Meert / Brown Debate

OK, if we accept your analogy you are saying that the defence lawyer should decide what is and is not admissible evidence, and that the judge should keep out of it. That isn't how real trials are run.The fact is that Walt Brown refuses to honour his agreement, and both you and he know it. So why keep on denying the truth ?

In the analogy the editor takes the role of the judge. Walt won't put this matter to the editor. You know that.Walt Brown won't debate.

The debate never started because Walt Brown refused to honour his agreement.

It doesn't matter what excuses you offer. Walt Brown is still refusing to honour the agreement he wrote.Walt Brown refuses to debate. And tries to blame his opponents.

SO THAT'S how to win debates. You put out a challenge and if anybody accepts you make an excuse, go back on your word, and run away.I don't think so.Joe Meert didn't lose the debate because there WAS no debate. And the reason that there was no debate is that Walt Brown refuses to hounour the agreement.Those are the facts. But please go on twisting and squiriming. It just shows how empty and false creationism really is.

It is certainly not obvious that Joe Meert would have refused to debate if the editor's decision had gone against him. He signed an agreement accepting that the debate would take place whichever way the decision went. And we'll never know that because Walt Brown won't honour the agreement that he wrote.What IS obvious is that you are making groundless insinuations against Joe Meert - showing the lack of morality typical of creationists.

Sorry but something doesn't become a fact jsut because you made it up.You do NOT know that Joe Meert would have refused to debate if the editor had decided agaisnt him. THAT is a fact. You knew full well that that Joe Meert signed an agreement saying that he WOULD debate no matter which way the decions went - because it has been pointed out to you often enough. And THAT is a fact.You're making groundless insinuations against Joe Meert because you want to make excuses for Walt Brown and that is a FACT. Walt Brown refuses to honour the agreement he wrote and THAT is a fact.You don't like the facts and that is why you are behaving so despicably. Because you want to deny the facts and pretend that Walt Brown somehow "won" by running away from his own challenge..

THe facts are:1) Walt went against the agreement he had put up and signed.2) According to the agreement the decision whether or not to allow the change was to be made by the (neutral) editor. Joe Meert accepted that - Walt Brown would rather go back on the agreement than risk it.3) Joe Meert is not the only person who has offered to debate Walt Brown and been refused. Jim Lippard also offered.Joe Meert went along with the agreement that he and Brown had signed. Joe Meert was prepared to let a neutral third party assess whether his proposed changes would be allowed. Brown broke the agreement and refused to let the editor decide. Brown continues to claim that evolutionists refuse to debate him - even though the refusal is his.How can you not see the dishonesty in Brown's behaviour ?

Why should Brown allow changes - or rather, allow PROPOSED changes to be adjucated by the editor ? Because THAT is what the agreement Brown set up said. Joe Meert did't try to change the deal - Brown did.

Do you consider it to be generally accepted that a party to an agreement can retroactively and unilaterally change an agreement after the other party has signed ?Or do you simply insist that this is a privilege reserved to creationists ?

If what you are saying is true then randman's idea of prejudice is finding out what happened rather than assuming that Walt Brown is innocent beacuse he is a creationist. And when he said that he couldn't see that Walt Brown was guilty of dishonesty it was because he had't bothered to look. I think I'll give him a little more credit than that.

The agreement is linked from post 1.The final clause is: Joe Meert signed up to the agreement as it was written. But Walt Brown refused to let the editor decide the matter as the agreement states. He went back on the agreement he had written. The challenge was taken up - and Brown refused to accept.

Why would it depend on the agreement ? Surely simple fairness holds that it shouls only be modified as allowed for by the agreement itself. In this case by mutual consent or by decision of the editor. Why is Joe Meert wrong for following the procedures laid out in the agreement and Walt Brown right for refusing to accept the agreement he himself wrote ?You and Brown claim that there is no need to include any reference to religion in the debate. If that is so then why not trust the editor to make that decision ? Why would Brown rather go back on his word than allow a neutral third party to adjudicate ?

So your argument is:1) It is "bullcrap" to sy that the agreement menas what it says. Instead it means whatever Walt Brown says2) Allowing a neutral third party to decide changese makes the agreement "too open-ended" for Walt Brown. But allowing Walt Brown to make unilateral changes does NOT make it too open-ended for his opponents.3) The section I quoted clearly contradicted your claim that the agreement could be only modified by agreement of the two sides because it allows another way to modify it.

The clause states that the editor will make the decision. It does NOT say that Walt Brown's consent is required. If mutual consent were the only way the agreement could be modified then there would be no need to involve the editor at all.Walt Brown is therefore wrong in principle since he refused to follow the agreement that HE WROTE. And you are wrong in principle since you misrepresent the clear words of the agreement.