Meert / Brown Debate

Charles, Indeed. Funnily, he doesn't seem to be that keen on a scientific debate, it seems.Mark

randman, Joe will face him anyway, regardless of the arbiters decision, where's Walt?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, Walt Brown has it. Yes, but the terms that Joe agreed to require him to drop the issue if the adjudicator ruled it. Joe made it clear he would abide by the rules.So where's Walt?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, As per Walts "rules".The text of clause 22 is replicated below. Note that this is a standard paragraph to be initialled if the challenger wishes to make a modification. Joe is perfectly entitled, as per Walt Brown's own stipulations, to suggest a modification. That Walt didn't like it is irrelevant. The proposed modification was to have been assessed by an independent "editor", but was not. It was Walt's stipulation that changes would be submitted to an independent, not Joe's. Walt failed to meet his own stipulation.Joe, did, & remains to abide by Walts stipulations, & has made it clear he will abide by the adjudication. But an independent adjudication cannot take place because Walt won't allow it. He's making it up as he goes along.Would you accept my claim that you refused to debate if you agreed to my stipulations, & I refused to hold myself to those same rules I made myself. Crying that it wasn't the debate I wanted after all? Somehow I don't think so.This is operationally identical to a point blank refusal to debate.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-14-2005 07:45 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, No he isn't. Walt wrote the rule, & made the context quite clear before Joe submitted a modification. Let's see what the authors context was when he wrote the provision for modification. Not "might" rule if the 2nd party is "willing", randman, the editor WILL rule on the matter, clearly because the modification WILL be submitted. The editor can't rule without a submission. Ergo, the authors intent of the stipulation for modification is that it should be submitted to a 3rd party.This renders the rest of your post moot, & lets my last post stand.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, When did I say anything about sight unseen? We aren't dealing with a legal document, so what a legal document requires is neither here nor there.What we are dealing with is your equivocation over Walt's ambiguous phraseology in clause 22. Clearly, what he meant was that any modification would be admitted or rejected by a 3rd party referee. We know this because he said as much to Joe before he submitted his proposed modification.Why did he about-face on his stated intention?If you disagree with Walt on this, might I suggest that you mail him personally & inform him that you know his own mind better than he?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-15-2005 12:55 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, No, he stated that the 2nd party must accept the following, "I am willing to have the editor decide the matter after my opponent and I have presented our positions." This may mean that the proposal "might" be sent to a 3rd party. Or it might mean that the proposal "will" be sent.Everyone but you, Walt included, understands the meaning to be the latter. Given Walt wrote the bloody thing, it is therefore reasonable to expect Walt to actually send a legitimate proposal to modify clause 4, under Walt's intended meaning of the rules of clause 22 to the nominated 3rd party. Nope, clause 22 allowed "modification to the above conditions". And the religious/scientific nature of the debate was one of them (clause 4). Therefore inserting religion as a proposed modification was perfectly legitimate. Then he was foolish to allow a mechanism by which he may have to include religion. Not Joe's fault, Joe's just operating under the stipulations presented to him. It does mean Walt can't he claim that evo's haven't challenged him under his own rules, however..For the record, were I the 3rd party I'd turn down Joe's proposal.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Ned,I concur with Paul, the "I" is the second party. If you were to challenge, it would be you, if I were to challenge it would be me. But in this case, "I" is Joe Meert. Absolutely true. Regardless of the "editors" decision, Joe accepted to debate anyway. Walt refused to send the proposal to the referee.I can't defend Joe's motives (as I understand it, he was only after a 2 page qualifier), but clause 4 is the clause that mentions the range of debate, ie. religion vs. science. Clause 22 allows a potential modification to that at the editors discretion. So randmans claim that religion is excluded as being a "cast iron" stipulation is demonstrably false. At best, Walt was sloppy. At worst, downright dishonest.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, I'm not saying he did, please don't put words in my mouth, I am saying that under his own rules Joe proposed a modification to include it. That proposal should have been submitted to an editor, as per Walts rules, rather than be summarily dismissed. Grow up. This is as substance-free as the rest of your post.It is a fact that Walt stated that any proposed modifications were to be assessed by a nominated 3rd party. It is a fact that the scientific/religious nature of the debate is summarised in clause 4. It is a fact that clause 22 allows a modification to clause 4. It is therefore a perfectly legitimate move for any challenger to propose a change to the scienctific/religious nature of the debate, as outlined in clause 4, as per clause 22. It is also perfectly reasonable to expect Walt to submit this proposed modification to a 3rd party editor like he said he would. He summarily rejected a perfectly valid proposed modification rather than do what was required under his own rules. It doesn't matter what he said prior to this, it is a fact that Walt broke his own rules.Therefore, Walt cannot legitimately say that no evolutionist has challenged his hydroplate theory.Case closed.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-17-2005 11:12 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, False, Walt clarified his ambiguity. This has been pointed out to you several times now. You are equivocating. It is a fact that Walt's challenge was taken up under his own rules as he intended them. He threw out the modified proposal & refused debate instead of passing it on to a 3rd party as he stated he would.Walt cannot claim that his challenge has gone unmet, as Joe made a perfectly legitimate challenge as per Walts own rules. End of story.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, Your "clear textual analysis" seems to steer clear of the fact that a legitimate challenge was illegitimately turned down by Walt, rendering the claim that no evolutionist has challenged him as false.That's all anyone has to show, Walt can cry all he likes about the sort of debate he wanted, but what he can't say without entering into a lie, is that no evolutionist has challenged him under his own rules of engagement.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't