RE: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!)

From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 11:16:56 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "RE: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!)"

    > From: Dean Snyder [mailto:dean.snyder@jhu.edu]

    > >> >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
    all a
    > >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
    for
    > >some criminal investigation? Or simply to satisfy the whims of
    certain
    > >individuals?
    > >
    > It's very simple - in this forum Erkki Kolehmainen made the bald
    > statement, "it would be grossly unfair and misleading to characterize
    it
    > 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
    > rubber-stamp.

    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.

    Peter Constable

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 11:17:41 CDT