, 11, 12:18AM
| #23 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: FW or pheelyks or WRT or Lavinia or major
From what I gather (and have been told directly by more than one of them), not a single one of those members believes or respects a word that you type. I also know that not a single one of them supports your disgusting business practices or defense of fraudulent companies.
EW_writer: because they know that if they did, there would be no way for them to rebuild their reputation. It would be downright preposterous for people like FW or pheelyks or WRT or Lavinia or major or ANYONE ELSE who you may think is on your side to agree with you that in order for a company to be held accountable for false advertisement under the Lanham Act, it must first be proven that the company financially gained from their false advertisement. It's silly, it's retarded, it's absolutely, positively BONKERS. ^____^
Really? So, Honorable Judge Freda L. Wolfson's interpretation of the Lanham Act and adjudication thereof—based on the particular circumstances and facts of the SNR v. Axact case—is "silly," "retarded," and "bonkers"? Good luck with that. :)
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Jan 26, 11, 12:29AM
| #24 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: Thank you for agreeing with me, moron.
F*ck y**, stupid head. Nice try in trying to turn this around. Won't work. I never disagreed with your claim that thesiswritingservice.com in violation of the Lanham Act. It is. The factrs are clear:
1.) You're saying that the sites above are violating the Lanham Act because of their false advertisement.
2.) But not so long ago, you claimed that one cannot violate the Lanham Act if one is not actually able to sell anything despite trying to do so. (silly.. silly... silly...)
3.) So if we follow that earlier, retarded thinking of yours which you so fervently defended, simply ranking themselves at the top of their own list does not make the sites violators of the Lanham Act.
They are, of course. They have violated the Lanham Act because the Lanham Act is violated by the act of false advertisement, regardless of whether or not the advertisement is actually able to entice anyone to buy.
WritersBeware: Honorable Judge Freda L. Wolfson's interpretation of the Lanham Act and adjudication thereof—based on the particular circumstances and facts of the SNR v. Axact case—is "silly," "retarded," and "bonkers"?
No, you're silly, retarded, and absolutely bonkers for believing that for a company to be held accountable for false advertisement under the Lanham Act, it must first be proven that the company financially gained from their false advertisement. NOBODY would take your side on that one. ^__^
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 26, 11, 12:56PM
| #25 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: NOBODY would take your side on that one. ^__^
Yeah, except Judge Freda L. Wolfson. She doesn't count. Only your mysterious, non-existent people who "don't agree with me" count. LMAO! Idiot. Get lost, fatty.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Jan 26, 11, 03:14PM
| #26 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: Yeah, except Judge Freda L. Wolfson. She doesn't count.
Did Wolfson's ruling say anything about the sales of Axact? Ooooh... you want to equate the term "commerce" to sales right? You think that's so smart, right? No, IDIOT. Commerce can be equated to selling, not sales. Even when one is not able to sell anything, when one attempts to do so, one is engaging in commerce.
Once again, your idea that a company has to be proven to have gained monetarily from an act of false advertisement before it can be charged with violating the Lanham Act is f*cking RETARDED. Just like YOU are. ^_^
and besides, how do I get it through your thick skull that in the Bizarro world that you ARE right about the Lanham Act, you'd be wrong about thesiswritingservice.com and CustomEssayWritingServices.com since you're accusing that them of violating the Lanham Act WITHOUT any proof that they gained financially from their actions. ^___^
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 26, 11, 03:32PM
| #27 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
Seriously—you are a waste of time. No believes or respects a word that you type. No amount of proof that I provide—including specific, direct text from a US FEDERAL COURT RULING—makes any difference to your stubborn, ignorant ass, so I will no longer entertain your stellar attempts at irrational debate. Buh-bye. I hope that you enjoy your frustrated stupor.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Edited by: EW_writer Jan 26, 11, 03:40PM
| #28 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
...and here we see more of WB's b*tching when faced with undeniable evidence of her stupidity.
Tsk.. tsk.
EW_writer: and besides, how do I get it through your thick skull that in the Bizarro world that you ARE right about the Lanham Act, you'd be wrong about thesiswritingservice.com and CustomEssayWritingServices.com since you're accusing that them of violating the Lanham Act WITHOUT any proof that they gained financially from their actions. ^___^ |
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Jan 26, 11, 04:45PM
| #29 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
On WritersBeware's side: Federal Judge Freda L. Wolfson
On EW_slob's side: an imaginary body of "we" (i.e., nobody)
GAME OVER
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Jan 26, 11, 05:21PM
| #30 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: I will no longer entertain your stellar attempts
and then...
WritersBeware: On WritersBeware's side: Federal Judge Freda L. Wolfson On EW_slob's side: an imaginary body of "we" (i.e., nobody) GAME OVER
Can anyone be more pathetic? Really? ^____^
EW_writer: Did Wolfson's ruling say anything about the sales of Axact? Ooooh... you want to equate the term "commerce" to sales right? You think that's so smart, right? No, IDIOT. Commerce can be equated to selling, not sales. Even when one is not able to sell anything, when one attempts to do so, one is engaging in commerce.
WB: pretend-lawyer hopelessly trying to associate her argument with the sound ruling of Judge Wolfson.
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 26, 11, 05:54PM
| #31 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
Listen to the crickets when EW_lardass "contributes" to this forum.
LOL!
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Jan 26, 11, 05:58PM
| #32 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: Did Wolfson's ruling say anything about the sales of Axact?
YES, throughout the docket, you ******* simpleton! Did you even bother to READ the ruling (and, quite importantly, her accompanying "Opinion" document) before putting your ignorance on record, you ******* moron? Well, of course you didn't, because you're a half-cocked, fatass, slop-eating, spineless pig.
GAME STILL OVER
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Edited by: EW_writer Jan 26, 11, 06:18PM
| #33 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: Did you even bother to READ the ruling (and, quite importantly, her accompanying "Opinion" document)
No. The judge did not believe it necessary for SNR to prove that Axact benefitted financially from its actions to find Axact guilty.
Oh, but EVEN IF she did:
EW_writer: in the Bizarro world that you ARE right about the Lanham Act, you'd be wrong about thesiswritingservice.com and CustomEssayWritingServices.com since you're accusing that them of violating the Lanham Act WITHOUT any proof that they gained financially from their actions. ^___^
WritersBeware: GAME STILL OVER
I agree. YOU STILL LOSE.
Oh.. and good luck with this:
WritersBeware: I will no longer entertain your...
ROFLMAO!!!!!!
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 26, 11, 06:24PM
| #34 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: No. The judge did not believe it necessary for SNR to prove that Axact benefitted financially from its actions to find Axact guilty.
Until you actually READ the ruling document and the judge's Opinion document, just shut the f*ck up. Stop spewing your intentional misinformation in this forum, ya fat wench.
EW_writer: WritersBeware: I will no longer entertain your... ROFLMAO!!!!!!
Yeah, too bad you didn't finish the quote, pig. I specifically stated that I would "no longer entertain your stellar attempts at irrational [and utterly uneducated] debate." Again, until you actually READ the ruling document and the judge's Opinion document, rational debate is not possible. You're nothing more than an ignorant slob spewing uneducated nonsense (as usual). Right now, I'm simply shitting on you for being a human toilet.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Jan 26, 11, 06:52PM
| #35 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: Until you actually READ the ruling document and the judge's Opinion document, just shut the f*ck up. Stop spewing your intentional misinformation in this forum, ya fat wench.
Squirm all you want, loser. ^_^ I just love it when you're desperate. Once again:
EW_writer: No. The judge did not believe it necessary for SNR to prove that Axact benefitted financially from its actions to find Axact guilty.
Anyone who reads the ruling will come to the same conclusion.
WritersBeware: Yeah, too bad you didn't finish the quote, pig. I specifically stated that I would "no longer entertain your stellar attempts at irrational
So your continued "entertainment" of my posts means that you think my stellar attempts at kicking your a** are rational? Great. I'm glad we can agree on something. LOL!!!!
Got you again. ^______^
Now, let me have some more of your:
WritersBeware: I will no longer entertain your
HAHAHA!!! Priceless.. absolutely priceless. ^________^
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 26, 11, 07:51PM
| #36 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: Anyone who reads the ruling will come to the same conclusion.
How can you claim such without reading either the ruling OR the opinion? You can't. F*ck off, coward.
GAME OVER (AGAIN)
PS: You tried to pull the same type of irrational argument with pheelyks, and he kicked your ass, too.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Edited by: EW_writer Jan 26, 11, 09:34PM
| #37 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
Wow... more bullsh*t from you... why don't I find it surprising?
Quote the exact portion of the ruling that stated that proof of Axact's sales was crucial for the verdict.
You CAN'T because it ISN'T, and that is that. ^____^
WritersBeware: You tried to pull the same type of irrational argument with pheelyks, and he kicked your ass, too.
Translation: Help!!!!
LOL!!!!
I DARE Pheelyks to support your claim that in order for a company to be guilty of violating the Lanham Act, it must be proven that the company benefitted financially from its actions. Pheelyks WON'T because if he did, he'd look just as RETARDED as you. ^___^
Let's all see some more of WB's
WritersBeware: I will no longer entertain your
Hohohohahahaha!!!
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Jan 26, 11, 11:18PM
| #38 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: Quote the exact portion of the ruling that stated that proof of Axact's sales was crucial for the verdict. You CAN'T because it ISN'T, and that is that. ^____^
Axact's misrepresentations and misleading warranties regarding the quality and originality of its products and services will unquestionably victimize the average consumer, and constitute an unconscionable commercial practice of deception, fraud, and unlawful conduct in connection with the sale of goods and the performance of services sought by consumers.
To penalize and discourage Axact's egregious conduct, the Court shall award punitive damages in the amount of $350,000 for Axact's violations of the Lanham Act, New Jersey common law of unfair competition and tortious interference with Defendants' prospective economic advantage, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
Now, f*ck you and die, ya stupid whore.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Edited by: EW_writer Jan 27, 11, 01:50AM
| #39 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: and constitute an unconscionable commercial practice of deception, fraud, and unlawful conduct in connection with the sale of goods and the performance of services sought by consumers.
WOW.. after some stupidity from WB, guess what... MORE STUPIDITY. ^___^
Does the statement above have something to do with selling?
YES!
Does the statement above prove that if a false advertisement has the potential to lure customers to make a purchase, the advertiser is in violation of the Lanham Act?
YES!
Does the statement above prove that the court had to find evidence that Axact was actually able to successfully sell an essay because of their false advertisements in order to hold them liable?
F*CK.... NO.
Is this crystal clear from the statement above?
HELL... YES.
and I'm willing to bet that a 6th grade student who's not even in the top 50th percentile of his class can tell you this.
Yes, you guessed it. You're in for another few months of nobody believing anything you say that's not already f*cking obvious. You asked for it, b*tch.
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Jan 27, 11, 10:52AM
| #40 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
LMAO!
Nice try, cunt.
By the way, please list the members who "don't believe anything I say." Thank you for your cooperation.
|
|
