You're right; this is dishonest argumentation, designed to discredit their target in front of a higher level of authority. Here's a story: Two railroad engine

You're right; this is dishonest argumentation, designed to discredit their target in front of a higher level of authority. Here's a story: Two railroad engineers are tasked with blasting an opening along the edge of a cliff. The senior engineer says it will take thirty sticks of dynamite. The junior engineer says it will take ten sticks of dynamite. They debate it for hours without coming to agreement, and ultimately it's the senior engineer's decision to make. So the junior engineer goes to management and says, "This guy doesn't get it. He goes on and on about geology, and pressure waves, and cliffs he has blasted before, and his precious sticks of dynamite. But me, I understand that the purpose of blasting this cliff is to build this railroad on time, and that's why I say we should use ten sticks of dynamite." So management orders the senior engineer to use ten sticks of dynamite. The blast fails, construction falls behind, and management is plagued with worries. Management ruminates on the failed blast and the two engineers, and remembers that the junior engineer was concerned about the construction schedule. "That guy had his head in the right place. He understands what I'm going through! If I had somebody like that in charge, I wouldn't have these troubles. The senior engineer is just concerned about his goddamned rocks and dynamite. No wonder we're not on schedule." So management fires the senior engineer and promotes the junior engineer to replace him. It's an important lesson for developers to consider. If somebody runs to Mom, you have to go with them and make your case. If they are allowed to frame the problem for management, it won't matter whose technical judgment is vindicated in the end; management will remember them as the one who had their priorities straight.