Meert / Brown Debate

THe problem is that would require reproducing the entire agreement.My position is:1) Walt signed the agreement, therefore committing himself to debate so long as the other part follows the procedures laid out in the agreement.2) The agreement permits the other party to propose modifications - on the condition that the other party accepts the editors decision on whether the changes should be allowed. That clause presumes that Brown does not consent to the modifications - not only by its existence (it serves no purpose if Brown consents to the change) but also in that it provides for Brown to present a case against acceptance. (This can supported by just quoting that text but it has often appeared here)3) The question of the modifications must be resolved before he debate proceeds and thus it must be done within the provisions of the agreement. There is no provision permitting Brown to unilaterally reject the modification - thus that is not an option. Showing the absence of a provision really would require quoting the whole agreement.

Demanding that I prove something I did not claim is not addressing my argument. It is misrepresentation. Repeated misrepresentation on your part does not prove me wrong.Where is the clause permitting Walt Brown to unilaterally reject proposed modifications ?

That's randman's misrperesentation. See Message 197 for a repeat of my real argument.

So your only answer is to misrepresent Clause 22 AGAIN.As I have pointed out it only states that the agreement MAY be modified by mutual consent. It does NOT state that the agreement may ONLY be modified by mutual consent. Therefore it does not rule out the possibility of making changes to the agreement by other means.So we have confirmed that you know of no clause that allows Walt Bown to unilaterally reject modifications. Therefore the only viable options identified by the agreement are the three I have alreay listed
(Yes three - apparently you lack either the literacy or the numeracy to distinguish between a list of three options and a single course of action).

quote:

---

If Joe or anyone wants to accept his challenge, they can do so.

---

That isn't true. Do you know why Walt Brown refused to debate jim Lippard ? The debate offer is NOT open to anyone.(Indeed it is pretty obvious that the proposal is a PR stunt - and including the fact that Brown's beliefs are based on his rteligious views would spoil that - THAT is why Walt Brown doesn't want religion mentioned).

Exactly which claim is it that I am supposedly unable to back up ?

quote:

---

No, the clause states that the by mutual consent both parties may agree to send it to a 3rd party.

---

No, there is no such clause. There is a clause allowing the two parties to change the agreement by mutual consent but it does not require the intervention of a third party. (Such a rule is obviously silly - after all if the two parties consent then they have the simple option of simply drawing up a new agreement incorporating the modifications)

quote:

---

The agreement provides for both, giving Brown the option of totally rejecting the change up-front, or sending it to a 3rd party where the clause could be rejected

---

An outright lie. There is no clause permitting Brown to reject a change unilaterally.

quote:

---

Wrong, there is provision to unilaterally reject any proposed changes, and it's spelled out quite clearly.

​

This agreement can be modified by mutual consent of the two sides.

---

Could the lie be any more obviosu ? of course it does not provide for the unilateral rejection of modifications proposed by the other party.

There's no problem here. There's not even any dispute over the meaning (randman tries to pretend there is - over my repeated protests).The "I" is the other party agreeing to the debate (Brown has no need to propose changes since he wrote the agreement - and is free to withdraw it and post a new version whenever he wishes).I know that that secion of text was ibn the document when Joe Meert signed and sent in the form since I checked Brown's website myself at the time. I am not aware of the prior history.Joe Meert agreed to debate provided the editor was permitted to rule on his proposed modifications - and to accept that ruling no matter what it was. Whether Brown refused to allow that because he didn't dare allow a neutral third party to adjudicate or whether he simply hoped to weasel out of the debate is something we can't know. Both are plausible.

quote:

---

What PaulK and others are claiming is that despite Walt repeatedly saying he will not debate religion, that he must agree to debate religion because that is a proposed change, if a 3rd party rules that way.

---

I never said any such thing. As I have repeatedly told you. There is absolutely no chance of an honest mistake under such circumstances. I can only regard it as an intnetional and persistant lie.

Joe Meert signed the agreement, proposing that a short section (2 pages) examining the religious background to Browns claims should be included.Brown refused to go ahead with the debate unless the proposal was withdrawn. He refused to submit the proposed change to the editor or even advance to the step of choosing an editor.The rules for dealing with proposed changes clearly do not permit Brown to reject changes out of hand. If they did then it would state that the proposer would have to accept Brown's rejection - not the editor's decision.On that basis I state that the agreement did not permit Brown to act as he did. He would however be permitted to argue that the rules were unclear and invoke clause 7 to appeal to the editor to decide how the issue should be resolved - rather than simply getting the editor to adjudicate on the modifcations directly.That said I can see no good reason why this should be such a killer issue. If it is true that there is no good case for the modification then I cannot see that Brown had anything to lose by allowing the editor to decide.

I disagree on one point. The question of the rules is relevant to the question of whether Walt Brown retreated from a valid offer of a debate under the rules as he wrote them.As I have stated earlier if the rules were unclear the proper recourse would have been to have the editor decide what the rules were. The rules certainly did not place any restrictions on the modifications that could be proposed, or state that they could be unilaterally rejected by Brown. Thus Joe Meert acted within the framework of the agreement and Walt Brown did not.As a conclusion any claim that evolutionists refuse to debate Brown is not only irrelevant to the merits of Brown's arguments as you correctly point out. It is also a lie.

Joe Meert was prepared to put his case for including 2 pages on religion before the editor, and debate regardless of the decision.Walt Brown was not prepared to let the editor make that decision.You have yet to offer a valid reason why.I suggest that there is a reason why Walt Brown feared to have the matter fairly decided. He wants to abuse the debate to claim that his views are taken seriously by scientists. But if it is made clear that his ideas are religiously based it becoems more difficult for him to do that.