On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote: > > [Yes, the above is pure flamebait. Usually I wouldn't have posted it, > but seeing an official dismissal of prior work as argument from > authority is nonsensical when that prior work is the prior standard > effort. A language with a series of standards where each dismisses > prior standards as "argument from authority" is a language that > deserves to die.]
It seems a number of people misunderstood me, so let me just clarify. The "authority" in question was not R6RS - I had already thanked Andre for pointing out the work R6RS had done on the subject. Rather I was making a specific reference to: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#expert In response to something I wrote, a claim of expertise was made along with the implication that no one in the WG had such expertise. By itself that's semantically null and I would ignore it, but because it was used to imply that what I wrote was wrong, without any justification to back it, it fell into that particular fallacious argument, and I called it as such. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
