"Andrew Barss" wrote in message

: "Andrew Barss" wrote in message

: : You said: 45 is the complementary angle to 45.
: : I said it wasn't.

But. Andrew ... that is EXACTLY what you are saying below.

: In that post you said, and this is an exact quote:
:
: 45 degrees _is_ the complementary angle to 90 degrees.

Which is it, Andrew? ... Can you see the corner you have boxed yourself into
because you didn't read and understand what was being discussed, then you
compounded your error by entirely making up the first statement above?

: This is the remark I challenged, and the one you're wrong on.

: Nothing wrong with that statement at all ... just think about it a bit
: longer.

: (Hint: what do you add to a 45 degree angle to get a 90 degree
angle/joint?)


45, of course.

Now, we're getting somehwere!

But when you say 45 is the complementary angle to 90,
you're dead wrong. As I said, 45 is complementary to 45, 80 is
complementary to 10, and zero is complementary to 90.

No argument whatsover, However, also by accepted definition, "The complement
of something is what is required in order to complete it". In the statement
you keep taking out of context (what went before it, Andrew), 45 degrees is
what was required to in order complete the joint _under discusssion_ to 90
degrees.

Granted, it may take a bit more intelligence than you've exhibited thus far
to grasp the correctness of the statement, but it IS correct, even when
taken out of context, as you have done..

Look, I was just correcting you on your misuse of a technical term from
geometry. No need to go ballistic.

LOL ... My take is that you've proved yourself far too fallible in both
reading comprehension, and in attributing statements that were never
uttered, to be "correcting" anyone.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/15/04