Re: Object-relational impedence
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
> 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.
That's what happens when an ignoramus tries to divert attention to etymology. Can't even do it right. Listen IGNORAMI: Pedophile comes from PEDO(child) not PODOS (greek for foot). A new proof of your utter ignorance.
But I am unfair, when I come to think about it you're much better at etymology than computing. You should stay there.
> > [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.
Now you begin denying the obvious...Case closed. Not only you are dumb but you are equally dishonnest.
> >>I think the phrase you're looking for to describe your foolishness is ...
> > 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" ) :
Football fans full of beer and hate ..that's an environment that suits morons like you not computing...
> Are you Topmind, are you Topmind, are you Topmind in disguise ??
> Are you Topmind in disguise ??
LOL...The idiot keeps on mistaking me with Topmind...
> Steven Perryman
Received on Sun Mar 16 2008 - 23:37:17 CET