Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Sun, 07 December 2014 03:17 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7461A802A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 19:17:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PNrufXg48RPJ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 19:17:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DA011A7D85 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 19:17:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sB73HpWF011320 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 6 Dec 2014 21:17:52 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local
Message-ID: <5483C6DE.80708@nostrum.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 21:17:50 -0600
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <FCDCD184-549C-4111-ACDB-7C466A2EE9D1@apple.com> <548260D2.2020703@nostrum.com> <A5667955-21FC-4596-A86A-0902408BCC12@apple.com> <5483755A.4070806@nostrum.com> <68056FA8-8B28-41E5-815A-A1BAA048F190@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <68056FA8-8B28-41E5-815A-A1BAA048F190@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/_HO-QJ5-Lw83itt-Uvim3PzON0Q
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 03:17:55 -0000

On 12/6/14 19:41, David Singer wrote:
> Adam
>
> we are at cross purposes.  I am complaining about a language usage.  When you say “both camps support” you imply (a) that there are only two camps, and everyone is a member of one or other and (b) that they have reached agreement — and therefore we are done. Perhaps you don’t mean it, but it’s a technique some people use to try to give the appearance of an agreement, and given the sensitive nature of the subject, I’d prefer you not do that.
>
> If you say “there was support for the position from several camps”, or somesuch, that would be fine. That leaves room for people to say that they dissent, that’s all.
>
> Got it?

Is this the colloquial use of the word "you" to mean "one"? As in "when 
one says 'both camps support'"?

Or are you making a claim that *I* used the phrase "both camps support" 
or something equivalent?

I think if you go looking for something you could quote directly, 
anything that I've said on the topic is far more nuanced than that. But 
I suspect you already know that, since you oddly chose not to quote me 
at all: it's easier to apply a strawman logical fallacy to parody my 
position if you don't provide contrary evidence at the same time.

/a