In article <k665045j8pmrmhqonoqrs09o3d3rnobe18@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, tony cooper
tony_cooper213@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:29:17 +0100, Rob Morley <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> >You seem to be missing the fundamental point even though it's stated in
> >the definition you quoted - a plane is a surface, two-dimensional,
> >having width and length, while a line is 1-dimensional, having no
width.
>
> And you miss the fundamental point that a plane forms a line that we
> use in descriptions. In the sentence quoted, it's perfectly clear
> that the plane is being extended in the form of a line.
>
It's perfectly clear that you are happy to use vague and incorrect
terminology - how do you "extend" a two dimensional object to produce a
one-dimensional object?
>
> >> The poster is seeking information and admits that he has a hard time
> >> understanding it. His intention is to obtain more information.
> >> Criticizing how he forms the question does not provide that.
> >>
> >I didn't criticise the OP's question, because the words he posted were
> >not his but a quote from something that he did not understand.
>
> True, he did not understand what he was quoting. That's why he asked
> for help. There was no reason for you to point out that he didn't
> understand because he *told* you he didn't understand. Obviously, you
> didn't understand it either. So why bother writing a snarky reply?
>
Read what I wrote and tell me where I pointed out that the OP didn't
understand. Obviously I didn't understand it either, that's why I said
I'd like to see more context.
|
