Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu!bob
From: bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.news
Subject: Re: Survey for NeWS Terminal Emulation
Message-ID: <BOB.89Apr30235846@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 1 May 89 03:58:46 GMT
References: <8904260139.AA24538@scarlett.sun.com> <30471@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <4526@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer & Information Science
Lines: 29

In article <4526@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) writes:
   Sun writes:
      [ Stuff about NeWS ]

   In article <30471@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, bzs@bu-cs (Barry Shein) writes:
      Talk about re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic...!

   I like NeWS a lot, but listen up Sun: Barry Shein knows what he is
   talking about!!!

\begin{soapbox}

I have plenty of respect for Barry Shein, and he does know what he's
talking about, and I often listen to what he says, and what other
knowledgeable folks have to say.  But I then make up my own mind.

Appeals to authority (e.g. "Kirkegaard says...") are a basic form of
logical fallacy and carry no weight other than emotional.  You could
look at an appeal to authority as sort of an inverse of an ad hominem
argument - neither is valid and for very similar reasons.  The ideas
themselves still have to stand on their own merit.  Someone may turn
out to be right, but don't believe what they said just because they
said it.

Please don't try to infer from this what my own feelings are
concerning the Window Wars - you won't be able to!  I just don't like
appeals to authority as a logical technique.

\end{soapbox}