|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Meert / Brown Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Trixie, show where Walt agrees to a 3rd party ruling, please.
He does not. Only the party requesting the ruling agrees to that. Under the agreement, you can request a change, and you have to live with a 3rd party ruling on it, but the other party can still reject it. The party making the suggested change thus forfeits the right to back out, but the other party makes no such forfeiture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
You say
I am sorry, but if you can't read English, that's not my problem. I am perfectly capable of reading and understanding English. Both parties were to be held to the agreement AND THAT INCLUDES Walt! That's why a wee space was included for BOTH PARTIES to sign and that was provided BY WALT. If he wasn't going to be held to any changes suggested by Joe Meert, why did he include it? Note that the clause allows for both parties to state their case for and against any changes, so Brown had provided for disagreement over proposed changes - third party arbitration - and then reneged on the clause. In the interests of forum guidelines and manners, I'm off to bed. I'll reply tomorrow. By then your manners may well have improved. Ho hum!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
As I have already stated clause 22 renders the section completely redundant if Walt Brown's consent is required. The intent therefore msut be to allow changes which Walt Brown does not consent to - and provides a fair way of resolving such issues. Your claim that such a reading is "cpompletely wrong" is a clear distortion.
The clause in question provides no way of settling the matter other than the decision of the editor. As I remember it, Brown had already signed the agreement and so was already committed to the debate. In this situation, under the rules of the debate Brown can accept the modifications, pass them to the editor or ask the editor to rule on whether the editor should make the decision (under clause 7). There is no provision for Brown to unilaterally reject the modifications without consulting the editor. Yet that is what Brown did. {ADDED in edit. It is confirmed that Walt Brown HAS signed the curent version of the agreement:The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory
If someone says, Walt Brown has refused to debate, we suggest you ask to see that person’s signed debate agreement. (Walt Brown has published his on pages 338-340)
} Even if it is not read as committing Brown to having the agreement adjudicated (and that is a lawyer's reading if ever there was one) it still follows that Meert accepted the challenge and Brown declined. And as yet we have seen no good reason for Brown to decline - just the opposite since Browns claim implies that the decision is expected to go in his favour and there has been no attempt to show that Meert's specific proposals would actually harm the debate. If Walt Brown genuinely wanted a debate all he had to do was abide by the agreement and go ahead. He chose not to do so. This message has been edited by PaulK, 06-14-2005 06:30 PM This message has been edited by PaulK, 06-14-2005 06:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Trixie, show where Walt agrees to a 3rd party ruling, please. He agreed to it when he included the clause in the agreement HE WROTE!!!! If he had no intention of abiding by his OWN clause, the whole offer is disingenuous to say the least. The clause allows for either party to propose changes and for either party to agree with or oppose proposed changes. Remember, both parties were to sign below said clause, agreeing to it AND WALT REFUSED TO SIGN HIS OWN AGREEMENT i.e. he objected to the conditions which he, himself had set in the first place. Right, off to bed. Edited for formatting This message has been edited by Trixie, 06-14-2005 06:22 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Trixie, read the agreement, puuullleeeaasse.
Let's say someone wants to sell a house, and on the offer for sale, someone can offer to purchase some items, but not specified, and agree to their apprasised value. They can execute the agreement, but the party putting the house up for sale still has the right to reject the agreement if they detail items they are not willing to sell with the house. Same thing here. Walt says I want to debate on these terms, but if you want me to consider changes, you need to first be serious, make a SERIOUS OFFER, and so I am requiring that you agree that any proposed changes YOU are making, that YOU agree to a 3rd party ruling. Making the party requesting that change in no way obligates Walt at all. He can still accept or reject the request, or send it to the 3rd party moderator, and he has chosen to reject it. Why do that? Because there could be a proposed change he can live with, but doesn't think it should be there, and so he sends it to the 3rd party, hoping it gets shot down, or the change could be something he doesn't want at all (remember that he does not know what the guy will propose), and so he wants to retain the right to reject it. That's the nature of the agreement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
He agreed to it when he included the clause in the agreement HE WROTE!!!! Why don't you just read what he wrote. The language binds the party requesting the change, not the other party. Let's say I write a contract where you can request changes, but in just requesting the change, you agree to live with a 3rd party ruling, but I, on the other hand, include no such language. I still retain my right to accept or reject the change. That's what this document states. Why is that fair? Because no one should agree to allow something to go to a 3rd party without first considering what the proposed change is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
As I have already stated clause 22 renders the section completely redundant if Walt Brown's consent is required. First off, redudancy is perfectly acceptable and normal for contracts and agreements. Secondly, one could argue that the section is detailing the qualifications of the mutual assent area, which it does harmonize with. Thirdly, the intent is not to allow changes which one party has never seen, nor consented to. Sure, if Walt agrees to sign off on the proposed change as a possibility, the matter goes to a 3rd party. That in no way obligates him to agree ahead of seeing the proposed change, to submit to a 3rd party, and expressly only limits the party proposing the change. You've got a proposed change, you initial you agree to a 3rd party, period. The other party never agrees to that. They get to first consider the change, and either agree to it, or send it to the 3rd party. It's as plain as day. What part of the following do you not understand?
h to propose a modification to the above conditions. However, I am willing to have the editor... Are you claiming the "I" here refers to Walt? Who does the "I" refer to? Which party?
lt Brown genuinely wanted a debate all he had to do was abide by the agreement and go ahead. He chose not to do so. He did abide by the agreement. He chose not to include, or allow the possibility of inclusion, any religion in the debate. Joe, on the other hand, claims he will debate just the facts, but insists on the chance to insert religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
randman,
Joe Meert writes: At the same time, it should be quite clear that Walt Brown is afraid to spend two pages discussing the foundations of his pseudoscientific hypotheses. I remain willing to abide by the decision of an independent arbiter regarding my request and for my part, the signed agreement stays in effect. Apparently, Walt just likes making the claim that no one will debate him. Next time you see him, ask him what he is afraid of! 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  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
There is no provision for Brown to unilaterally reject the modifications without consulting the editor. Sorry, but you are only bound to what you agree to. Unequivocally, the agreement in no way, shape, or form requires Brown send proposed changes to a 3rd party editor. It only requires that the party making those changes is limited to what they can do once they make those changes. Brown retains any right to reject those changes. What you are saying is that ahead of time, he must agree to changes without even knowing what they could be, and that's not what it states. It gives him the option of rejecting the changes by not initialling the changes or not. You fail to realize that this is an executable area of the document requiring initialling (consent), and thus is optionable until initialled. That's how documents work. One party cannot unilaterally change a document. Both sides have to agree. You don't have to have a provision detailing that right because it is a given. It's the way the law is. One party cannot change a document without the other party agreeing to it. Moreover, Walt was very clear, science only and no religion. Take it or leave it, but trying to besmirch the man indicates to me something deeply wrong and flawed with the thinking of evolutionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Where's Joe's signed agreement that he will debate the issue without religion?
Joe insists on the right to try to insert religion into the debate, something Walt never agreed to. The claim thus that Walt's challenge has been met is bogus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2292 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Thirdly, the intent is not to allow changes which one party has never seen, nor consented to Where is this "never seen" idea coming from? The proposed changes were listed below the signatures per Brown's rules.
Walt Brown writes: bolding mine [INITIAL IF APPROPRIATE] I wish to propose a modification to the above conditions. However, I am willing to have the editor decide the matter after my opponent and I have presented our positions. I will abide by this ruling and participate in the written debate. My suggested changes and their justification are listed below. Basically what you are claiming is that no matter what, Walt makes the final decisions. What is the use of that final clause if Walt has to agree to a change to even get it sent to a moderator? If your version is what Brown had in mind than it was done in a spirit of obfuscation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: Yet to read two clauses that appear to be distinct and differnet as redundant is NOT.
quote: If you mean that you could adopt a twisted reading to favour Walt Brown then that is what you have been doing. But that is hardly a reasonable way of reading the agreement.
quote:The apparent intent is to allow the other party (Brown) to see the proposed changes, to make a case against them if he wishes to and to have the editor - a neutral third party make the decision if there is a dispute. What is wrong with that ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
randman,
Where's Joe's signed agreement that he will debate the issue without religion? Walt Brown has it.
Joe insists on the right to try to insert religion into the debate, something Walt never agreed to. 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  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Walt's doing exactly what he should. If Joe wants to take him up on the debate, he can at anytime, but he has not.
Joe wants to debate with the right to appeal to a 3rd party to insert religion into the debate. That's not the type of debate Walt proposed. Walt refuses to grant the right to even appeal to a 3rd party for religion to be inserted. It's interesting that here we see the real problem is evolutionists want the right to use religion to make their case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Yet to read two clauses that appear to be distinct and differnet as redundant is NOT.
Wrong, completely. 1. They do not appear distinct and different. The clause in question is not numbered. It appears as either part of the first clause, explaining how the parties may mutually assent, or a separate clause only for the party that initials it, but regardless, the meaning stays the same. 2. So it is not really even redundant, but if it was, that would be perfectly normal, even in cases where a cursory review can be misleading to someone that doesn't read it closely and pays attention to which party agrees to what term. 3. I am not adopting a twisted version but merely showing what the document says. The "I" that agrees to submit his request to a 3rd party can only refer to that party. In order for the other party to agree, they must also initial and agree to submit that change to the other party. There is no compulsion to do so in the agreement, and I would argue that claiming that would be near unconscionable and would void the contract anyway since one has to know the change first to even legally agree to submit it to a 3rd party. 4. The apparent intent is actually just to force the party making a proposed change to give in to agreeing to going ahead without it, if a 3rd party rules it should. That's all. You are just trying to stretch the agreement beyond what it says. 5. last point is Walt refused to do a debate where religion is apart ot if. Joe refuses to agree to a debate unless he can argue before a 3rd party that religion should be part of it. That's the whole issue. In no way has Walt deviated from his original offer, and Joe has refused to accept Walt's conditions. Break it down however you want, but that's what is going on. Is Walt wrong to refuse to allow religion in a science debate? I would think you would agree with Walt here, but somehow knowing how evolutionists always like to bring up religion, I am not surprised.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024