Meert / Brown Debate

quote:

---

Sorry, but you are only bound to what you agree to.

---

By signing the agreement Brown committed himself to its terms. Those terms permit the other party to propose modifications. The agreement also inclues provisions for adjudicating those proposals, and by signing Brown has agreed to follow those.Those provisions are:
1) For Brown to accept the modifications (clause 22)
2) For the editor to decide (final clause).
3) If Brown finds these unacceptable his only option is to raise a procedural dispute with the editor.(clause 7)Your argument, then, can only work if Brown did not sign the agreement - because otherwise he DID refuse to be bound by what he agreed to. (Unfortunately for you, his website states that he has signed the current version in agreement with my mmeory that he signed the previous version)Even then your argument still indicts Brown with dishonesty since it is Brown who walked away from the agreement - rather than trust in the procedures he himself extablished. It follows that Brown rejected the debate, not Meert.

He cannot agree and initial the proposed changes section until he sees the proposed change. You seem to think he is granting some blanket agreement to agree to submit any changes whatsoever to a 3rd party, but that's not what the agreement states. It merely puts some teeth into the proposed changes section by limiting the party's that makes the proposals rights to back out. No, what I am saying is that both parties have to be aware, under this agreement, of the proposed changes before they agree to submit to a 3rd party. I can think of several right off the bat.1. To make sure the guy offering to debate is serious, and won't just back out if his changes are not agreed to.2. To give the opportunity to propose changes in a binding manner. One party gets to suggest a change, but can only do so by agreeing ahead of time to accept the ruling. That makes the offer more serious. the other party gets a chance to decide whether to go with it before the 3rd party or not.What's not to understand here? Hardly. Seems like a pretty fair approach to me. You want to suggest a change, you have to agree to what the moderator says, and that's only if the other party agrees to it. They get a chance to look at the proposed change and agree to allow it to go to the moderator.Nothing wrong with that.It makes everything come out ahead of time, and no surprises. Otherwise you are asking for someone to accept the possibility of debating something they may not be qualified for, and to have that published.If you call that obfuscation, I call it trying to reach clarity in the agreement.If Joe didn't understand what the agreement said, well, that's too bad. This offer was presumably made predominantly to men of advanced educational degrees.

PaulK, your argument breaks apart when you read the section.1. The section has to be initialled.2. The section, even if he initialled it, really only applies to the party suggesting the change. The other party is explicitly not mentioned as agreeing since the section only refers to the party proposing the changes. I could see though that if Brown initialled the changes, he could be implying he is going along with them being submitted to 3rd parties.Otherwise, he is not. Note the phrase "I am willing" only refers to the party proposing the changes, not the other party. That is only a provision whereby one party can make suggested changes in good faith and agree ahead of time to a 3rd party determination, but that's only if the other party agrees since there is no language binding the other party.You are claiming Walt was agreeing that any proposed changes, regardless if he has seen them, will be submitted to a 3rd party, and the agreement just does not place that sort of limitation on him, nor should it.Walt's agreement just provides the other party a chance to make a good faith suggested change. If the change was something in the procedures or some other change besides changing the fundamentals of the debate entirely, changing the offer completely by explicitly allowing religion when Walt said repeatedly he would not do that, then maybe it would fly.But Walt is correct to not agree to this change, not to submitting it to a 3rd party.Debate the facts, not religion.This message has been edited by randman, 06-14-2005 07:39 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 06-14-2005 07:40 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 06-14-2005 07:44 PM

randman, As per Walts "rules".The text of clause 22 is replicated below. Note that this is a standard paragraph to be initialled if the challenger wishes to make a modification. Joe is perfectly entitled, as per Walt Brown's own stipulations, to suggest a modification. That Walt didn't like it is irrelevant. The proposed modification was to have been assessed by an independent "editor", but was not. It was Walt's stipulation that changes would be submitted to an independent, not Joe's. Walt failed to meet his own stipulation.Joe, did, & remains to abide by Walts stipulations, & has made it clear he will abide by the adjudication. But an independent adjudication cannot take place because Walt won't allow it. He's making it up as he goes along.Would you accept my claim that you refused to debate if you agreed to my stipulations, & I refused to hold myself to those same rules I made myself. Crying that it wasn't the debate I wanted after all? Somehow I don't think so.This is operationally identical to a point blank refusal to debate.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-14-2005 07:45 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

And Walt is perfectly entitled to reject it and not submit it to a 3rd party. Nope. Totally wrong. The rules and Walt's stipulation is that if you are going to suggest a change, YOU, THE PARTY PROPOSING THE CHANGE, must "be willing" to abide by a 3rd party moderator. No where does it state or imply that Walt must submit the change. It merely provides a good faith means whereby one party can suggest a change, and if on an issue both parties agree to potentially live with but do not agree necessarily on the change, then it can go to a 3rd party.Probably Walt should just have assumed evolutionists would try to twist things, and not have even allowed any room for the evolutionist to propose a change.You guys are trying to twist a fair offer to consider any proposed changes, and possibly submit them to a 3rd party, as Walt being willing to submit to any changes without even having a chance to know what they are ahead of time.The agreement, in the quoted section, no where binds Walt, the party not proposing the change.This message has been edited by randman, 06-14-2005 07:51 PM

quote:

---

Wrong, completely.

---

That's the second time you've used that to describe an obviosu truth today !

quote:

---

1 They do not appear distinct and different. The clause in question is not numbered. It appears as either part of the firstclause, 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.

---

The first option is clearly false. It describes an adjudication, not "mutual consent".If it is a separate clause then it is distinct and my claim is true.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is also clearly false. Firstly it is NOT clearly redundant. It is YOUR INTERPRETATION that renders it redundant - and not in a way that is common in contracts (either inapplicable boilerplate or repitition). Therefore your interpretation IS strained.

quote:

---

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.

---

i.e. according to you it is "unconscionable" to follow a fair resolution procedure explicitly stated in the clause itself. That isn't twisted ? Moreover as I have pointed out the need for the editor to make an adjudication clearly implies that Walt Brown's consent is not needed. Any reading that goes agaisnt that IS tisted.

quote:

---

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.

---

If the intent was for Walt Brown to reject proposals without the editor making a ruling then the statement is misleading to say the least. There is no explicit statement allowing any such thing, and the editor's adjudication is only needed in the absence of Walt Brwon's consent to the change. Ergo the intent appears to be for the editor to adjudicate changes which Walt Brown did NOT consent to.

quote:

---

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.

---

So you agree that the issue is that Walt Brown refuses to follow the agreement he wrote. Fine with me.

quote:

---

You are claiming Walt was agreeing that any proposed changes, regardless if he has seen them, will be submitted to a 3rd party, and the agreement just does not place that sort of limitation on him, nor should it.

---

My position, stated simply is that in signing the agreement Walt Brwn has agreed to deal with proposed modifications within the framework of the agreement. This argument does NOT assume that Walt Brown is bound irectly by the initialled clause, only that Brown must resolve the issue as the OTHER clauses of the agreement permit. This argument is untouched by your strawman.

PaulK, show me where this states that Walt has to submit this to a 3rd party?You cannot because it does not. You fail to realize there is a difference between "we" or "both parties" and "I" which is just one of the parties. I suggest you reread what it says. No, my interpretation renders it consistent, not redundant as you state. No where does the party considering the proposed change give up it's right to reject the proposed change, and not submit it to a 3rd party.Just read the dang thing. It clearly says exactly what I state that it does. A fair resolution of what? There is no agreement without a meeting of the minds, and you cannot agree to that without knowing what you are agreeing to. You are proposing that Walt agree ahead of time to changes he did not suggest, does not know anything about, and never promised to agree to. That is unconscionable. What a twisted bunch of crap. I realize you guys argue your science like this all the time and actually believe you are being logical, but this is an AGREEMENT. You can't say because the agreement does not forbid it, it does not allow it, especially since the agreement specifically states that changes are to be made "by mutual assent."The fact the quoted section does not have it's own numbered point indicates that it is how one can agree by "mutual assent." They can both agree to send it to a 3rd party moderator or agree to it, but both have to agree.The quoted section puts the ball back in Walt's court after the other party suggests a change. It explicitly does not limit his rights of mutual assent or dissent in the sentence above.Show me the sentence that states the party considering the propsal must send it to a 3rd party. You cannot because it does not exist.

Where does it state that Walt agrees to submit to a 3rd party? The agreement says "mutual assent" so you are wrong.The clause mentioning "being willing" to submit to a 3rd party specifies only the party proposing the change must be willing since that is the only party covenanting to be "willing".Moreover, the use of "willing" suggests that it may or may not be submitted, but if it is, they must be willing.Ball's back in Walt's court then to:accept
reject
submit to 3rd party

You also fail to even understand the nature of an agreement. The intent of this agreement is to create a meeting of the minds to enter into a debate.Obviously, Walt was never willing to debate religion and never said he would consider that.You guys are making false claims. You claim he gave the other party the right to insist and force Walt to submit the idea of religion to a 3rd party, but Walt never agreed to that, and the agreement does not state that.

PaulK, one last comment in the interest of finishing this up. You have to read agreements carefully. I realize that to you at first glance it appears that if the agreement demands that one party submit to a 3rd party ruling, that the agreement means the other party has agreed to that, but that's not how such things work.Agreements spell out in detail what both parties will have to do. They specify either:one party
the other party
or both partiesThis agreement just specifies what one party agrees to in the area of 3rd party rulings. It places the party proposing a change under a burden that the other party does not share. That's pretty normal and standard for agreements, and you should learn in your own life (mean this sincerely and not to make a point) when you sign agreements to realize that's how agreements are often set up, and you cannot assume it means something if it does specify that a party has an obligation in that area. In general, if they don't specify what one party has to do, then the agreement just does not require they do it.That's how it works.But taking a step back and looking at this from a human standpoint, it's pretty darn clear that Walt is not interested in a debate involving religion.Why do Joe and others want to try to insert a "deal-breaker" into the equation?Personally, I think Walt should just stand his ground. He wants to debate the facts, and if Joe or others want to debate him and can easily refute those facts, they should quit playing games, sign an agreement where religion is off the table, period, and let's see what happens.The fact no one will agree to debate him without trying to insert religion, imo, ought to be a disturbing fact within the evolutionist community.This message has been edited by randman, 06-14-2005 09:02 PM

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

Using religious text as scientific data raises issues of it's validity in a science debate.As far as your question, the agreement is not the debate. The agreement is there to set the terms of the debate. They could not agree because Joe wanted to insert religion into the issue.That's it. Walt refused to negotiate over that, and why should he.

OK so the agreement specifies what each party has to do.

quote:

---

I realize that to you at first glance it appears that if the agreement demands that one party submit to a 3rd party ruling, that the agreement means the other party has agreed to that, but that's not how such things work.

---

That is not a key point of my arhument as you have been told 3 times already. 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.However since you insist on making a point of it the pary that initialled the changes has agreed only to let the editor reject the changes - there is no part of the agreement that binds him to accept rejection of the modifications from anyone else. Thus it is the only provision the agreement makes for rejecting the proposals.

quote:

---

But taking a step back and looking at this from a human standpoint, it's pretty darn clear that Walt is not interested in a debate involving religion

---

Yes it is lear that Walt Brown would rather go back on his word than risk a fair decision that MIGHT go against him (although he insists that there is every eason to expect otherwise).Now it doesn't disturb me that few people would be prepared to debate a crank like Brown, especially when there are obvious difficulties in finding suitable editors (a problem conveniently dodged by Brown by the simple method of never letting a debate proposal get to that stage). It just isn't worth it to most gologists - any more than it would be worth debating a flat-earther.It should disturb you that Walt Brown refuses debates when they are offered but tries to pretend that he did not. Your own behaviour in trying to deny this clear fact SHOULD disturb you.

randman, No he isn't. Walt wrote the rule, & made the context quite clear before Joe submitted a modification. Let's see what the authors context was when he wrote the provision for modification. Not "might" rule if the 2nd party is "willing", randman, the editor WILL rule on the matter, clearly because the modification WILL be submitted. The editor can't rule without a submission. Ergo, the authors intent of the stipulation for modification is that it should be submitted to a 3rd party.This renders the rest of your post moot, & lets my last post stand.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't