[AndrewC]

If there were a designer, he would have had to have been drunk.

You are in violation of your agreement.

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."

You should know what to do, but I doubt that you will do it. This is another example of why I did not sign the agreement.

[ALS]

Absolutely. The name calling agreement is a license to abuse.

foretold here:

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

[RadioAstronomer]

You should know what to do, but I doubt that you will do it. This is another example of why I did not sign the agreement.

What? No jesting now? (even between us?)

Sheesh.

[Aric2000]

Sorry Andrew, there seems to be some noise interfering with your message.

If the noise would stop, I am sure that I would be able to respond in just the way you would like, but until the noise reduces itself, I can't make you out for some reson.

[gore3000]

This is another example of why I did not sign the agreement.

I signed it and withdrew when I saw that many on the evolution side had dishonored their promises: Pheobe Debates post# 2692

[Ichneumon]

You are in violation of your agreement.

And you're reaching.

This is another example of why I did not sign the agreement.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Despite all the pious excuses I've seen so far, it looks to me as if all of the "refuseniks" are primarily driven by a desire to be able to nitpick the signers to death while being completely immune from such criticism themselves.

If you don't even have the stones to *try* following the agreement yourself and be on an equal footing with those who have, you don't look too good whining about whether anyone else is or is not living up to it. Leave that up to the aggrieved signer -- if they even care about it as much as you claim to.

This reminds me of the "PC police" who raise hell about how something is offensive to some minority they're not a part of, and later it's discovered that the minority didn't have any problem with it (e.g. the high school sports teams with "Indian" names that the Native Americans didn't mind).

[Right Wing Professor]

If there were a designer, he would have had to have been drunk.

You are in violation of your agreement.

Absolutely not. One major criticism of intelligent design as that if we accept the premise of design, the design does not look intelligent. There are, as I discussed, elements to the human genome that would make one question not just the putative designer's intelligence, but also his sanity or sobriety.

I reject your attempt to restrict criticism of intelligent design which examines the quality of the alleged design.