Re: Object-relational impedence

From: S Perryman <q_at_q.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:42:04 +0000
Message-ID: <frmahs$lub$1@aioe.org>


Cimode wrote:

> On 17 mar, 15:19, S Perryman <q..._at_q.com> wrote:

>>Actually, the exact quote should be :

>>"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about >>telescopes."

>>1. He couldn't even get that right (in addition to his botch job in
>>attempting to use the quote as "appeal to authority" for his rather silly
>>rhetoric) .

> Congratulations I can see you have googling up.

Well actually I was looking for an "EWD" that may have contained the quote. Obviously to see whether you had put the quote out of context (a fair bet given that you got the quote wrong in the first place) .

> If you look a little
> further down in his quoted you should read a couple descriptions of
> people like you (you know OO and VB crowd)...

Are you sure you weren't looking at your reflection when you wrote that ??

> See how the moron slowly diverts the subject to etymology.

You really do need to understand the english language. Etymology is the study of the origins of words and language. Please feel free to show us where the "subject slowly diverts" to such a discussion.

> That is
> the proof that his basic claim was simply nonsense.

Actually we are still waiting for you to show how your incorrect quoting of Dijkstra relates to what I originally wrote :

<quote>

Abstraction of the physical enviroment has been a fundamental concept in CS for aeons.

</quote>

is actually refuted by the quote.

>>2. It could be considered quite arrogant to think oneself "smart enough"
>>to change Dijkstras' original quote. Not that Cimode would of course be
>>foolish enough to do that (or accuse others similarly) ...

> The idiot does not make the difference between paraphrazing Dijkra and
> quoting Dijkra.

I'm not sure you understand the difference sufficiently to know what you actually did.

> That's a subtleness that elludes weak and unprecise
> minds. Note the futile attempt to divert the subject slowly to
> etymology.

Two in one posting. Cut and paste your reply to the first alleged instance (saves you using too much brain resource) .

>>You know, as much as Topmind is just polluting effluent in the comp.object
>>stream, there are times when his jibes/insults/etc are actually quite
>>funny. Certainly more imagination (that figures :-) ) in there than "moron"
>>and "Pffft" anyway.

> Come to think about it using Pfff to express myself in a language you
> may understand seems to be too complex for you. I have a small red
> fish with which you will certainly more suitable to converse with you.

Do you put it in your ear before talking to english-speaking people ??

> Maybe using growls may make more sense through your empty skull.

> Sorry but you are just too dumb to understand what I am talking about,
> too ignorant to recognize it and too proud to admit it...

People in the fields of psychology and psychiatry often have trouble understanding the rantings of the insane. I suspect that I am in a similar situation here with you ...

Regards,
Steven Perryman Received on Mon Mar 17 2008 - 12:42:04 CDT

Original text of this message