Of resolutions & loopholes

Dave Armstrong has repeatedly refused to enter into a substantive discussion with me on the oft stated grounds that I'm an "anti-Catholic," and he made a "resolution" not to debate anti-Catholics.

Now, however, he is reminding everyone that he regards a mere resolution as nonbinding (see below). So where does that leave his original excuse?

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ404.HTM

***QUOTE***

As everyone knows, people break resolutions all the time: the most famous ones being those related to diets. I clearly broke some of my resolutions (because of my greatly mixed feelings on the issue, clearly expressed in both resolutions, and my "apologetic duty"), but in other instances I was merely liberally applying my "loopholes" (that I myself made), and there was no inconsistency.

Anyone can read my resolutions of 2001 and 2005, and see that they are not solemn oaths. They contain loopholes whereby I would continue to interact with anti-Catholics.

I "broke" with my resolution (as if it were an absolute thing, with no exceptions whatsoever, in the first place -- it never was).

I simply relaxed my own requirements for when I would interact. Am I not allowed to do that? I am forbidden from writing exception clauses in my own statements of resolution, and then prohibited from exercising and/or softening the requirement in any particular instance?

***END-QUOTE***