John Gabriel <email@example.com> wrote in news:firstname.lastname@example.org:
> Moron-Of-Oz: > A point is not a distance. A point is a location. You can describe > that a location in a number of ways: a pair of distances, a distance > and a direction, an intersection of two lines etc. But a point is not > a distance. > > JG: Nowhere have I ever said any such thing.
You implied it very strongly in your argument that a line was not made of points because it is not made of distances.
> Do you enjoy being an > ignorant idiot?
I'm not you
> I used distance as a *coordinate*, you fucking > moron!!!! Here's what I wrote: > >> But does that mean that a line consists of distances?
Implying that saying a line consists of points means you are saying a line consists of distances, because you are implying that a point is a distance.
>> Here you are assuming a point is a distance, which, as I pointed out >> abov > e, >> is not the case. So you argument fails.
That's what *I* wrote, not you
> I was trying to clarify certain facts with KQ.
Not very well
>> Of course not, a line is the shortest distance between two points. > > You should try reading for a change! Idiot!
I have .. and I understand. That's why I'm a better mathematician than you.
> Moron of Oz: OMG you really have no idea what it is you are talking > about. I suggest you try a new hobby.
Is that the best you can do .. throw back what I said to you? But then , you're never origianl, just recycle other peoples work with your own misunderstandings added in.
> JG: O, the irony! Rolling my Eyes. You are quite likely one of the > dumbest bastards I have met on this forum. You should really find > something more useful to do. If you don't understand, try asking. > Don't pretend you know anything because you are an imbecile and > everyone who isn't an imbecile knows this.