We are all prone to fallacies; we are humans, after all.  But that
does not mean that a fallacy isn't one.  If an argument is truly "ad
hominem," then it does not contribute to a rational discussion.  If
someone thinks that an argument went this way, they should be allowed
to say so; this will also give the person accused of failing for a
fallacy the possible chance to explain why their argument is actually
not a fallacy - if they still think so.

I don't have the impression that the community gathered here has to be
treated with kid gloves.  We have seen a lot of arguments.  As long as
they stay on a rational level, I think no one complains when they are
fought with no holds barred.  Sometimes, such discussions may drift
off to personal ones.  In these cases, we have always managed to move
back to the correct course, a civil one.

You seemingly think that the SRFI and RnRS are off-track or are in
danger of falling off track. It seems to be that not everyone here
shares your opinion about that. Maybe this is the crux of this
dispute, namely that not everyone proceeds from the same assumptions.

The following three statements are certainly not forbidden here:

1. "It is clear that RnRS has no future."
2. "I think RnRS has no future."
3. "RnRS has no future because the Scheme has diverged too much so
that any common standard will be too limited to be of any practical
use."

Obviously, these three statements (whether true or not) contribute to
an ongoing discussion in different ways.

Marc

PS If you are interested in a more private discussion and you want it,
we can also talk about these issues privately.

Am Fr., 25. Nov. 2022 um 18:31 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:
>
>
> Okay, this is drifting into ad hominem territory.
>
> There's only one way to stop people from weaseling.
>
> Banning "ad hominem" creates an intellectual culture that is either passive-aggressive or increasingly in denial. If that's more important than making sense, I'll go elsewhere.
>
> Let's all please cool down.
>
> How will it help keep SRFI and RnRS on track? If the past is any indication, it will help sweep problems under the rug.
>
> If you want a non-confrontational atmosphere where every issue is complicated and every opinion has merit, you're welcome to have it without me.