Replies

Your post is a putrid violation of your rules.

Let's break it down since your peers are incapable.

I do not think "marx is correct". Hiding some twisted dementia within parenthesis just shows you are using deceptive devices in desperation to be a maroon.

I've clearly shown that Marx embraces evolution, and your boy stultis even says the same just a few posts above.

Then you take license to call me a troll because you don't like losing.

Then you make up "belittling" signs with my name in it.

Here's some rules you are breaking:

"Effective August 9, 2003, we, the undersigned, freely and in good faith agree that henceforth we shall treat others on these threads as we wish to be treated ourselves."

1. Purpose The limitation and restrictions expressed in this agreement are to promote reasoned discourse by avoiding unpleasant and disruptive behavior

"We will not deliberately provoke another to engage in improper conduct. We will not conspire against, scheme or bait any poster for any reason."

If one of us notices another poster creating problems on the thread, we may post a warning in behalf of all of us, to the effect of: "Hey X, that post of yours [number 123] was a bit provocative. You know we have rules about disrupting (or whatever). I understand that you're momentarily swept up in the debate, but please restrain yourself."

(NONE of this was done. You just rolled out the spam-o-rama sign, showing you've only read the parts of the agreement that sanction name calling and not the restrictions against name calling. OH YES, they're in there!)

8. Disclosure We will not bring an accusation against another poster or his beliefs without also bringing, on the same post, the evidence for that accusation.
(You failed this one BIG TIME. I see accusations, but NO EVIDENCE IN YOUR POST)

C. We will not question another poster’s motives or accuse him of trolling, disrupting, etc. without specific evidence.
(Again, NO EVIDENCE, just name calling)

10. Errors When we are wrong about a factual matter or in our conduct, we will acknowledge it. We will encourage others to do the same; and thus we will not acquiesce in improper conduct by those whose views we generally support.
(You either need to argue that Stultis is wrong or admit your error. I doubt seriously that your "clan" will uphold the latter part of 10)

Repetition of previously-rebutted statements of fact can become abusive, especially when the statement has been decisively rebutted and is being posted again with no new evidentiary support. We will not engage in such aggressive amnesia.
(Clear violation as I've shown my side several times to several different posters, and one of you even admitted I was correct, thereby fulfilling the "decisively rebutted" portion. Since you are the one I was in this conversation with, YOU are repeating "previously-rebutted statements of fact ".)

So much for the honesty of the evos. I've seen several abuses of the agreement that shows you guys see it just as a device to lord it over others and to continue the very practices that brought you to the signing table.

SHAME!