[jonathan lall]

Okay, now we are actually getting somewhere. Though I love how everybody assumes that I am of the same opinion as Tristan even though I never stated my position on this. I just broke down the core of his argument for everyone to take shots at, and somehow (as I suspected might happen) I'm grouped with him due to a similarity in last names. I'm asking others to articulate why Tristan is wrong using written rules; as an inspector or mentor, there is no way I would let this go, but my bias means next to nothing, as does that of everybody else on this forum. That's why I asked for objective explanation. Luckily, I don't take offense to being labelled a lawyer; perhaps I take comfort in the fact that attorneys have much higher average IQs than professional engineers.

Marc, I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, but you are simply wrong in your point about the appeal to authority. I was pointing out that it was a fallacy in logic (argumentum ad verecundiam) to use the rule writer's intent as an extension of the rules. Dave has the potential to have the exact same knowledge as you or I of what the rules say, which is what is important. You don't help yourself by quoting "Based on the 2004 Robot Rules, YOU MAKE THE CALL", since you're definitely not following your own advice here.