Dave, Snipped, question inline. Yours Irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:58 PM > To: John C Klensin; ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Ad hominems (was: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for > presentations and face2face discussions) > > On 2/25/2014 11:52 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > for those who think the question was inappropriate, a comparative > > question about the following two entirely hypothetical cases: > ... > > Case 2: You have asserted that a protocol feature being > > reviewed in a WG does not work. Have you implemented > > and tested it and, if not, on what basis do you make > > that assertion? > > > For this thread, it's been interesting to watch the way people have been > skipping logic steps, conflating issues, inventing issues, wandering off into > hypotheticals, or entirely missing basic issues. [JD] For my personal understanding, why isn't the above an ad hominem attack of those that disagree with you?