Re: Lets get physical

From: Cimode <>
Date: 16 Jun 2006 09:23:03 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Bob Badour wrote:
> J M Davitt wrote:
> > Cimode wrote:
> >
> >> Are you mentally impaired?
> >>
> >> I have posted specific sentences from FP totally negating your initial
> >> statement that FP would have advocated that TRM is not physical...
> >
> >
> > Quoting directly from the URI you posted,
> >
> > TRM is at a lower level than the relational model (RM),
> > it is nevertheless a model, and not a physical implementation.
> >
> > So, I'm confused: how is it that you assert paulc is incorrect when
> > saying that TRM is not physical?

> In my defense, when I conclude people are mentally impaired, the idiots
> have given ample evidence to support the conclusion.

Typical victimization to draw sympathy then you insult on the same sentence..a new proof of incoherence

BTW the sentence does not mean a thing...

//In my defence// when I conclude people are mentally impaired// --> should call next for an action verb....Ex: //In my defence// when I conclude people are mentally impaired//I do this or that...

Instead you build a totally illogical sentence *concatenating* two totally unrelated sentences...You don't even express yourself adequately (defence takes an 's' ?)

...How can you make sense of what other people say...Damn it! English is not even my native language and I can see that... Received on Fri Jun 16 2006 - 18:23:03 CEST

Original text of this message