|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Meert / Brown Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: Again I repeat that I listed the ways of resolving the issue of modification allowed by the agreement. If you can't find any other alternatives - and you haven't produced one then you are stuck.
quote: Please stop resorting to these pathetic misrepresentations. The relevant section does not contain that phrase and even if it did it would have to be considered in context. Which I have done and proven that your assertion is false.
quote: Your determination to repeatedly misrepresent my argument my argument is noted. Unfortunately for you my argument does not rely on this point in any way as you have been repeatedly told.
quote:i.e. you claim that the agreement allows Walt Brown to reject the proposed modifications. If that is so then produce the clause that allows it instead of misrepresenting both the agreement and my argument. Of course if you COULD do that then you would have done it by now, wouldn't you ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
No he isn't. Walt wrote the rule, & made the context quite clear before Joe submitted a modification. 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:
22. This agreement can be modified by mutual consent of the two sides. [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. 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 Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: I never said that there was any such statement. Please cease your misrepresentations and deal with my real argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
22. This agreement can be modified by mutual consent of the two sides. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
You are still refusing to deal with my argument.
And you continue to misrepresent the significance of clause 22. If you cannot answer my argument at least have the honesty to admit it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I repeat that since the agreement allows changes to be proposed the other party - having alrady signed the agreement is requires to resolve those according to the agreement itself. 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 agreement can be modified by mutual consent of the two sides. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
And you continue to misrepresent the significance of clause 22. This is what clause 22 says.
This agreement can be modified by mutual consent of the two sides. 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.
This agreement can be modified by mutual consent of the two sides.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
[quote]
qs I repeat that since the agreement allows changes to be proposed the other party - having alrady signed the agreement is requires to resolve those according to the agreement itself.[/qs]
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.
[/quote]
So firstly you say that I am wrong to state that there is such a section and then you try to tell me what it says. And unfortunately for you I have not disputed the actual wording so even there you have not proven me wrong in any way.
quote:Then you will have no problem quoting the clause that permits that. Just as I have asked you to, more than once. quote: You misrepresent my position yet again. As I have explicitly stated I hold that there is no such right. If you claim that the agreement incorporates such a right then quote the clause that states it. And to forestall any attempt to misrepresent clause 22 it does NOT grant a right to reject changes that are not agreed by mutual consent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Clause 22 is only permissive - it allows modifications to the agreement with mutual consent but does not forbid modifications under other circumstances.
The following text allows modifications to be proposed and offers only one way to reject them - the decision of the editor. I have already pointed out the three options for dealing with the proposed changes within the framework of the agreement and - despite being asked to - you have not produced a fourth, preferring instead to misrepresent my argument. It is perfectly obvious that the followin text does NOT elaborate on mutual consent. Thsat too is a misrepresentation on your part. And yet again you refuse to deal with my real argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Here is the section again.
This agreement can be modified by mutual consent of the two sides. [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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The following text allows modifications to be proposed and offers only one way to reject them - the decision of the editor. Except that's not what it says. This is what it says.
[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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
It would be helpful to keep reincluding any text that you are refering to. It would make it easier for those that aren't following so closely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Yet again you misrepresent my argument and demand I prove claims I have not made.
Again, please have the honesty to address my argument or admit that you cannot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
PaulK, I don't see where the person NOT making a change is forced to accept one? Can you re explain that to me?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024