Replies

ALS, You are hereby notified that you have violated 6A, since we know that you are not a signatory of the agreement, but knowing that most of us are.

You will please desist from criticising a signatory for violoating said agreement, since you are under no such constraints, it is not upon you to enforce the agreement. In other words, it is NOT on you to judge as to whom and who is or is NOT in compliance. If you wish to sign onto the agreement, your suggestions as to whom and who is not in compliance would be welcome. Until then, your input is not needed nor wanted. We will police our own, thank you very much.

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;

By using a silly article by Marx to try and prove your point that Jennyp or any person who understands evolution, somehow upholds marxists beliefs is beyond the pale, and lacking in any "intellectual Honesty' whatsoever.

By you to JennyP

"I'm sure you could sit for hours just drooling over his every word, but the only thing that matters is that he validates the Marxist embrace of evolution. The rest of his Marxist screed is nothing a conservative wishes to take to heart, as you have."

Per the agreement.

section 5:

5 Language Restraint We will not use obscene or belittling words to describe another complying poster or whatever that poster believes; however, merely factual or logical criticism and rebuttal shall never be considered "obscene or belittling."

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."
Or: [in lieu of the 2nd sentence in bold] "Under our agreement, the actions of provocateurs, trolls, spammers, and disruptors are prohibited, as is the use of obscene or belittling words to describe another poster or his beliefs."

After having made such a good faith attempt to bring the offending poster into compliance, if the problematic poster continues in the offending behavior we may post a warning (such as: "Don't feed the trolls!") to other posters that the problematic party has chosen not to comply. If the problem persists, the offender may thereafter be called a provocateur, troll, spammer, or disruptor, and doing so will not be a violation of this agreement.

I am now in compliance with said agreement.

This is your only warning.

You will please desist from criticising a signatory for violoating said agreement since you are under no such constraints

False on all counts. First of all ALS signed on to the agreement, the only part he withheld from accepting and being bound by was the 'troll' section. Second of all, the agreement protects all, not just the signers. Thirdly, as to section 6A both jennyp and Patrick Henry have gotten involved in that discussion which has been going on for a long time. So if you wish to invoke that section you have to invoke it against all that have been involved in that part of the discussion, not just against ALS. In addition, it seems a bit late to invoke it. The appropriate time would have been when it had just started.