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).
Brings back memories of the thread about the professor who hurt the feelings of a creationist student by not giving him a letter of recommendation. In the minds of some, science is supposed to be all about our feelings.
You agreed to not bash Christians the following shows extreme bad faith:
If there were a designer, he would have had to have been drunk.
Further, it is an attempt to disrupt a thread by starting a religious food fight, something against the prime directive of civility. Your behavior is totally dishonest and you have broken your promise.
And you are wrong. One person has truly apologized and another apologized with croc tears after being prompted. And you, with the hypocritical troublemaker who posted after you, continue to attempt to aggravate the situation which has now been settled. So buzz off.