[Alamo-Girl]

Here is the separate thread as requested so that we can hammer out an agreement among the willing.

Please copy your suggestions on the other thread to here and ping whoever you believe would be interested in the agreement.

Thank you all so very much for making this good faith effort! Hugs!!!

[NewLand]

Hi Alamo-Girl!

This is great stuff! I love the supplemental agreement. I commit to pray for all those who have opposed me and all whom I have opposed on these and all FR threads.

I just finished my last defense on the other thread, and have washed my hands of that issue.

Thanks again! You are the best!!!

[CobaltBlue]

Can we have some clarification about what "discriminate against" means?

It concerns me that fundamentalists might argue that teaching creationism and/or ID in public school is called for because otherwise fundamentalism is being "discriminated against."

[Right Wing Professor]

Delete everywhere 'or make them feel unwelcome'. Unworkably vague, and too much out of the control of the poster. In general I think this section will cause problems.

I have no idea what the 'non-discrimination' clause actually means in practice.

Replace 'profane' by obscene. Profane is a religiously loaded term; obscenity we all know when we see it ;-)

I don't care if people apologize when they're wrong, and oftentimes there's nothing to be ashamed of. Science progresses from error to error. I think people should acknowledge when they're wrong, and apologize when they act badly.

I would like the fundamentalist clause removed. By all means agree among yourselves whatever you wish; it shouldn't be part of a general agreement.

[js1138]

We will make no accusations concerning anything that may have been said or done prior to the effective date of this agreement.

Suggested ammendment: This will not apply to factual statements or predictions made on previous threads which are relevant to the current discussion, and which are subject to new evidence.

[Nebullis]

We are negotiating an agreement between the parties on the science threads.

I have misgivings about your efforts here, Alamo-Girl. If you feel that someone mistreated you on a thread, I suggest you take it up with that person, either in public or in private FReepmail. If you can't hammer it out together, then take it to JimRob or drop it altogether (I support the latter). Right Wing Professor mentioned that it is very difficult to make a forum work. And this forum has lost some of its original excitement and momentum that was offered by Clinton. Yet, this forum is still working.

Now you propose a set of agreements between FReepers that moves far, far beyond anything JimRob feels is necessary to run a successful forum. If you feel these changes are necessary, perhaps you can take this agreement suggestion to him?

But why this public involvement in the first place? Forgive me if I think this has everything to do with the frustration you experience at using the scientists as a sounding board for your ideas. And your solution is a set of nebullous standards that will restrict the scientific side of the debate.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Bump for when the boss isn't yelling at me.

[Nebullis]

I'm wondering how anyone will know if they are speaking with a member of the Agreement of the Willing (hereafter known as AotW or WFW) or the Axis of Evil (henceforth known as AoE or ToE)?

Perhaps an insignia of some sort would be helpful. A permanent sign sewn into the tagline. That way, when questionable behavior surfaces, we'll know how to respond! i.e., from an AotW member, we'll know immediately that the behavior was humor or a loving nudge toward truth, while from an AoE member, we'll know immediately the behavior was meant to insult/denigrate etc. and can be dealt with appropriately.

[RightWhale]

This is a far-reaching proposal. We have not evolved enough as a species to enter into an agrreement of this nature since it may cut us off from one or more evolutionary paths we don't know about yet. It's a well-motivated idea, however, and may be considered in a Utilitarian light. Or Kantian for the more progressive minded. Mainly, though, we need to consider this not only for science articles, but for all articles and OpPoster pieces. Also, doctrine has a place in science threads, but only as casual mention since no debate of doctrine is productive.

[Salman]

We will not attribute sexual orientation to anyone.

Gee, you're no fun. You must be a faggot.

[boris]

Excuse me but this all seems like nonsense. Pointless and feckless--what is the point?

Debate is fun. Nobody gets hurt. If somebody gets offended, they can pi$$ off. Sticks and stones.

Words are not weapons, attitudes are not actions.

I like to flame and upon occasion I will do so.

The moderator can pull my post. I think I've had posts pulled--what? about twice since 1998.

--Boris

[Willie Green]

I would like to respectfully object to the use of the term "science thread".
There are many of us on this forum who discuss science articles without getting involved in the creation vs. evolution issue.

And for the record, I also believe that God had a greater purpose in mind than to have His Word misused as some kind of scientific textbook. Furthermore, I would also suggest that employing strict literalism to usurp His authority in such a mundane and pedestrian field as science is blasphemously restrictive and diversionary from His True Message to us.

[Aracelis]

I hereby affirm my support and agreement to the spirit of this document, effective this date (8/6/03), reserving the right to make additional suggestions and comments as the wording continues to evolve.

Furthermore, both RadioAstronomer (via telephone) and I reserve the right to nullify our support of said document at any point, and to defend ourselves if attacked or otherwise slandered.

[NewLand]

Go To Final Agreement Thread By Clicking Here