Meert / Brown Debate

I hate to get in the middle of this discussion but this just doesn't seem to make sense. I don't see that it is a "deal-breaker" since by initialling the section Joe agreed to go ahead with the debate no matter what the outcome of the decision.Also, you say that if one of the parties wants to make a change to the terms of the agreement that (s)he is required to abide by those terms, if accepted by the editor, and the other party can choose to abide or not. How can you possibly have a debate if both sides aren't using the same agreement? It just seems kind of silly to submit proposed changes to a third party if everyone isn't going to be playing with those rules.Thanks for clearing that up.Added by edit: I thought that Walt's entire thesis rested on the premise that there was a global flood. Since the only place to find evidence of that is in a religious text how can the debate not include religion?This message has been edited by bob_gray, 06-14-2005 09:36 PM

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.