Re: Object-relational impedence

Cimode wrote:

> On 16 mar, 17:05, S Perryman <q..._at_q.com> wrote:

> [Snipped gibberish]

>>The concept has always been to present resources physically distributed
>>in some manner, for whatever reasons, as though the resources are in fact
>>constituent parts of *one centralised* system.

> Blah blah blah. It's centralized moron. Can't even spell right.

1. Attack on the grammar, not the content. Argument over for you.
2. If you actually had any knowledge of modern English (by "English" I mean as in the UK - where "sulfer" is spelt "sulphur" , "pedophile" is someone who loves feet, "centre" is the middle of something etc) , you would know that for at least 30 years the use of "s" instead of "z" in words has been quite acceptable usage.

> [Snipped gibberish]

Because it killed your argument dead.

C> That is not abstraction.

>>Who said it was ??

> You moron. By claiming that there could be any abstraction drawn from
> a bottom up perspective. By imagining that you could draw any high
> level theory from physical systems.

Sorry, but reading my original text there is no mention/implication/etc of "abstraction" whatsoever.

>>I think the phrase you're looking for to describe your foolishness is ... >>Pffft.

> Not only dumb but also without imagination...Has to copy the Pfff...

Saves me the effort of wasting brain activity for a fool such as you.

> You are miserably pathetic.

As we would sing on the football terraces (to the tune of "Bread of Heaven" ) :

Are you Topmind, are you Topmind, are you Topmind in disguise ?? Are you Topmind in disguise ??

Regards,
Steven Perryman Received on Sun Mar 16 2008 - 21:46:10 CET