In the interest of academic honesty, I ripped the idea for this post off from Saturday Night Live.
Really? Does John Marburry exist? You admitted that you made him up. (By the way, you didn’t make him up, Aaron Sorkin did. Did it occur to you that perhaps other people in debate might watch the West Wing?) Because when you say “Apart from the use of a pseudonym”, it sounds like Charles Manson saying “Apart from all the murder, my cult was just a bunch of kids hanging out in the desert.”
Really? Did you conduct any original research on the issue? Because what you just described is called “secondary research”, and is nothing more than doing an 8th grade book report.
Really? And that qualifies you to write about space-based solar power because?
While you were at ASU, did you ever bother to read the “Students Obligations to Academic Integrity”? Paragraph A prohibits any act of “academic deceit.” Paragraph D prohibits acting “as a substitute for another person in any Academic Evaluation or assignment” . http://provost.asu.edu/academicintegrity/policy/StudentObligations When you posted an article under a pseudonym you engaged in academic deceit, and hid your “work’” and passed it off for another.
You understand, substituting your qualifications for the qualifications of a made-up person is called writing fiction right? Oh, by the way, the John Marburry of the West Wing has better made-up qualifications then the ones you gave him. Next time you write evidence under his name, just use the ones Aaron Sorkin wrote up.
Really? What is The Space Review’s normal editing process? Right now it looks to me like it comprises the following steps: (1) Ctrl-A; (2) Ctrl-C; (3) Ctrl-V. Did Dr. Foust know that were publishing under a pseudonym? I am going to guess the answer is “no”, since he did not say that it was published under a pseudonym. Since The Space Review did not look to see if John Marburry really existed then I doubt that “The Space Review” is really a respected and prominent journal.
By the way, what does Dr. Jeff Foust think of you now?
Really? Because I think you just wrote indicts to any cards coming from The Space Review.
Really? This is my favorite part. Your defense of doing one slimy thing (fabricating evidence), is that you were doing another slimy thing (violating your contractual obligations under your employment agreement, and trying to cover your tracks by not assigning your name to it).
Oh by the way, I am not sure what Fortune 500 company you work for, but I bet that the Damien administration is equally pissed at you for doing what you did. And not for nothing, but I bet that your current employer probably could not care less if you posted your opinions on solar powered satellites.
Really? You think its ironic? Here are things that are more ironic: (1) rain on your wedding day; (2) 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife; (3) the good advice that you just didn’t take.
And NONE of those things are remotely ironic.
Really? But I thought you were so concerned about violating your employment contract? Why not just ask The Space Review to pull the article? That way your Fortune 500 employer would never know of your cunning ruse to deceive it.
Really? There you are using “ironic” again.
You know what else would have ensured that you were never accused of cheating or being unethical? Not writing cards prior to the TOC, and then trying to pass them off as written by someone else. When you replied to e-mails in character, you lost all credibility on this issue.
YOU FIRST POSTED THIS ON A COMMENT TO A BLOG!!!!!!!! There was obviously no filter on the comment section. Also, you chose to publish your book report at a source which you knew was used by debaters on this topic. Why not wait to submit the article, under your name, until after NFL nationals? This is strong circumstantial evidence that you wanted the article posted when debaters could use it.
Are you just making it up as you go along? You admitted that you posted under a pseudonym, but you never alerted anyone that it was a pseudonym. You then responded to e-mails under the pseudonym. That’s overwhelming circumstantial evidence that you in fact intended to deceive. You took action to deceive, and succeeded (temporarily) in deceiving. Really.
Do you care to be more specific what these comments were, by whom they were made, and when they were made? Because absent some sort of corroboration, you will pardon those of us who don’t believe you, because, you know, you lied.
Frankly, the rest of your post is a bunch of red herrings. What you should have said is “this is what I did, it was wrong, and I am super sorry I did it.” Trying to embarrass teams for reading cards from blogs is not the same as apologizing or showing contrition for what you did. Really.
St. Paul Central Debate
West Wing Fan