Meert / Brown Debate

Show the statement, not your own legal analysis of what you think it says, but the actual language that specifically binds the party not requesting any changes to send the requested changes to a 3rd party.Show me where it does, please. Point out where:1. Walt is the party that is the subject of a sentence.2. That sentence contains a verb requiring Walt to do something.3. That something is to send the document to a 3rd party, or any way requires Walt to act with or without his "mutual consent."You can't, and that's because it does not exist in the document.Ergo, your claims are false because you posit that the section referring to a 3rd party binds the party not requesting the change when it clearly and unequivocally does not. It only specifies the party requesting that change must agree to that condition as part of requesting the change.This message has been edited by randman, 06-15-2005 10:18 AM

Prove that. Show me anywhere in the document that specifically demands that Walt agree to submit any proposed change, without seeing it, to a 3rd party.It doesn't say that here: You guys have some strange ideas about legal documents. I hope you don't ever have to review and sign any. The document absolutely does not require that the party not requesting the change accept or send the change to a 3rd party.Show me where it does, please. Point out where:1. Walt is party that is the subject of a sentence.2. That sentence contains a verb requiring Walt to do something.

PaulK, absent a statement detailing that it is the responsibility of one party to do something, you cannot claim that party must act on it.I don't know where you get your ideas, but the document only binds the party proposing a change.The language affecting both parties is clear. That statement shows Walt has to mutually consent to changes.There is no other provision binding the party not requesting the change.Yiu are the one ignoring the argument.Show me the sentence that forces Walt to go along with a change with or without his mutual consent.

But you are wrong on what "the agreement itself" says. The agreement merely states that if YOU want to propose changes, YOU must agree to debate even if a 3rd party rejects those changes.The agreement itself still retains the right of the other party to reject those changes completely. This makes sense. One side can propose a change, and then the other side gets to review that change as well, and either reject, agree, or send it to a 3rd party for ruling.That way both parties get to review the proposed change, and provided the change is within bounds, not trying to change the topic like Joe did, the proposed change can go to a 3rd party and they go on.Your suggesting that the agreement itself removes Walt's right to mutual consent is absurd since you cannot show where it does that. You cannot point to any sentence that does that within "the agreement itself."

This is what clause 22 says. How am I misrepresenting that?If you are referring to the subsequent language, if it is part of clause 22, then it seems to elaborate on "mutual consent" by only binding the party that proposes a change.If it does not, it still only binds the party proposing the change.Your argument is totally specious because you cannot show where the agreement says what you say it does. All arguments not based on specific details requiring one party to act are specious.Just because a document contains a provision limiting one party does not mean the other party is equally limited. The party requesting a change gives up it's right to consent and agrees to a 3rd party ruling.The party that considers the change has the right to consent, or not, as the document states, and does not agree to have to take the issue to a 3rd party. That's the language of the document. You are trying to make an argument against what the document says.Here is Point 22 again.

Here is the section again. Read it, PaulK. No where in there does the agreement bind the party not making the change to send the proposed change to a 3rd party.It specifically states "mutual consent."You propose these are 2 different methods of resolution.That is probably false since the section on 3rd party does not have it's own number. It lays out how mutual consent is to work, that the party requesting the change consents to "be willing" to let it go to a 3rd party.The other party does covenant to be willing, but only agrees via it's consent.If you read this as 2 clauses, which you have at times done and now are switching back, the same thing is true, and that's because the reference to a 3rd party is in a provision only binding the party making the change.Sorry PaulK, but making an argument about what the agreement says without actually showing any sentences that show the agreement says what you say is a specious argument.Show the sentences that:1. Include Walt as a party in the subject.2. And that detail that he must give up his right of mutual consent and send any proposed changes to a 3rd party.Please back up your argument with some provision in the agreement. Just stating that the agreement provides for something is not an argument that it binds both parties to that provision.

Except that's not what it says. This is what it says. Who is the subject of this section?Hint: The party requesting the change.All this says is that the party wanting a change is "willing to have the editor decide the matter."Show me any provision in this statement where the other party convenants the same.You cannot because the provision clearly only binds the party making he proposed change.What part of:"I wish to propose a modification to the above conditions"do you not understand?Your argument is just because the document binds the party requesting a change to agree to a 3rd party ruling, that the other party has also agreed to that, but there is no mutually binding language here. The subject is "I", the party requesting the change, not "we" or "both parties." It may seem to you to suggest that the other party is agreeing, but the provision only mentions the party making the changes agrees to the 3rd party.The other party is not specified as agreeing to that.Ergo, you cannot claim they have agreed to that, nor that the document states they have agreed. The provision only limits the choices of the party requesting the change. Nothing in the agreement limits the choices of the other party.This message has been edited by randman, 06-15-2005 11:09 AM

PaulK, I am addressing your argument. It's up to you to show the text of the document states what you say it does.I have repeatedly asked you to show the provision where Walt covenants to send the change to a 3rd party, and you cannot.So claiming by signing the agreement, he agreed to do that is bogus.By signing the agreement, he agreed that the other party limits their options if they want to propose a change, but that no where in the agreement does it state that he limits his choices.All the agreement says in respect to the party not making the change, in this case, Walt is: The subsequent language only specifies that the party requesting a change must agree to limit it's choices in order to make that change.That language only refers to their offer, and their willingness to have the offer considered and abide by the determination of a 3rd party.You are claiming the agreement says something without showing any sentences that state what you say it does. You are making a false claim stating I am ignoring your argument.No, I am asking for evidence for your argument from the text, and you cannot provide it.Show where the text says what you claim or concede the point.

Right here, buddy, as I have shown you repeatedly. No where else is there any clause that changes that, period. "Mutual consent" means one party can unilaterally decide to reject a change, unless otherwise provided for. The only other section relates only to limiting the party's consent that requests the change.No where does it state that Walt has to send the proposed change to a 3rd party, but it does state his "mutual consent" is required.What part of "mutual consent" do you not understand?Mutual consent is required by both parties to even send the agreement to a 3rd party. One side can ask for a change, and in doing state they are willing to send the agreement change to a 3rd party. That does not negate the fact the other party's mutual consent is still required. All that does is provide for the mutual consent of the party requesting the change to send it to a 3rd party if the other party so chooses. That's what it says.Why not just own up to the facts here?

No, misrepresentation. You cannot back up your claims. No, the clause states that the by mutual consent both parties may agree to send it to a 3rd party. There could be cases of rules-changes that Brown does not want, but is willing to accept upon a 3rd party ruling, and other proposed changes that he is not willing to do that.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. It's perfectly understandable to want to have it both ways here. It may be that the price of a proposed change is worth getting someone to debate, and hence sending it to a 3rd party, or the price is not worth it, and hence not sending it.Joe's committment is per the offer. Walt is free to accept or reject the offer. Wrong, there is provision to unilaterally reject any proposed changes, and it's spelled out quite clearly. The provision for the party requesting the change merely gives them the opportunity ahead of time to agree to a 3rd party ruling in the matter. No where does it state or even imply that Walt has thus granted that he gives up the right to mutually consent or reject the change outright.Where are you getting that from?This is the clause in question, and it only involves one party covenanting to the 3rd party ruling, not both. I don't see any reference to the other party committing to take the rules change request to a 3rd party. "I am willing" is a statement and covenant of the party identified as "I" which in this case is Joe.Walt has not signed off on removing his right to mutually consent here at all, and why should he. Unlike Joe, he would not have even seen the proposed rules change. So he gets to see it, and then decide if it is worth the risk of sending it to the 3rd party.He decided it was not worth the risk, and thus acted appropiately. Moreover, Brown stated all along that his acceptance of the debate was contigent on an iron-clad rule of no religion.Making provision for the other party to request a change in no way obligates Brown to accept the change. It only obligates the other party to a 3rd party ruling upon Brown's consent.

No, he clearly stated the opposite. That he inserted the clause to refer to procedural changes, not changes in the content of the debate.As far as the wording, there is nothing obligating Brown to accept the change and send it to a 3rd party, period.As far as intent, the same holds true. He clearly and repeatedly said he would debate only on the facts, not religion, and stated that he would accept changes within those parameters.Joe asked for changes outside those parameters, and then has the gall to claim the agreement demands Walt accept them by sending them to a 3rd party.Well, if we are falling back on the wording, the agreement makes no such demand of Walt.If we are going by fairness and original intent, Walt is also 100% in the right here since there is no doubt in their communication and Walt's longstanding offer, that the debate content had to be limited to the facts, not theology.If Joe had asked for a procedural change, not a change in content, then Walt said he would go through with it, but that's not what happened.Let's all be honest here. You know and I know what Walt offerred and did not. He clearly offerred repeatedly to debate but only on the facts. You guys are trying to use the language ti suggest he has to go through with a debate beyond those parameters, but your claims are false because the language doesn't even obligate Walt.If Joe or anyone wants to accept his challenge, they can do so. Accept the challenge of debating only the facts, or don't.This message has been edited by randman, 06-15-2005 01:33 PM

Mark, Walt clearly stated before, during and after this whole saga that he would only debate the facts, not religion.Why are you claiming he agreed to do otherwise?Do you not believe he never intended to debate religion, or are you lying?The specious attempt by you to try to use the language to trap him into an agreement to debate religion is bogus, and you know it.You want to argue intent on this section, but then want to throw out intent and think trying to force someone to debate a topic they said all along they would never do is somehow convincing.It may convince people that are deluded, but I think an honest, objective observer would agree that the intent was never to allow a modification of point 4. You are claiming he put the issue of whether to debate religion on the table by the offer, and that's a lie, imo.As far as I am concerned, this whole episode speaks volumes to me about the type of people that would take up the cause here of trying to smear Walt Brown, and yet don't have the guts to simply agree with no appeal otherwise to debate on the facts.This thread alone is illuminating, and confirms a lot of what I feel about evolutionists.For the record, I am not someone that holds dogmatically to any view whether creationism or theistic evolution, or ID. I think there are a lot of sounds arguments in all of the various camps, although I don't agree on the "randomness" claim at all within much of evolution.But what is a bigger concern is what I see as the absolute cult-like behaviour of many evolutionists. I have seen that same mentality in religious cults, and I see it here.Maybe it's a product of the teach the conclusion first and demonize all the "non-believers" approach. But whatever it is, it's not good.The idea that a man like Walt Brown who puts forth a comprehensive, falsifiable theory should be treated in the manner evolutionists are doing in this matter, and moreover, you guys joining in, tells me there are serious, very serious problems with the way evolution is taught and advocated.Walt's theory may or may not be untenable, but he put forth an honest challenge, and no one seems willing to take him up on it without trying to insert religion.Imo, there may be a valid scientific theory of common descent ToE, but it's part of a false, cult-like ideology of evolutionism that deserves to be exposed and censured.

The "I" here refers to the party proposing a change, and it seems that Joe refuses to go ahead with the debate unless he can try to appeal to a 3rd party to insert religion, something Walt said all along he had no interest in doing.All this says, contrary to what PaulK wants to make it say, is that the person proposing the change must agree to submit it to a 3rd party and abide by that rule. It is strictly a one-sided covenant in this clause. It is a way for one party to make an offer.The other party clearly and in no place is obligated to accept the change.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.It's just absurd logic.There is nothing in the agreement stating the "both parties" must accept the change.Walt states that he would, if the change was procedural, but not a change in the topic.To claim Brown is being unreasonable is the height of arrogance, imo.I understand evolutionists like to bring up religion and not just stick to the facts, but it is quite reasonable, in a scientific debate, to stick to factual evidence.But apparently, that's not quite reasonable to many evolutionists.Wonder why?This message has been edited by randman, 06-16-2005 02:09 AM

Well, what I clearly see is man that put a plain and simple offer to debate the facts, not religion, on the table, and no one has taken him up on that, to my knowledge, without trying to insert religion into the debate.I suspect most objective, reasonable-minded people see the same thing.What some are doing here is trying to say that Walt essentially trapped himself in the language of the offer, but that is wrong:1. Because the language does not state he has to send their change to a 3rd party.2. And moreover, and perhaps in one way even more importantly, even if one was right on the technical langauge reguiring him to bring religion into the debate, he did not and the agreement does not, but even if he somehow had made a mistake and miscommunicated, he still would have done nothing wrong, and has acted appropiately, even if that were true, in clarifying what he means, which is what he said all along, that he does not intend, nor will he, debate religion, but rather only the facts.To try to twist the language around to get him to debate religion is very childish, imo, and the fact people here defend such behaviour and condemn the offer to debate only the facts is extremely telling, not of Walt who is very consistent, but telling about the posters here and the way they view things.Once again, I think most objective and reasonably-minded people without a dog in this fight so to speak would see this the way I do.Here is a guy making a clear offer to debate the facts only, and basically no one will take him on it.

Sylas, you make a reasonable point on why he may be getting few offers. Most may not want their names associated with the publication for various reasons.On the other hand, if Joe Meert and others genuinely do want to debate the facts, they know they can by just agreeing to only debate the facts.