From: Peter Constable (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 11:16:56 CDT
> From: Dean Snyder [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >> >Suppose there has *never* been an instance in which WG2 rejected a
> >> >UTC recommendation. What would you derive from that?
> >> I would assert that the burden of proof is on you and others to
> >> establish that the WG2 is not a rubber stamp of the UTC.
> >Ah, so you would derive that WG2 is a rubber stamp. That is not at
> >valid logical conclusion.
> Based on what facts?
Facts have nothing to do with it. This is a matter of simple logic. The
premise "WG2 has never rejected a UTC recommendation" does not imply
"WG2 is a rubber stamp of UTC". To take an analogous logical
relationship: If a student in a given class gets 100% on every
assignment and test, that does not imply that the teacher is rubber
stamping the student's work.
> And anyway who has said it is a logical conclusion; actually I would
> consider it very strong circumstantial evidence.
Again, it appears that you're acting like this is a courtroom, and that
WG2 is facing an inquiry. It is not.
> >So, you'd put the burden on me (or whomever) to establish this is not
> >the case. Why? Who's conducting an inquiry and why? Is this needed
> >some criminal investigation? Or simply to satisfy the whims of
> It's very simple - in this forum Erkki Kolehmainen made the bald
> statement, "it would be grossly unfair and misleading to characterize
> as a rubberstamping organization". If the facts are that WG2 approves,
> let's say, 98% of UTC recommendations, then, as I continue to say, the
> burden of proof is on those who would assert that it is not a de facto
Again, we're not in an inquiry. I consider Erkki's statement to be
valid; apparently, you don't. So what? If I can convince you otherwise
-- something I feel no obligation or compulsion to do whatsoever -- or
fail to do so, that will not impact the work of WG2 in the slightest.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 11:17:41 CDT