On 08 Nov 2003 05:11:34 GMT, (JMartin957) brought
forth from the murky depths:


Larry:

I've seen other posts from you here, and you seem like a decent guy. I really
haven't had any intention to insult or demean you.

What you wrote here, however, was simply wrong. I tried to point out to you in
a couple of ways exactly why it was wrong. I suggested at least twice that you
actually try what you had recommended. Nothing more complicated than tracing
the end of a pipe (or even a can) on a piece of paper, cutting along the line,
and wrapping it around the pipe to see the pattern. You couldn't be bothered.

Ah, the light dawns. I just tried to visualize doing that and
see exactly what you meant. When wrapping the paper around the
pipe it gets narrower (from a 2-D standpoint) due to the wrap.
I was thinking in 2-D and trying to work in 3-D.

You're absolutely right. I sit corrected. (too lazy to stand.)


I tried going through your latest reply, but it's just gibberish. "See above
stretchmarks." What above, what stretchmarks?

I was thinking 1" pipe when the OP had 6" in mind. The paper
would have stretchmarks trying to fit the 6. (Eez joke, mon.)


Over, and out.

Ditto. And thanks for following through and helping me to see
my error.


-- Friends Don't Let Friends Eat Turkey and Drive --