 |
| Four Eggers, email impersonator |
This is the irrefutable evidence presented in a fresh report in the Winston-Salem Journal, posted tonight at 10:01 p.m.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Isn't This Just Plain Fraud?
This is the irrefutable evidence presented in a fresh report in the Winston-Salem Journal, posted tonight at 10:01 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Jerry, to answer your question, I would say, yes. I taught a lot of students for a lot of years. If one turned in a paper written by another we would call it plagiarism and there are disciplinary options a professor would take against both parties. BTW Four Eggers was an honors student at ASU. I wonder if he tried tricks like this while in college (or in law school): writing papers for someone presumably less-prepared or knowledgeable who then passed himself off as the author. Surely such behavior is unethical if not illegal. First, we have a circumstance where fraudulent attribution is clearly part of a deliberate attempt to avoid informing all parties about a pending meeting. The second news article makes clear the Eggers's deception includes defending to a third party a pending decision being made at a meeting that had not concluded, and which the author did not even attend. This kind of behavior would be unacceptable in academia--why should it be acceptable in so-called real life?
I agree, brotherdoc. Something is rotten on King Street.
I have written things for my brother at his request on my computer. What is the big deal? Doesn't the WSJ have any real news to report.? Are they educed to making something up or are they just a liberal libel rag?
Oh come on, Anon! How far will you go to defend these people? You writing something for your brother is a far cry from this fraud. The State Board of Elections (run by Republicans, by the way) rejected Four Eggers from an appointment to the Watauga BOE, and now he is writing the resolutions? What if Jim Deal was writing resolutions for the commissioners and signing Billy Kennedy's name to them? Would that be "no big deal (ha)" to you? Somehow I doubt it. Oh, and you trot out the old canard about the WSJ being a liberal rag - please! The Journal is FAR from liberal.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that an attorney helped construct the BOE's resolution to return voting to the ASU campus? You're also saying that no laws were broken and no professional standards were compromised. And you report that the attorney isn't permitted to provide individual advice (he didn't) but to assist the entire board; and in this instance he produced professional, legal documentation of resolutions that were dictated to him. Tell us, what is this story about?
There is no problem with Deal writing for Kennedy if Kennedy wants Deal to do it to express Kennedy's opinions. It is called being an agent.
The Journal is a liberal rag.
Two problems with this justification Anon.
1. Deal is not the county attorney and has not written about the board actions before the decisions were "made".
2. If Four were not the county attorney, he would be on the board. The two are supposed to be separate.
For the past 3 years Four has been County Attorney and also a member of the Watauga Board of Elections. Not one peep out of any of you for those 3 years - and with a Dem controlled state board at that!
You guys crack me up!
"There is no problem with Deal writing for Kennedy if Kennedy wants Deal to do it to express Kennedy's opinions. It is called being an agent."
Hmmm.... even if he signed Kennedy's name to them and there was no indication that they were written by someone else? What if Pam Williamson did the writing? I doubt you'd be so forgiving in that case.
An agent can sign the name of the person he is representing legally. I guess there might be someone stupid enough to make Pam Williamson his agent somewhere.
Post a Comment