Re: no names allowed, we serve types only

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:22:42 -0800 (PST), Jan Hidders <hidders_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>On 24 feb, 16:36, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Jan Hidders wrote:
>> > On 24 feb, 15:08, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >>Jan Hidders wrote:
>>
>> >>>On 23 feb, 18:08, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>On Feb 23, 5:28 pm, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>On 23 feb, 01:33, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>On Feb 23, 12:49 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>On 22 feb, 15:39, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> 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.

     Oooh! You gave a hint! How thoughtful. </sarcasm>

     How about making the argument? (If you can not, just say so.)

     [peers over rim of eyeglasses] (In my case, this is literal.) (Bob, do you wear glasses?)

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko Received on Wed Feb 24 2010 - 23:51:56 CET