Pheelyks is a poor quality writer!

Student

Jan 25, 12, 04:58AM | #1

Joined: Jan 7, 12
Threads: 3
Posts: 31

Like most of you, I too was in desperate need of getting an essay done, and after being deceived by bestessays.com[DND*] and MyWritingExperts.com, I landed here looking for a legit website or a writer who could do my essay. I read numerous threads here, and finally decided to contact Mr.FreelanceWriter because I was so impressed by his posts. I would have definitely given my essay to him, but unfortunately his charge was way over my budget, and I had to settle for a writer called Pheelyks, who contacted me on his own and charged me $120 for a 1500-word essay. I was quite impressed by his emails, and with him, I could pay in two installments. I paid $50 to him through PayPal and within two days, he sent me an intro, which, I won't lie, was pretty impressive. I read through the intro and pointed out a few parts for him to improvise, but Pheelyks, being too proud of his own writing style, sent me this email "You do not even know what the essay needs. I do not have the time to improvise every line just because you want them to. The lines make sense, and that's it". I understood immediately that he is not exactly the guy who would bother to fulfill the customer's needs, but I thought to myself that it's fair enough because I can make those slight changes myself. So I paid the remaining $70 and asked him to complete the essay.

That's when the moron showed his true colours. He sent me a pile load of crap! All he did was paraphrase my study guide, not to mention that the citation styles were improper and inconsistent, and the essay reached no conclusion whatsoever! He wrote complex lines, with some uncommon words (which is fine) but none of the paragraphs made any point. I was very disappointed after reading it, but since I have the chance of resubmitting my work after the first draft is marked, I decided to turn it in just to check if it was really as bad. Besides, I would have been relieved if I could get done with it, because I am too busy with my dissertation paper right now. Anyway, my professor returned the paper to me today with a final score of 56% and her comment was "By now, you should know how to reach conclusions. You did not answer the question. You only touched various issues on the surface without making any point" - Exactly as I had predicted. I wrote to Pheelyks rather rudely, and in response he called me an ass-hole and said that I didn't know what I wanted. I mean WTF is his problem? Doesn't he know the meaning of professionalism? I really don't have the energy to deal with him anymore. I will get my essay done somehow, but people please stay away from this ******* twat! He is a big-talker, but when it comes to work, he is as ****** as the Ukranian sites. I shouldn't have ordered to him just for saving money. If only I had asked FreelanceWriter to write the essay for me, I am sure I could have passed it up by now :(

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 05:16AM | #2

Joined: Jan 9, 11
Threads: 3
Posts: 1,090

It's better to wait for P to respond to your post to see what actually is the issue after both the parties are on the stage.

Heremeout

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 05:49AM | #3

Joined: Sep 29, 11
Threads: 8
Posts: 234

This is very serious! Pheelys respond please, your ass is, once again, in the line!

Student

Jan 25, 12, 07:14AM | #4

Joined: Jan 7, 12
Threads: 3
Posts: 31

I am copying certain sentences used by Pheelyks. I have no idea what he meant, probably because I am so dumb. That's what Pheelyks will probably write in his defence. But people, please tell me if he has done a good job or not. I do not have any rivalry with Pheelyks, nor am I ever going to enter this business. I just wanted to share my experience with people who are looking for good writers for writing their essays..

Anyway, here are some marvellous lines from Pheelyks:

"Science ought to advance, then, by the making of observations, then by development of falsifiable hypotheses, and then experimental (or observational) attempts to falsify these hypotheses or prove them to be wrong/inadequate."

"Revolutions are often invisible, and only fully observable and definable after the fact, with the scientific community(ies) involved necessarily entirely aware of the implications of such revolutions when they occur."

Student

Jan 25, 12, 08:32AM | #5

Joined: Dec 16, 11
Threads: 3
Posts: 52

:) If you love to pay him, go ahead to pay, you got a very good chance to experience the ass pain . I am wondering why every single post complain of Pheelyks all tell the same story. How come He can use same strategy to earn his money every time? Admirable......

Student

Jan 25, 12, 08:56AM | #6

Joined: Jan 7, 12
Threads: 3
Posts: 31

I don't blame Pheelyks. He didn't cheat me or anything. He charged me $120 and I paid him the full amount. Maybe he did give effort in completing my essay. The bottomline is he is not a good writer, but sadly he doesn't know that. He thinks very high of himself. But all you people out there, don't get him to write your essay. If you do, then an F is waiting for you :S

Student

Edited by: sandyy Jan 25, 12, 09:09AM | #7

Joined: Dec 16, 11
Threads: 3
Posts: 52

Biscuit:

I don't blame Pheelyks, even he didn't provide me a qualify essay. I read it and know it immediately that will be F if I turn it in, so I was smart enough at this point and throw it to the trash can. I keep telling student don't use him write your assignment. But, if nobody sent him assignment, where he can make money? But if you sent him money, you get your class failed unless you just give him money without ask anything back. What should you do? pick him or not pick him? But his charge rate is pretty high, even higher than my best writer. I don't know why. May be people like buy expensive stuff and he knows that?

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 09:13AM | #8

Joined: Jan 20, 09
Threads: 8
Posts: 3,498

Let's let readers judge for themselves, shall we?

Nineteenth Century Theories of Generation and Twentieth Century Theories of Science: Harvey, Darwin, Popper, and Kuhn

Introduction
The ever-increasing rate at which scientific knowledge has been acquired and accumulated in the past several centuries has had several effects on the way in which science is viewed. The twentieth century was a time of major introspection for many in the scientific community, and was also the period in which two giants of the philosophy of science emerged. Karl Popper came first with his theory of falsifiability, and in the early part of the second half of the century Thomas Kuhn came into prominence with his theory of paradigm shifts and the revolutionary model of scientific progress (Bigelow, Townsend, & Verdnik 2011: 69, 83). The theories of these two philosophers of science are not mutually exclusive, with Popper more concerned about how science should be consciously practiced and Kuhn engaged in an examination of the large-scale history of scientific progress, which is far beyond the conscious control of any individual scientist and even the scientific community as a whole (Bigelow et al: 69-100). The different focuses of Popper and Kuhn's theories, in fact, can in the opinion of this author serve as useful complements to each other in ways that the philosophers themselves might have never intended.
Centuries before Popper and Kuhn were glimmers in their parents' eyes, real widespread scientific experimentation and measurement began to take place in Europe for the first time since the classical period, and in manners that became increasingly rigorous and objective. Objectivity was far from absolute, however, and many theories now known to be grossly incorrect and even entirely unfounded took hold or were perpetuated by the scientists and scientific inquiries of the era. One such set of theories are the so-theories of generation that persisted for centuries—millennia, in some cases—that attempted to describe how offspring were made and how life arose. Ranging from Hippocratic Theory, in which a mingling of fluids in varying proportions leads to the formation of an offspring, to the theory of emboitment, which posits that all future generations of all species currently exist in the wombs of the females of the species, in layers of miniatures stacked like nesting dolls, many of these theories contain slight traces of half-truth, but all were also ultimately proven wrong (Bigelow et al 2011: 126-30). Tracing the progression of these theories from the seventeenth century through the nineteenth century when they were finally disproven shows that Popperian views make for important commentary on the issues encountered in the many theories of generation, while Kuhn's model of scientific progress provides an accurate map of progress in this specific area.
Falsifiability and Paradigm Shifts
Karl Popper's contributions to the theory and practice of science are now so ubiquitous it can be difficult to imagine the practice of science without them. Paramount in Popper's theory is the concept of falsifiability (Bigelow et al 2011: 69). In order for a statement or theory to be scientific, in Popper's view, it has to be falsifiable—there must be some way to test it that would, given a certain potential outcome, prove the theory wrong. While this might seem counterintuitive when stated in such terms, it can easily be seen in many common scientific experiments carried out every day: pharmaceutical trials test drugs for efficacy, and these drugs very often fail to be effective; their hypothesized usefulness is falsified. Failing to falsify a scientific theory means that it has survived all current tests and can be thought of as scientifically valid, though by no means proven. Science ought to advance, then, by the making of observations, the development of falsifiable hypotheses, and then experimental (or observational) attempts to falsify these hypotheses or prove them to be wrong/inadequate; failing to prove a hypothesis falsified makes it a viable scientific explanation for the observed phenomena, while succeeding in falsifying the hypothesis will provide at least some amount of new information that can then be used to develop a new hypothesis/explanation, beginning the process again (Akinci 2004: 28-49; Bigelow et al 2011: 69-82).
While Popper dedicated his scholarly pursuits to determining the way in which science ought to be practiced, Kuhn examined the historical trends of the way in which scientific though and knowledge progressed and progress (Bigelow et al 2011: 124). According to the basic framework developed by Kuhn, which has been highly influential in modern scientific thought and understandings yet which remains controversial in some circles, there are two phases or types of scientific advancement: periods in which generally accepted theories are put to work in incremental scientific experiments and advances, and "revolutionary" periods in which a particular scientific community rejects previously accepted theories in favor of new understandings of their particular area of science or research questions (Bigelow et al 2011: 83-100). Revolutions are often invisible, Kuhn claims, and only fully observable and definable after the fact, with the scientific community(ies) involved not necessarily entirely aware of the implications of such revolutions when they occur (Kuhn 1996: 138-142; Bigelow et al 2011: 95). Kuhn's view of scientific history is not at all incompatible with Popper's view of scientific methodology, as an examination of theories of generation demonstrates.
Life's Origins and Scientific Progress
Both Popper and Kuhn are ultimately concerned with scientific progress and how it is achieved, despite the fact that they approach this issue from very different angles and reach very different conclusions on the matter. Few periods provide more examples with which to examine these theorists' conclusions than the nineteenth century, when science can be said to have truly come into its own as part of the Industrial Age. It was during this century that the centuries- or millennia-old theories of generation were finally discarded in favor of the genetic and chromosomal theory in existence today, and that the process of generation began to develop towards its current understanding (Bigelow et al 2011: 124-5). Beginning with William Harvey in the seventeenth century, who rejected the long-held theory that male and female seminal fluids intermingled and that the proportion of the intermingling determined the characteristics of the offspring and advocated a more direct and observational approach to acquiring scientific knowledge altogether, a rapid advancement in theories of generation took place (Olson 2008: 24; Bigelow et al 2011: 131). In hindsight, this can be seen as the beginning of a Kuhn-style revolution, which in a sense culminated with Darwin's work in the latter half of the nineteenth century, in which patterns of variation in offspring were attributed to a then-unknown genetic mingling (Bigelow et al 2011: 156-9).
Though Darwin's theory was incomplete and in some fundamental aspects incorrect, the approach to investigation he utilized helped place others on the right path to the development of more comprehensive and accurate theories, and could be seen to constitute a paradigm shift such as those described by Kuhn (Bigelow et al: 83-125). Darwin's approach to investigation and indeed many of the other investigations undertaken in the preceding years can also be seen as aligned with Popper's concept of falsification: rather than continuing to trust the assumptions and faulty observations made by others, scientists like Harvey and Darwin rejected (at times more completely and successfully than others) certain preconceived notions and theories after testing such theories through their own observations and experiments (Bigelow et al 2011: 131-85). Though scientists of the era did not explicitly define falsifiability as a criteria for a statement or theory to be considered "scientific," there was a clear trend towards attempting to falsify existing theories in order to promote scientific advancement, their practice of science is much more in line with Popper's requirements than in previous eras of science (Bigelow et al 2011: 131-85). Thus the Kuhnian revolution that took place in regards to theories of generation was largely Popperian in methodology, and one could even say that the paradigm shift that took place as described by Kuhn was towards a practice of science as described by Popper.
Conclusion
Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn remain hugely influential figures in most if not all scientific communities. Though their theories are not accepted let alone utilized by everyone that labels themselves a scientist or researcher, they have indisputably created an intense reexamination of the progress and progress of science. When it comes to the theories of generation that perished in the nineteenth century, both Popper and Kuhn's explanations shed some light on the forces that might have contributed to this radical growth in scientific understanding.
Reference

Akinci, S. (2004). Popper's Conventionalism. in Karl Popper: Critical Appraisals, Catton, P., ed. New York: Routledge.

Bigleow, J., Townsend, A., & Verdnik, D. (2011). Thinking About Science. Monash University.

Kuhn, T. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Olson, R. (2008). Science and Scientism in Nineteenth Century Europe. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Student

Edited by: sandyy Jan 25, 12, 09:18AM | #9

Joined: Dec 16, 11
Threads: 3
Posts: 52

Speechless, evidence of pheelyks' horrible job. Waste money, Waste time, and Full of sh*******

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 09:24AM | #10

Joined: Jan 20, 09
Threads: 8
Posts: 3,498

Let's see what the folks at Monash University have to say before leaping to any conclusions, shall we?

Student

Edited by: sandyy Jan 25, 12, 09:35AM | #11

Joined: Dec 16, 11
Threads: 3
Posts: 52

pheelyks:

Let's see what the folks at Monash University have to say before leaping to any conclusions, shall we?

How come you are so "smart"? did you think he will really use that? I tell you, students prefer lose money than fail a class. Money is really nothing you ****head !
You as ass**** fake writer, You don't know what's important thing in this world. You got money is true, but all your writing will just go to only ONE place, that's------- A Big Trash Can!

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 09:40AM | #12

Joined: Jan 20, 09
Threads: 8
Posts: 3,498

sandyy:

did you think he will really use that?

He claims to have already turned it in, dipshit.

Student

Jan 25, 12, 09:44AM | #13

Joined: Jan 7, 12
Threads: 3
Posts: 31

Hahaha this is the funniest unprofessionalism I have ever seen. Because I started this thread, dear old Pheelyks emailed to Monash University intending to get me caught of plagiarism. But dear you don't konw that I am only using the Monash University study guide. I have nothing to do with Monash University.

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 09:48AM | #14

Joined: Jan 20, 09
Threads: 8
Posts: 3,498

Then it shouldn't be a problem, should it?

I think it's interesting that in order to "prove" how bad my writing is you had to alter the sentences you "quoted." I'm not sure what your angle is, but you have yet to point out any actual example of my "bad" writing.

Student

Jan 25, 12, 09:52AM | #15

Joined: Jan 7, 12
Threads: 3
Posts: 31

Unfortunately I did turn it in because I was in a rush, but it upsets me to see that he even emailed a school to get me caught of plagiarism. Thankfully, he doesn't know which school I go to.

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 09:53AM | #16

Joined: Jan 20, 09
Threads: 8
Posts: 3,498

Oh, and here's the actual emails between us regarding the problems you had with the intro:

Me to you:
Comments like "this sentence isn't impressive enough" don't really tell me anything--do you simply not understand the sentence, or do you not like what it says?

As far as the title is concerned, William Harvey and Charles Darwin serve as the bookends for the development of the theories of generation during the modern era, and are explicitly mentioned in the study guide yo uploaded. They are very important to the research question and will have to be mentioned in the paper in order to adequately address the topic.

The lack of references and arguments in the introduction is also something pretty standard to most research papers--the introduction contains very general facts required as the foundation of later arguments and more specific facts, which will of course be references.

To be honest, it seems to me like you are somewhat confused as to what the research question is and what the paper is addressing, and that you are bothered by sentences you don't understand. If you have more complete instructions for the paper than you provided me with now would be a good time to send them, but what I've completed directly addresses the question you sent, using the reference material you provided.

Your reply:
By saying the sentence is not impressive enough, I meant that you can paraphrase it and make it sound better. Of course, I understood what you were tyring to say, but just because a sentence make sense doesn't necessarily mean that it sounds good, right?

Regarding the mention of William Harvey and Charles Darwin, I like your reasoning behind it. So go ahead with your title.

I have no complains about the introduction containing general facts. That is exactly how an intro should be. The intro you gave me is perfect. But our lecturer asks for references even in the intro, and I can't do anything about it. That's why you need to cite certain lines.

My Reply to that:
The fact that you think certain sentences would sound better paraphrased is completely subjective and not something I can do much about--I'm certainly not going to be willing to go through the final five page paper and change individual sentences simply because you don't like how they sound. They are clear and correct; if you feel you can write them better, I'm not sure what you're paying me for. I don't mean to sound rude, but you're not really giving me anything to work with. "I think they could sound better" doesn't tell me what you think is wrong with them.

and finally:
Put citations where I have mentioned in the intro. Include the page number from the study guide (that's the important part). I am getting this assignment done by you because I have my dissertation to complete. Anyway, just do your work. I will make the payment in a bit.

Not the complete lack of any actual explanation/examples, which continues up to this point.

Student

Jan 25, 12, 10:00AM | #17

Joined: Jan 7, 12
Threads: 3
Posts: 31

Go ahead Pheelyks. I really don't have the time to read your modified stories. You have proved yourself well enough.

Student

Jan 25, 12, 10:02AM | #18

Joined: Dec 16, 11
Threads: 3
Posts: 52

Biscuit:

Go ahead Pheelyks. I really don't have the time to read your modified stories. You have proved yourself well enough.

Thanks Buddy, forget about Pheelyks, A big Stop Warning sign.

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 10:03AM | #19

Joined: Jan 25, 12
Posts: 4

Biscuit:

Because I started this thread, dear old Pheelyks emailed to Monash University intending to get me caught of plagiarism. But dear you don't konw that I am only using the Monash University study guide. I have nothing to do with Monash University.

If you don't go there, how do you know he REALLY emailed the university...?

Student

Jan 25, 12, 10:09AM | #20

Joined: Jan 7, 12
Threads: 3
Posts: 31

Pheelyks just sent me a threat mail saying that I will caught for plagiarism, blah blah blah!

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 10:20AM | #21

Joined: Jan 25, 12
Posts: 4

Biscuit:

Pheelyks just sent me a threat mail saying that I will caught for plagiarism, blah blah blah!

So, how do you know he's not just blowing smoke up your @$$?

Student

Jan 25, 12, 10:32AM | #22

Joined: Jan 7, 12
Threads: 3
Posts: 31

pheelyks:

Let's see what the folks at Monash University have to say before leaping to any conclusions, shall we?

So we all learnt a lesson today. If you're not satisfied with Pheelyk's work, and if you write about that on this public forum, he is likely to email your school and get you caught of plagiarism. So are you people willing to take risk? Don't you think it's better to publicly boycott this writer? Who's with me here? What do you have to say to that Pheelyks?

Student

Jan 25, 12, 10:41AM | #23

Joined: Dec 16, 11
Threads: 3
Posts: 52

Biscuit:

You are not the first one, I am not the first one either, there have tons of same story if you do the search in this forum. But the story still get repeat everyday, that's how he make his money.

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 10:43AM | #24

Joined: Jan 25, 12
Posts: 4

pheelyks:

Let's see what the folks at Monash University have to say before leaping to any conclusions, shall we?

Once again - possible smoke up @$$?

Biscuit:

If you're not satisfied with Pheelyk's work, and if you write about that on this public forum, he is likely to email your school and get you caught of plagiarism.

Isn't that a risk you should be willing to take when you hire someone to write your essays for you, especially considering that it's a perfect example of academic dishonesty and is
most likely against your university's honor code?

Biscuit:

What do you have to say to that Pheelyks?

You may call him unethical and unprofessional, but I say you're a hypocrite. Learn to do your own work, and you wouldn't have to deal with @$$holes like him.

Student

Jan 25, 12, 10:55AM | #25

Joined: Jan 7, 12
Threads: 3
Posts: 31

LucyAnon:

Learn to do your own work, and you wouldn't have to deal with @$$holes like him.

true that. lesson learnt. but some people need writers for other legit reasons, and they shouldn'e be victimised by Pheelyks..

Start a chargeback with your credit card company; don't waste your time dealing with the a$$hole.

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 11:02AM | #26

Joined: Jan 25, 12
Posts: 4

Biscuit:

some people need writers for other legit reasons, and they shouldn'e be victimised by Pheelyks.

I agree. If Pheelyks was scamming people who paid him to write magazine articles or website content, I would completely change my tune. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. He's been hired countless times to write essays. Essays that students turn in to their professors as their OWN work. He's not the only unethical one around here, but at least he's not a hypocrite.

stu4

Jan 25, 12, 11:49AM | #27

Joined: Mar 13, 06
Threads: 18
Posts: 572

Biscuit:

a writer called Pheelyks, who contacted me on his own

So he violated the rules and was sending you SPAM? I told numerous times - he and FreelanceStyle are here only to whore their poor quality service to unsuspected students who as you can see are then sorry for dealing with them.

stu4

Jan 25, 12, 11:58AM | #28

Joined: Mar 13, 06
Threads: 18
Posts: 572

Biscuit:

I shouldn't have ordered to him just for saving money.

stu4

Jan 25, 12, 12:04PM | #29

Joined: Mar 13, 06
Threads: 18
Posts: 572

pheelyks:

Let's see what the folks at Monash University have to say before leaping to any conclusions, shall we?

You are now COMPLETELY DISCREDITED. Students now know this:

Dealing with Pheelyks are unhappy? Go cry elsewhere coz your money is lost. If you complain Pheelyks will report you to your university for cheating.

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 12:04PM | #30

Joined: Jan 9, 11
Threads: 3
Posts: 1,090

I have spent quite a lot of time carefully reading the arguments from both the parties. Without taking anybody's side, I would be honest to put my evaluation of the entire situation precisely below.

First of all, I must say that the essay is fairly cohesive and flows logically from A to Z. I don't agree with your statement (or your professor's) that the essay does NOT have a conclusion. It does.

Secondly, it covers the three theoreticians/philosophers fairly well, and critically includes the "voice" of the writer.

Now, I have also been thinking what went wrong that resulted in this heat and break of communication between the two of them. Reading the emails above has the answer.

If Biscuit's emails are read and critically analyzed, it is VERY clear that this person failed to really communicate to Pheelyks what HE ACTUALLY WANTED P to do with the sentences.

This irritated P and should really have because he did a pretty good job. Additionally, the tone of Biscuit in the email is not like a client but that of a master - commanding P to do this and that. This is shameful.

I will not comment on the later part in which P reacted by emailing here and there.

Now the last and final word.

To my shallow understanding, the entire problem lies (NOT WITH THE ESSAY or CONCLUSION) but with the writing level. Perhaps, Biscuit wanted to ask P to simplify the use of words, break down longer sentences into smaller ones so that it may suit his own level (because he had already decided to turn in the same paper). P didn't get him so didn't do it.

That's all from my side.

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 12:17PM | #31

Joined: Jan 20, 09
Threads: 8
Posts: 3,498

stu4:

If you complain Pheelyks will report you to your university for cheating.

Not true. If you post altered quotes and make false claims about me/my work, however, and if you boast about breaking the law by turning in my work as your own, that's another story.

Here's Biscuit's latest email to me:

"So how do you plan to put an end to this dispute? You have disagreed to refund back my money. Now, you know you've shown great unprofessionalism on the forum, and I can go on and on about your bad service. Now, sadly this is your profession. And when so much is said about someone, whether true or false, it will be your loss to lose all those potential customers, don't you think? Now tell me how you wish to settle this, or do you want the battle to continue?"

Basically, he's acknowledging that he's hoping to get a refund simply by threatening to continue lying. He also thinks we're engaged in some sort of battle, which is sad because he lost this "battle" hours ago.

Student

Jan 25, 12, 12:19PM | #32

Joined: Jan 7, 12
Threads: 3
Posts: 31

MeoKhan:

This irritated P and should really have because he did a pretty good job. Additionally, the tone of Biscuit in the email is not like a client but that of a master - commanding P to do this and that. This is shameful.

Pheelyks modified our email exchanges and made me come off as a complete ***** while he portrayed himself as a fine gentleman ready to provide service. Anyway, initially I was being nice. I even praised his work, but then he started calling me names like asshole, illiterate, go read the book, etc. That's when I started being rude, but I still tolerated all that because I had already paid. But then he started threatening me that he would get me caught. That's pretty weird, right? Now, I want a refund. How do I get that? Can anyone suggest?

Student

Jan 25, 12, 12:21PM | #33

Joined: Jan 7, 12
Threads: 3
Posts: 31

pheelyks:

Here's Biscuit's latest email to me:

Oh my! Looks like you can go to any extent to prove yourself Pheelyks! What else have you got? Don't you think people now know what sort of a writer you are?

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 12:29PM | #34

Joined: Jan 9, 11
Threads: 3
Posts: 1,090

Biscuit:

How do I get that? Can anyone suggest?

I have put my evaluation of the first part. It has all the answers from my side. I don't think you should request a refund - you did get an originally written paper that you (unethically) submitted verbatim.

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 12:30PM | #35

Joined: Jan 9, 11
Threads: 3
Posts: 1,090

Most probably, it was your turning in the same paper that put your professor thinking you did not do it. So think about it once again.

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 12:39PM | #36

Joined: Jan 20, 09
Threads: 8
Posts: 3,498

Biscuit:

Pheelyks modified our email exchanges

Screenshots coming up, you lying f*ck.

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 12:41PM | #37

Joined: Jan 9, 11
Threads: 3
Posts: 1,090

That's what I was thinking.

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 12:42PM | #38

Joined: Jan 9, 11
Threads: 3
Posts: 1,090

Biscuit:

Pheelyks modified our email exchanges and made me come off as a complete

Wait for the screenshots. Don't go anywhere.

Writer

Jan 25, 12, 12:57PM | #39

Joined: Jan 20, 09
Threads: 8
Posts: 3,498

First round of relevant emails:

1st	2nd
3rd	4th