Tom Johnston's article Logical Tables, Physical Files, and Flaws in Relational DBMSs: Fabian Pascal vs. the Original Source Material in DMREview contains a number of direct personal attacks on myself.  What follows are my responses to those attacks.  All otherwise unattributed quotes are from Johnston's article. 

 

"[In] an exchange of several articles on the topic of relational DBMSs and multi-valued logic, Date said that various statements of mine were 'specious'--an adjective which disparaged me as an author while adding nothing of substance to his argument". 

 

If Johnston felt I was "disparaging him as an author," then I apologize; such was not my intent.  Here's the dictionary definition (from The Oxford English Reference Dictionary): "specious: superficially plausible but actually wrong (a specious argument)."  In other words, to describe an argument as specious is to say it looks good at first but doesn't really stand up under closer inspection.  That's what I meant when I used the term (and I stand by my original judgment that the arguments in question were specious;

For the record, there were precisely two such: rather fewer, it seems to me, than one might take Johnston's wording "various" arguments to suggest.)  But a criticism of an argument isn't necessarily a criticism of the person doing the arguing!  We can all make specious arguments (intentionally or otherwise).  PS:  I also don't agree that my use of the term added nothing of substance to what I was saying.  It was a one-word way of saying what would otherwise have involved some degree of circumlocution. 

 

"Later, he called what he claims was an error of mine 'a howler,' which is a Briticism for a really stupid mistake."  

 

Well, with hindsight, perhaps it would have been more polite not to have used the term howler.  But I certainly meant no offense by it.  Let me explain.  A howler is not so much "a really stupid mistake" but, rather, "a glaring and amusing blunder" (Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, italics added).  What Johnston had done in his original article was confuse two things that are, logically speaking, entirely different.  And in the world of logic, it's at least arguable that all such confusions are howlers.  But we can all make such mistakes!  When I described Johnston's error as a howler, I immediately (and of course deliberately) went on to point out that "many other writers, including both Codd himself ... and the authors of the [SQL:1999 standard had] fallen into [exactly the] same trap" as Johnston had--implying that he was at least in good company with his "glaring and amusing blunder." 

 

Perhaps the issue here has to do with cultural differences.  Where I come from, people enjoy howlers--including the perpetrator, when the error is pointed out.  But I think there's an assumption that the perpetrator and the pointer-out are on the same wavelength, so to speak; I mean, I think there's an assumption that the perpetrator will immediately see that the error is an error when it's pointed out, and will either howl with laughter or (if the error has been published) will thank the person who pointed it out.  So maybe it's just that Johnston and I have a different sense of humor. 

 

"[The] personal remarks ... got even nastier.  In 1998, Date published a collection of his writings which contained a chapter called 'Up to a Point, Lord Copper!'"  [Actually there was no exclamation point in the original.]  "This is a reference to a minor aristocrat, in an obscure novel by Evelyn Waugh.  Lord Copper was constantly making really stupid remarks.  In reply, his manservant would, with restraint, say only 'Up to a point, Lord Copper!' ... [There] is little doubt at whom the allusion was aimed."  

 

Obscure novel?!?  Evelyn Waugh was one of the best novelists (and writers) working in the English language in the 20th century, and I don't think any of his books deserves to be called obscure.  And in any case, Scoop (the book in question) is, I think, one of his better known. 

 

Second, Johnston's explanation of the offending phrase is very inaccurate.  Here is the correct explanation (which did appear in the original chapter, please note): 

 

“Lord Copper is an all-powerful and overbearing newspaper tycoon in Evelyn Waugh's novel Scoop; Mr. Salter is his foreign editor.  Mr. Salter's contribution to any conversation with his employer is "limited to expressions of assent.  When Lord Copper was right he said, 'Definitely, Lord Copper'; when he was wrong, 'Up to a point.'"  The phrase "Up to a point, Lord Copper" has since passed into the language as an elegant variation on "I disagree," or, more simply, NO.”

 

Obviously I wasn't trying to suggest that Johnston was "an all-powerful and overbearing newspaper tycoon," nor even "a minor aristocrat"; I was just saying, "I disagree" (and perhaps hoping in passing that some reader might be interested in tracking down and reading Scoop, and deriving great enjoyment thereby). 

 

Note: Also in the paper on which that chapter was based, which was part of the "exchange of several articles on the topic of relational DBMSs and multi-valued logic" already mentioned by Johnston (so I don't know why he specifically refers to the subsequently published "collection of writings," as if he hadn't seen the offending phrase before that collection was published).  That original paper appeared on the website www.dbpd.com. 

 

Third, what Johnston doesn't say is that the paper in question was a sequel (sorry) to an earlier one entitled Nothing to Do with the Case, and I wanted to continue the pattern of using--as I thought--well-known quotations as titles.  Moreover, that earlier title was deliberately chosen to resonate with the titles of two of Johnston's own articles (to which it was meant as a response): namely, MVL: Case Open and The Case for MVL. (MVL here stands for multi- or many-valued logic; in a nutshell, Johnston was arguing in favor of supporting nulls à la SQL.  The title Nothing to Do with the Case was thus a--possibly rather labored--double play on words on my part. 

 

"[Given] such a pattern of behavior, it is remarkable to find Date saying, in response to quite a moderate statement by Joe Celko, that 'This quote looks dangerously close to being an ad hominem attack, but perhaps I'm being oversensitive' ... I find it difficult to understand how someone who pointedly compared another author to Waugh's Lord Copper could later adopt an air of restrained regret at the mere hint of an ad hominem remark directed at him.  Perhaps, for Date, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.  Perhaps he believes great authors are exempt from the standards that apply to the rest of us.  Or perhaps there is another explanation, and Date will tell us what it is." 

 

Oh dear.  First of all, I did not "compare another author to Waugh's Lord Copper"--neither pointedly, nor in any other way.  Second, it wasn't consistency as such, but a foolish consistency, that Emerson said was "the hobgoblin of little minds"; in fact, I set great store by consistency, but not if it means clinging to former error after the error in question has been detected (that would be foolish, but it's not what's at issue here).  Third, I can't speak for "great authors," of course, but I think standards apply to everyone.  Fourth, yes, there is another explanation, and I accept Johnston's invitation to say what it is!  Let's look at Joe Celko's "quite moderate statement."  Here it is: 

 

"Date is ... a vocal opponent of the ANSI/ISO SQL standard efforts, although he has never attended a committee meeting or submitted a paper for consideration." 

 

It's true I said I thought this quote was "dangerously close to being an ad hominem attack."  That's because, rightly or wrongly, I took it to be saying I was "a vocal opponent" of the SQL standard but had no right to be, since I didn't take the trouble to "attend a meeting" or "submit a paper for consideration"--and accusing me of not taking such trouble I certainly regard as ad hominem.  In my response to Celko, I said among other things that: 

 

Ø       I admit to being a vocal critic (not "an opponent") of the SQL standard (not "the SQL standard efforts"). 

 

Ø       As a matter of fact, contrary to what Celko claimed, I did attend at least one early committee meeting, and I did submit papers for consideration.  But that's not the point.  Rather, the whole point of a standard is that it is or should be totally defined by the publicly available standard documentation.  It is not necessary--nor should it be--to attend committee meetings in order to know what the standard is, or to comment on it, or to criticize it in an informed and responsible manner. 

 

Ø       In any case, it ill becomes Celko (or anybody else) to criticize someone for not participating more directly in the standards process, given what such participation involves--not least financially.  I could elaborate on this point, and probably will somewhere, but this isn't the appropriate place or time. 

 

"Nor is it out of place to suggest that ... authors such as Date ... try to write in a more professional manner.  [Date's] penchant for personal invective goes back many years, and has been aimed at a number of different authors.  I think that, at least once, someone should take him to task for it." 

 

The Oxford dictionary I quoted from earlier defines invective as "abusive rhetoric."  I don't believe I've ever published anything that could fairly be so characterized; in fact, I challenge Johnston or anybody else to produce an example of "abusive rhetoric" in any of my professional writings (and, yes, I do claim to write "in a professional manner").  Of course, it's true that I've published reviews, analyses, and articles that were quite critical in nature, but the criticisms in question were certainly never intended to be mere "abusive rhetoric" but, rather, criticisms of substance.  If somebody makes unfounded attacks on relational theory--a theory that's rock-solid, one that I embrace wholeheartedly, and one on which I've built my career and very livelihood--then I'll defend it, and myself, vigorously and rigorously.  By definition, that defense will include counterattacks on the opinions expressed in the original attacks.  And if those counterattacks are taken personally by the attackers, well, so be it.  If people say silly things, they deserve to be criticized. 

 

Ed. Comment: If, after my and Chris and Hugh’ s replies Johnston still expects to be taken seriously, he has a much more serious problem than ridiculous claims.

 

 

Posted 12/06/02

 

 

 

[ABOUT] [QUOTES] [LINKS]