Posted on 10/16/2009 12:51:51 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
lol! yep
PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS:
It is required that the Event Services Office approve, for technical and factual accuracy, all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center produced for your event (including invitations, programs, press releases, etc.) prior to printing or broadcast. Please allow sufficient time for this approval.
So it is irrelevant as to who did the press release, it is still a violation of the rental contract. I guess you could say that passage was to be taken literally, and not as an allegory
As good Christians should they not follow the terms of the contract that they signed?
Sorry, not buying it.
That's not the whole story, as you are attempting to suggest.
That does not mean that the contract cannot be invoked or applied.
It is the REASON behind why it was applied, that is the thrust of the article.
As I pointed out in my post to you, the ID'ers were admittedly guessing to motive.
If you don't want to address that, fine. But at the same time, the contract clause does appear to be masking the motive. What you have to say about it here, is not the whole story. Why is that so difficult for you to admit?
Is it because of your own anti-ID biases?
It sure looks like that from the sidelines...
That is unless you think The Freedom alliance can put a gag order on a news agency and The Discovery Institute too.
Since it appears the press release was apparently accurate it would be what the law calls, “de minimis”, a trifle.
Nice try at misdirection however you failed to address any of my questions.
WHO signed the contract? They? Freedom Alliance or Discovery Institute? And why would it not make any difference?
Excellent question. Don't look now, Ira, but it your fig leaf just went up in smoke, You naked now, boy...
oh, wait, let me guess...now the argument of "affiliation" while be trying to grab up another leaf to hide behind...
Are you advocating an exception to the rules of a special interest group?
If Ira suspects that you are a Creationist or an IDer, he would accuse you of misdirection even if you told him that he is supposed to stop for red lights, and go on green.
I provided a link to the unapproved press release that plainly mentions the California Science Center in direct violation of the signed rental agreement.
Seeing that you are an expert on literal translations what part of all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center produced for your event (including invitations, programs, press releases, etc.) is not clear?
The contract does not provide an out for a third party. It states It is required that the Event Services Office approve, for technical and factual accuracy, all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center produced for your event (including invitations, programs, press releases, etc.) prior to printing or broadcast
It is really not that difficult to understand.
Nice try at misdirection however you still have failed to address any of my questions.
When the facts are not on your side misdirection is all that you have.
No, when you fail to answer a direct question by changing the subject then that is when I call you out on your attempt at misdirection.
Isn’t breech of contract violating the commandment against bearing false witness?
Using a literal translation then yes it would.
“The only reason I spoke with anyone at the California Science Center is I was concerned by the inference (in the press release that) there was a showing of the film at a Smithsonian branch, which is how the California Science Center was portrayed in the news release,” Kremer said. “Of course, that is not the case. They are independent and any decisions they make on this are on their own.”
Daily News LA
Kremer himself said in the same interview that the Center was an “affiliate” of the Smithsonian.
So either a different press release was what he was talking about or he, perhaps, said much more than he reports.
Of course they should, if they signed the contract.
But your attempts to blackmail Christians into behaving the way you think they should behave as a means to control their behavior is as transparent as they come.
At least Christians have a moral base from which to operate.
Evos have none so they don't have to worry about things like integrity in business dealings, for example. That way they don't have to answer for anything or worry about someone challenging them about lying.
What basis would someone use to say, *As good evos should they not follow the contract that they signed*?
It's funny how evos are such experts on how everyone else should behave.
I’ll be sure to keep my mortgage paid up so Sears won’t cancel my neighbor’s service contract makes as much sense.
But no, it not too difficult to understand. Phony “concerns” are expressed and the contract is cancelled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.