Posted on 10/16/2009 12:51:51 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Your “argument” was off topic, and provided no supporting evidence.
That makes it an Argumentum ad Hominem
Nice attempt at a straw-man there, you are better than that.
It is not like the Discovery Institute and The Freedom Alliance were not working in conjunction to host this event.
Per the contract it is the promoter’s responsibility to see that all the provisions of the rental contract are met. They did not do that and the event was cancelled.
What if the "promoter of the event" whom did not gain prior approval (which is the actionable offense per the contract, no?) was NOT the party that signed?
Then what?
Contracts are between the signatories, are they not?
Time for you to start answering questions, bucko!
If it be found that it is some sort of "guilt by association" of another entities actions which are being transferred over to the signatory wishing to show the film, then the argument or accusation of censorship looks valid to me.
Frankly, I don't care much for what you think, since you have displayed for me here already, the way you think.
But go ahead, knock yourself out...blather on with more ridiculous justification. You can have the last word. I'll not be responding, if you simply give more of the same as you have previously, continuing to duck any and all related issues concerning the underlying issues and ideas touched upon in the article which is at this thread's heading.
On the other hand, if you wished to discuss this more as an adult, then by all means...
It is your choice.
And this is forbidden in the contract, if indeed it is so?
You've read their contract, have you?
Not a strawman at all, as though such an accusation is going to make my example invalid, but tossing that in is fun and meaningful, I suppose.
You're arguing an illogical position, that a non-signatory to a contract can be bound by that contract or that a person signing a contract has to control or is responsible for third party actions.
Maybe you could could explain how that logic works before I'm the reason for an upcoming event at the Center gets canceled because of my unapproved announcement.
So does that mean every time anybody wants an event put on by their enemies canceled at the California Science Center, all one has to do is issue an unauthorized third party press release? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
And now you can read motives from afar?
You say misleading so I suppose you actually read the press release in the link you provided.
It says “premiere” It was the first public showing.
It says at the California Science Center, check.
It says in the IMAX theater, check.
The Center is an “affiliate of the Smithsonian”, yes.
So what is misleading, what words can you point to to support your accusation or is that like “false witness” when you cannot (or will not)?
I asked you three questions, and you have ignored them.
I will not play your game of misdirection.
Then you need to stop using the far left tactic of accusing people of sinning as a tool for undermining their character and mocking their standard for morality.
The person signing the contract is responsible for upholding the clauses of that contract.
I have posted a link to the contract, and the AFA did not uphold their part of that contract.
None of your misdirection, or excuses are going to change the facts. The AFA was responsible for making sure that “all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center” were approved.
They failed to do that, so the contract was void.
Ira sacrifice credibility along with brain to Temple of Darwin. Ira not care how he looks as long as cult of Darwin served. Ira no longer think for self. Ira leave senses long ago. Ira is not Ira anymore. Ira drooling darwiniac extraordinaire.
Debate the issues, do not make it personal.
I suggest this because you keep repeating that The Alliance for Freedom broke their contract by not controlling a third party who did not sign a contract with the Center. Or you throw in the accusation that the press release per The Discovery Institute was “deliberately misleading” and that collaboration between The Discovery Institute and the Alliance means one signs the contract, it binds the other somehow. And suggest that an offence you think you see is “bearing false witness” on the part of the Alliance.
“personal responsibility” indeed.
So man up here, if you want to poke them creationists and ID folk in their collective eyes, there's much better material than the contract dispute.
Michael Jackson special at the Center on the 28th. is hereby canceled due to this unapproved and totally unauthorized ahead of time announcement. Control your selves folks, you should be able to get your money back...someday.
See how easy it was to make the organizers break their contract? I have the power of commercial life and death (figuratively, not literally, Ira) in my keyboard! I have more power than the energizer bunny!
I wonder if any other event ever got cancelled because of this kind of thing. It it’s happened in the past but no cancellation ensured, then that would imply that there was some political “stuff” going on in this case.
:::shrug::: I just don’t care enough to research that, so I guess we’ll never know.
PRECISELY the very first thing I thought about too.
You see Christians automatically get to be held to higher standards than eveyone else.
Additionally, I’m not going to waste my time researching it either, but what’s crystal clear is Ira won’t, hell he won’t even touch your post with a 10 foot pole!
Lastly, once all the hoops are jumped through, let’s just wait and see what the next excuse from the liberals will be...you know, the next time the event is cancelled.
The left never bothers itself with actually FOLLOWING rules, they're only fixated on MAKING rules for everyone else.
Your “argument” was off topic, and provided no supporting evidence.
That makes it an Argumentum ad Hominem
Huh?
Not only is it dead on ON TOPIC...here’s all the supporting “evidence” you will EVER need Ira.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2347175/posts?q=1&;page=301#323
Can you present any evidence where this has happened before?
Do you feel that you are being attacked?
Surely you don’t oppose attacking and exposing liberals who hide out on Free Republic, now do you.
Good question...
well Ira?
Thanks for the ping!
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.