What is good about this contribution is that it is engaging with other participants: responding to their comments and offering alternative points of view, and acknowledging where they do not really understand the ideas well enough. The problems with it are that it uses language which is too informal (‘wiv’, ‘cz’), and not accurate (the mis-spelled ‘begining’). In addition, it does not go far enough to explain its point (what is the ‘stuff’, and the ‘beginning’ of what, and how do you know?). What you are aiming for is a combination of the level of critical detail in the first contribution, and the level of engagement and openness in the second. For example:
engages with other participants
demonstrates knowledge
informal use of rhetorical questions
reflectively honest
actively seeking to enhance understanding through peer support
encourages further engagement and participation from other users