I'm not sure what you're arguing. If you're trying to equate "dynamic types" with "(static) types" then I'd like to see how you're doing that. If you're trying

I'm not sure what you're arguing. If you're trying to equate "dynamic types" with "(static) types" then I'd like to see how you're doing that. If you're trying to refute that "dynamic types" are "tags" then I'd like to hear your definition of "tags" which you feel inappropriately characterizes "dynamic types". If you're arguing something like "both 'static types' and 'dynamic types' are elements of a larger class of things called 'types'" then I'd be happy to talk about that given a meaningful definition of this larger class "types". Generally, however, I find that most definitions of this larger class of "types" are difficult to operationalize. Due to that, please re-read my responses and mentally impute "static types" wherever I say "types". I try to be explicit about this, and it is my general MO, so if any disagreement or misunderstanding still remains then I'd be happy to talk about that as well.