On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org> 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
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports