[Demiurge]

Originally Posted by Cynical

Even though I agree with your point, this is a huge "no true scottsman" fallacy.

I don't think so.

Now I have taken this from the wikipedia entry on the "no true scotsman" fallacy:
Argument: "Ach! No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Let us call being a scotsman set (X) and putting sugar on porridge set (Z). A Scotsman is a man from Scotland. There is no correlation between being a native of a country and how one eats porridge. In other words, nothing precludes the sets from intersecting.

Now, to the case at hand:

Maclaurie: "No intellectual review of music as art includes in-depth discussion of music theory."
Neurotic: allmusic.com review
Maclaurie: "That is not an intellectual review of music as art."

Regardless of what I personally think of the case at hand, in this case, there is no shift in definitions, as in the NTS fallacy. Maclaurie has already said what a "serious review of music as art" is. Neurotic could say "no, a serious review of music as art has the following characteristics..." to begin a discussion, but quoting a review is pointless.

Back to the wikipedia article:

n analyzing the original argument, the conflict is obvious. The term 'Scotsman' is thought by the boy and his uncle to mean someone from Scotland. The man arguing this obviously believes the term 'Scotsman' implies more than that. He may associate it with someone from a long line of people living in Scotland, but its direct meaning to the conversation is that a Scotsman is a man who doesn't put sugar in his porridge. Presumably, this lack of sugar would apply to most foods. It is also likely that it would apply to using other forms of sweeteners and sweet foods in general. It suggests a tough, or hardy individual unconcerned with fruitless pleasures, who eats in a very utilitarian way. He associates this with the Scottish culture, and thinks that anyone who puts sugar in his porridge is in conflict with the culture of Scottish hardiness and (since it is Scotsman), the culture of Scottish masculinity. He likely considers it feminine to like the taste of sugar, or he may think "true Scotsmen" do not indulge themselves in idle pleasures.

If the first Scotsman explained that what he meant by the word "Scotsman" was, in fact, the text immediately above, there is no fallacy at all, just a simple misunderstanding. He is only committing the fallacy if he thinks putting sugar on porridge precludes one from being from Scotland.