[sqeaky]

Yeah appealing to that book is literally conspiracy nonsense when you're talking about a group of engineers trying to do good engineering. That appeal fundamentally means that there are people trying to actively sabotage a thing, that by itself is a conspiracy theory particularly when you consider that much of the standards committee has been doing standardization work for ages, and all of them are experienced engineers focused on engineering.

Prima facie claiming that people who are joining an optional group that puts out optional rules that companies can opt into implementing for the sake of sabotaging something in such an esoteric way is complete conspiracy nonsense.

Edit - LOL, step one of my conspiracy and get a PhD and work at a company for 10 years using a programming language so I can get someone kicked off an optional committee! Brilliant plan, no notes!!!

[Brian_K_White]

It is a valid comparison to expose the similarity of one thing that someone thinks is reasonable to another thing that everyone should recognize is not.

It is "LOL" to read that only literally.

[gjvc]

Thank you; glad to see some people understand an analogy when they see one.

[CRConrad]

> Yeah appealing to that book is literally conspiracy nonsense when you're talking about a group of engineers trying to do good engineering.

How is yelling "HOOBY, antisemitism!" about a perfectly innocuous title "trying to do good engineering"?

> That appeal fundamentally means that there are people trying to actively sabotage a thing

Well, if they aren't trying to, they're doing a damn fine unintentional job of it.