Re: no names allowed, we serve types only

From: Jan Hidders <>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:22:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On 24 feb, 16:36, Bob Badour <> wrote:
> Jan Hidders wrote:
> > On 24 feb, 15:08, Bob Badour <> wrote:
> >>Jan Hidders wrote:
> >>>On 23 feb, 18:08, David BL <> wrote:
> >>>>On Feb 23, 5:28 pm, Jan Hidders <> wrote:
> >>>>>On 23 feb, 01:33, David BL <> wrote:
> >>>>>>On Feb 23, 12:49 am, Jan Hidders <> wrote:
> >>>>>>>On 22 feb, 15:39, Jan Hidders <> wrote:
> >>>>C.Date presents this argument very well in section 20.9 of an
> >>>>Introduction to Database Systems where he claims that a coloured
> >>>>circle is not a subtype of circle (or vice versa).
> >>>The tuple that represents the circle is not the same thing as the
> >>>circle itself. I find Date's argument rather unconvincing, to put it
> >>>very mildly. He is by no means an authority in this area, and those
> >>>that are mostly disagree with this position.
> >>Since when do you find argumentum ad verecundiam convincing? Hmmm?
> >>[peers over rim of eyeglasses]
> > I don't, nor do I think it is without any meaning whatsoever.
> What happens when one disagrees on what makes authority. For example, I
> consider Date an authority in this area--your ad hominem
> notwithstanding--because he put considerable tuition into the subject
> over a period of a decade or more. He did so with full knowledge of what
> others before him had to say including Cardelli. Further, he did so with
> an eye to obviating inconsistencies and flaws in those earlier works.
> More to the point, I find his arguments convincing.
> If you cannot offer a convincing reply to them, can you at least direct
> me to someone who has replied convincingly?

If you are not convinced that's not my problem. I've already hinted at what my counterargument for the specific issue under discussion would be. If you want to debate that, don't let me stop you.

  • Jan Hidders
Received on Wed Feb 24 2010 - 20:22:42 CET

Original text of this message