"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:33:45 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
wrote:
"John Fields" wrote in message
. ..
---
Not true. You used the hair-splitting comment in a pejorative way
and then, unknowingly split a hair, yourself, in order to try to
prove your point.
---
Not true. The hair was split with knowingly.
---
Then you considered my hair-splitting to be OK and your comment
about it was for what purpose?
---
Had you known what you were doing, you wouldn't have hoisted
yourself on your own pitard.
My own what?
---
Sorry, "petard"
---
I don't understand what you mean by "stutter". Would you mind
explaining?
To speak or utter with a spasmodic repetition or prolongation of sounds.
---
Yes. I'm aware of the definition of the word. What I was asking for
was an explanation of your use of it in the context of the statement
which I made.
---
---
OK, but did you say what you meant?
---
Yes sir.
Sounds to me like what you were trying to do was stroke your way
into his heart by declaring my reply disrespectful
No sir, I do not need to be in his heart. I was trying to respond in a
respectful manner. I truly thought he deserved it. I did think you where
being short with him. At the time we where debating your dressing down of
the bookseller.
---
It's not "where", it's "were".
Other than perhaps because of the necessity to limit time to subject
"a" in order to devote more of it to subject "b", why do you you
think the two discussions were related?
---
I did, however, preface my response with "If I recall correctly", as to
say I am not certain if my answer is correct, and it was not, as you most
eloquently pointed out to me in the preceding comments, for which I
acknowledged your correction.
---
OK, but what does that have to do with this?
---
To elaborate on your question, however, if you had two dissimilar
metals in contact with each other and you passed current through
their junction, first one way and then the other, what would happen
at the junction in each instance?
How are these two metals joined?
---
Let's say they're right circular cylinders with circumferences
which touch, tangentially, and with lines normal to the circles
which define their planes of contact as orthogonal.
--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
---
Yes. I'm aware of the definition of the word. What I was asking for
was an explanation of your use of it in the context of the statement
which I made.
---
I will repost the exchange that has mysteriously gone missing.
---
I don't believe that's true. Some people don't even consider
themselves worthwhile, let alone important, but but the sense I was
trying to convey was one of exaggerated importance, or unwarranted
self-importance, if you will. But I understand your point.
---
You're starting to stutter. It could be sign of loosing control.. :^)
(Couldn't pass it up)
John, this is something I normally would not do but since you enjoy pointing
out every typo and spelling error I make I thought you might see the humor.
---
Let's say they're right circular cylinders with circumferences
which touch, tangentially, and with lines normal to the circles
which define their planes of contact as orthogonal.
--
I wasn't asking about the geometry but how the two where fastened to one and
other.
|