Re: A real world example

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:52:36 GMT
Message-ID: <oALEg.49090$pu3.577248@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

JOG wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>

>>JOG wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bob Badour wrote:

[snip]

>>>Nevertheless I do not think you understood where Brian's mistakes stem
>>>from, and that's what I have been looking for. It appears to be a
>>>fundamental difference in what he views _identity_ to be. If the OP
>>>does not maintain this basic concept of identity as we do (and as Codd
>>>and Liebniz did) then there is little point in debating natural or
>>>surrogate keys with him at all. The problem goes far deeper than that.
>>
>>His mistakes are simple. He is a self-aggrandizing ignorant spouting
>>nonsense. He hasn't a clue what the terms he uses even mean. He spouts
>>nonsensical malaprops expecting you to transform them into something
>>cogent, and you happily comply.
>>
>>You are now giving him a platform from which to pretend to debate
>>Liebniz and Codd as if he were a peer. ::rolls eyes::

>
> No, the intention is that anyone involved in a debate, when shown that
> they are contesting the conclusions of those such as Liebniz, should
> realise they are on a sticky wicket and attempt to reassess their
> logic. Should we be so cynical as to think they someone is incapable of
> that realisation?

All I can say is: You'll learn. You'll learn.

>>There is little point debating anything with such a self-aggrandizing
>>ignorant, which leaves me wondering why you continue to debate him.

>
> Few reasons: First, and most importantly, attempting to convince
> someone of my own standpoint gives me much needed practice formulating
> the correct arguments, and clarifies my own opinions.

Again, I ask that you not ignore the most obviously glaring nonsense before proceeding to deeper issues. Alternatively, you could try doing so in private communication.

  Second, by
> actually isolating the root mistake (in this case the view of
> identity), the next time someone has the same mistaken view (and we all
> know that will happen) I can cut to the chase. Third, maybe, just maybe
> I will be able to sway the OP. Granted the last now seems impossible
> given that I believe Brian doesn't agree with the underpinnings of
> predicate logic.

Given the way he abuses language, how would you even know? Received on Wed Aug 16 2006 - 15:52:36 CDT