| Markus 2007-07-26, 10:05 pm |
|
> On Jul 24, 12:03 pm, Markus E Leypold
> <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVET...@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:
> Yes he do. He even counts clicks coming from usenet :
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/produc...entists/?usenet
God, no. He's even counting clicks! How depraved!
> If you can't recognize spammer who doesn't even try to conceal himself
> than ...I'm out of word.
I'm certain you can go and ask his provider to suspend his
access. Providers don't like spammers, I hear.
>
> It's disqualifying him from making unbiased statements. How about
> asking Oracle salesperson about strengths & weaknesses of various
> DBMSs , "Postgre don't make me lough ...MYSQL it's doesn't even
> support ..., SQL Server runs only on ... DB2 it's too ..."
I absolutely concur that I don't need and don't want to take a sales
persons statements just on authority alone. But ...
- JH sells a book and consulting services, not OCaml. He works with
OCaml, he doesn't make OCaml. Should we now ostracize anybody who
touts his (or her) tools? Like Linus Torvalds: He's working with
Linux, he's even proved (with Linux) that he can program, now he
even profits from that: Don't believe a single statement of what he
says!? Linux is vaporware!
- Having a stake in something doesn't prevent one from making true
statements in that area. Statements don't become automatically
untrue (this assumption is indeed one of the well know logical
fallacies). Nobody expects that you take them by authority. You can
disprove them or demand proof. But logically you can't disqualify
them on the basis that the speaker might profit if/when they are
true.
- I understand that I'm expected to distrust everything Jon said,
because he has written and is selling a book on OCaml. On the other
side I'm expected to accept protestations from c.l.l about Lisp and
what can be done with Lisp without further proof (i.e. a running
program) even if a number of people there (like, e.g. Rainer
Joswig) have undoubtly a professional reputation in that area?
Isn't your logic somewhat flawed.
>
> That's already insulting.
How so? Do you seriously propose that everyone posting in c.l.l and
c.l.f has a proven track record in functional programming, is
qualified to make a comparison of functional languages and should
therefore be taken on authority? If so, why doesn't it apply to Jon
Harrop (who is posting on c.l.l ...)? If not, why is it insulting to
presume that not everyone posting in c.l.[fl], especially in this
thread here, has the qualification?
You mystify me.
Regards -- Markus
|