I've posted a missing-deliberations notice on DRUMS. Anybody who has
spotted Dave Crocker's lost deliberations should let me know.
Dave Crocker writes:
ad hominem
You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think
it means.
An ad-hominem argument ignores the issues in favor of a personal attack
against the opponent. For example, when Johnny Eriksson responded to a
new SMTP client feature report by saying ``Idiot,'' that was an
ad-hominem argument.
Note, instead, that you are the only person submitting any messages in
support of your current position.
Perhaps that's because people are sick of spending huge amounts of time
writing comments that are ignored by the DRUMS management.
822bis and 821bis, in their current form, don't have a chance in hell of
competing with my web pages. Why not ignore them and let them die of
neglect? Because I still think it's possible to turn them into something
that would actually be useful for future implementors.
I believe that an original author of the removed construct, the chair of
the current working group, and both area directors are of the view that
there is strong working group consensus on this point.
Then how come you're having so much trouble scraping up any evidence of
that consensus? I accept that _you_ don't want the tokenizer any more,
but where are all the other people who agree with you?
[resounding silence]
You know, legitimate standards organizations don't have this problem.
The procedures are designed so that it isn't possible to (mistakenly or
maliciously) misrepresent the consensus of the group.
---Dan