|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Meert / Brown Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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:
This agreement can be modified by mutual consent of the two sides. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
PaulK and Randman:
Perhaps it's just my short attention span, but the "you did so", "I did not" part of this discussion may seem as impenetrable to everyone else as it does to me. Could you guys draw your discussion closer to the thread's topic, and if you're able to do that then please make more clear your position in each post so we don't have to go back 5 or 10 messages just to figure out what the heck you're arguing about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
That's randman's misrperesentation. See Message 197 for a repeat of my real argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
randman,
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. When did I say anything about sight unseen?
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. 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? Mark This 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bob_gray Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 243 From: Virginia Joined: |
Thanks for the answer. I think I understand what you are saying but I guess I just don't agree. If Walt is unwilling to allow changes to the agreement it seems disingenuous to include a "change" clause and then simply not respond.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Where is the clause permitting Walt Brown to unilaterally reject proposed modifications ? Right here, buddy, as I have shown you repeatedly.
This agreement can be modified by mutual consent of the two sides. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
No, misrepresentation. You cannot back up your claims.
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) 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.
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. 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. 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.
[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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Clearly, what he meant was that any modification would be admitted or rejected by a 3rd party referee. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
quote: Two things: 1) I am confused by the above. Who is the "I" in that paragraph? It looks like something inserted? What is it's history? 2) Do I remember correctly that Joe agreed to debate even though Brown would not accept religion in the debate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Exactly which claim is it that I am supposedly unable to back up ?
quote: 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: An outright lie. There is no clause permitting Brown to reject a change unilaterally.
quote: Could the lie be any more obviosu ? of course it does not provide for the unilateral rejection of modifications proposed by the other party.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024