Re: Lets get physical

From: Cimode <>
Date: 16 Jun 2006 03:06:47 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Bob Badour wrote:
> paul c wrote:
> > Cimode wrote:
> >
> >> paul c wrote:
> >>
> >>> J M Davitt wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Cimode wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> paul c wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Like some others here (as best as I can recall), I've puzzled over
> >>>>>> comments such as the TRM not being a physical layer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anybody who stated has not a clue about RM...What a stupid
> >>>>> comment...who advocated that? I certainly did'nt...
> >>>>> ...
> >>>
> >>> FP, I think. Might find it at Not sure about CJ Date.
> >>
> >> If you consider that FP and CJ Date think that TRM is not anything else
> >> than an implementation model for RM working on physical layer of
> >> representation you are delluding yourself. TRM defines clearly
> >> physical oriented concepts...
> I may be deluding myself, but I had a little help... from Fabian. In private correspondence..
Here we go!!... When you can't argument onto the specific points I have subjected to you concerning RAM and proven you were totally wrong, you divert discussion to TRM bringing Pascal and bragging about your *priviledged* *personal* exchanges with him....

You are doing a CELKO....

When VI can not

, he very briefly described TRM as an abstract
> implementation model that would lie between the logical relational model
> and the physical media. I don't pretend to know or understand anything
> about TRM.
You don't need to tell me that, as it was obvious from the persistent confusions you have demonstrated between logical and physical layer of RM...You have advocated that I was redefining the logical layer of RM when I clearly wrote that debate at that level was totally irrelevant...You kept confusing both...

>I don't pretend to know or understand anything
> about TRM.

BS...When you argument about physical layer of RM concepts and allow yourself to disqualify concepts you DO actually pretend to know or understanding something about TRM... Here's a new proof of your incoherence...You state one thing but when one's dig into what you write it's easy to see your BS...

BTW, I am still waiting for your *insight* about RAM.... Received on Fri Jun 16 2006 - 12:06:47 CEST

Original text of this message