BTW, I am finished discussing this.
We all know what happened and the motivation.
No amount of convincing is going to change either of our minds, so I consider it done and over.
I think a reasonable case can be made on either side of this debate WRT publicizing ALS's freepmail. There isn't a clear-cut prohibition against posting freepmail in the Posting Guidelines, so it does come down to a judgement call on the part of the recipient. But I'm still uncomfortable with the general idea that a recipient of a freepmail should feel he can do whatever he wants with it in public without getting the sender's permission. Just as a principle of Internet decorum, if nothing else.
HOWEVER. Your characterization of ALS' conduct on this thread is totally wrong.
Next he started on the Nazi/Communist attack which he felt he was not bound not to make since he had not agreed to it. Amazingly, the evolutionists who had in part signed on because of the inclusion of that provision, instead of withdrawing from the discussion continued it...
I (& later Stultis) engaged ALS's claim that evolution "embraces Marxism" because it was a common creationist claim & a legitimate topic of discussion. Section 6 is worded very carefully to allow for just this kind of discussion:
6. Ideology/Theology Restraint We will not claim that another person holds a commonly-reviled political or economic belief just because of a scientific belief which they hold. We may argue that a person who believes in one thing should logically also believe another thing, but a person's assertion that he believes or disbelieves anything should not need to be questioned. None of us has a window into the other's mind. Examples include but are not limited to:
A. We will not call evolutionists Marxists, atheists, Nazis, mass murderers, liberals or leftists;
The idea is to allow debate of what the logical consequences of a scientific theory like evolution should be without it devolving into namecalling against the other poster. But this is precisely the disruptive tactic that ALS started using: He constantly tried to dishonestly twist my words around to make it seem I was defending Marxism, behavior which I documented HERE and HERE.
...-until a certain point at which I guess they deemed they were losing the discussion. Then the attacks came upon ALS as before the agreement.
LOL! It's painfully obvious why we declared ALS a Troll. It's because we documented his disruptive trollish behavior, per Section 5. If ALS was not being disruptive and trolling, then words have no meaning.
Ahh, this is quite an interesting discussion going on here.
First let me congratulate gore3000 on his honest opinion. Quite refreshing in this sultry sea of lies.
I do not see the same from the two evo hop-arounds in the conversation. I see instead, situational ethics driving their ill gotten motives.
Case in point:
Aric2000 - Well known by all parties as one of the few posters that can consistently contradict themselves within the same post with a high degree of regularity. Clearly an embarrassment to the evos, he's allowed to stay a part of the pack because he's great for inciting trouble under the most absurd accusations, and let's face it, it's entertainment!
jennyp - Ever the devout atheist, her weakness is akin to aric's. She runs swiftly to the most obvious traps that most see right off the bat. Not so with jennyp. In her world, morals are a weakness and all who partake of them are mere knuckle-dragging baboons compared to her rapier "wit". Like all atheists, her entire waking day is spent thinking about God. Well, she can't really attack God so she goes after His instead. Let's examine an example of the convoluted corruptions of your average atheist.
She posts this rule:
6. Ideology/Theology Restraint We will not claim that another person holds a commonly-reviled political or economic belief just because of a scientific belief which they hold. We may argue that a person who believes in one thing should logically also believe another thing, but a person's assertion that he believes or disbelieves anything should not need to be questioned. None of us has a window into the other's mind.
And yet, whenever the truth is told about the dark side of darwinism/evolution,(more on that here:
http://www.designeduniverse.com/als/notconservatism.html) she starts peddling this tripe about "capitalist railroad barons" and then does everything to make the opposition explain the behavior of said barons. Clearly violating this portion of the rule:
"We will not claim that another person holds a commonly-reviled political or economic belief just because of a scientific belief which they hold."
Her sidekick in these adventures is usually stultis, who also clearly violates the rule by blaming christians as his standard shtick in the game. Right Wing Professor appears to be his stand-in if he's not around. Together, these two yucks figure they pretty much have all christian conservatives cornered. Hoping above all hopes that they have once again denied history as it really happened and distracted the attention toward railroad baron capitalists nd those burnem-at-the-stake inquisitional christians. Yes, it's absurd, but it's their thing, repeatedly, ad nausaum.
Has either ever been called on this rule breaking? nope
In fact, has any evo been called on any rule breaking? Nope.
Have any christians been called on any rule breaking? YEP
odd, no? Are we to believe that the evos who continue in the very same tactics, suddenly brake no rules?
Reasoned intelligent observers simply know better.
It was stated early in the Phoebe thread what would really happen with said agreement:
To: js1138
If not, I'm afraid the contract is toothless.
Not only toothless. It's counterproductive. All the "evildoers" will joyfully sign on and continue their merry ways, emboldened by a document that will be used to legitimize their behavior.
1,221 posted on 07/30/2003 9:43 AM CDT by Nebullis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/952079/posts?page=1221#1221 And indeed it surely has. But hey! As long as no one calls each other on any of it, it never happened, right?
Reminds me of Lefty TV where the nitwork news simply never admits to anything, hence, it never happened!
As for all this whining about an email I see from the drooling hypocritical Left. Any "assertions" as AG likes to put it, were previously made in full daylight here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/955167/posts?page=1359#1359 Any chance to refute said "assertions" were "declined" here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/955167/posts?page=1386#1386 So whichever way she or thee decides to spin said "freepmail", the fact remains that the agreement was split into two, presented in public as such, and no one, nay not even a mouse, refuted it. Now suddenly it's a major "concern".
The bottom line is that this hypocrisy in rule abuse needs to end if any of the signers wish to maintain any degree of honest credibility. Merely claiming credibility does not make it so. There's something evil and wrong in how the evos were so bad in their behavior, they had to be made to sign an agreement, and yet eventhough they continue on, they are never called on it. Perhaps for fear of many things. None of which are valid in the eyes of a just God.
I watched PatrickHenry the other night, hop into a thread, somewhere past post 200, and declare a blanket "troll calling" on all the opposition (except one), whoever that one was I do not know, but how such a maneuver can be supported by the agreement is beyond the honest observer.
The same old "troll placemarkers" are back in full swing. None are called into question.
The agreement had become the king's new clothes even before the ink was dry.
And did I mention how that certain signers are lording the agreement over the heads of FReepers who have not signed?
I remember AG complaining way back in the Phoebe thread about how she was being treated by the evos as a "second class citizen", and yet she says nothing when this very same thing is done by the evos to "those beneath them".
Yes, there is much hypocrisy going on, and all in the name of "peace". Peace for some, none for others. It's all one big popularity contest. Right is irrelevant, letter sweaters are all the rage.
Nebullis was quit correct when he said, "All the "evildoers" will joyfully sign on and continue their merry ways, emboldened by a document that will be used to legitimize their behavior."
When the agreement began, not one evo signed on. The only signers were christians. By the time the evos included provisions to call names, and specifically calling people "trolls", a favorite past time of the evos, then suddenly the agreement was looking up and up!
By the time the WRONGLY inserted "vote" was taken, all the evos were dancing in the streets, but nary a christian.
Last time a percentage of "votes" was published, the christians were down to somewhere around 27%.
Did this give pause for concern? Nah, and why should it?
The christians would endure it anyway, so who cares how they feel or think? The important thing was to make the evos happy. The very idiots that brought cause to an agreement in the first place.(and this is well documented here:
http://conservababes.com/bashag.html) Even if that meant corrupting the agreement to the point of absurdity. Even if that meant holding the agreement and everyone else hostage for 3 days over an insane "troll calling provision". So the agreement hinged on name calling. It was going to be allowed or there "was no deal". Instead, the troll that insisted he get his way or else, should have "or elsed" on out of the thread.
Now just look at the results. Rule breaking paradise. Sanctioned name calling. Looking down upon fellow Freepers. The list is endless and will continue to grow, for the simple reason there are no teeth in the agreement. The intellectual honesty clause was forcefully disallowed.
So we have evos FOR name calling and AGAINST intellectual honesty. Guess who got what they wanted? And who was it that allowed the agreement to rot in such a fashion?
History knows!
Perfectly succinct. Thank you for articulating the thoughts and concerns of so many here.
For the record, I was the fourth person to sign onto the agreement.
Aric2000 was first.
Hey, it's seems to be the only arrow left in the ceationist quiver.
Gotta feel for them, you really do.
"I can sense a new variation of the old creationist rebuttal. Now that we can't be accused of "Christian bashing" when we vigorously argue in favor of evolution, the trend may be to accuse us of "agreement breaking."
If you believe that then you have no valid complaint when the shoe is on the other foot.
Worse, you can't impute motive so you certainly have yourself cornered.