On Thursday, September 5, 2002, at 10:40 PM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

> "Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com>
> does his level best to trash me without actually addressing the
> substantive points.

My intent was misunderstood.  Richard is a fine, intelligent and 
eloquent person with whom I disagree, and who made arguments the 
logical structure of which i disagree.  Notwithstanding my admiration 
of him, I continue to disagree.  I'd like to think that it is possible 
to remain adverse strong-willed grownups with firm convictions without 
reverting to verbal fisticuffs.

> 	Of course not.  While such "talk-reasoning" manifests impressive
> 	advocacy skills --Richard writes and argues well-- it doesn't actually
> 	prove anything one way or the other.  Richard must begin with the
> 	principles upon which we all agree,
>
> The principles upon which we all agree, to this point,
> surely include "if a programmer explicitly writes an iteration,
> then it is THAT programmer's responsibility to ensure that the
> collection iterated over is not changed."

straw man.  i don't agree to the antecedent's limitation.

> This principle was flagrantly violated by the example we're discussing.

accordingly, i don't agree to this conclusion.  This was the thrust of 
the logical fallacy in his prior posting.  It didn't make sense then, 
and it doesn' t make sense now.

> Can we take it as read that Andrew C. Greenberg is a fine person
> who has made far more substantial contributions to the Squeak
> community than I am ever likely to?  Can we take it as read that
> his reputation stands so very high that it doesn't need boosting
> by ad hominem attacks like
>
> 	if he is to convince us of anything
> 	-- he should not begin with an argument of the form "I am right,
> 	therefore I am right (slightly restated)."

Please note that this is not argumentum ad hominem.  I am disputing the 
form of the ARGUMENT that you made, not dismissing the argument because 
it was made by you.

> No, not slightly restated, but twisted beyond recognition.	

A point about which reasonable people may differ.

> Remember, what I wrote was not concern with the question about what
> should be done to #removeAll:, but with the form of a particular
> argument.  That argument was and remains invalid, and not all
> Greenberg's attacks on me can make it otherwise.

Hardly an attack on Richard -- unless you are so married to your 
arguments that you cannot tell the difference.