You shouldn't have said "You appear not to understand the actual utility behind the page width/height ratio used in ISO/DIN page sizes." Turing_Machine wasn't talking about utility at that point. Ve had misunderstood something confusing that you had said, and you basically straight up said "you're dumb".
That was only after he came up with the fluid measurement analogy, which made _no_ sense at all. I'd written this:
> The 1:sqrt(2) ratio used is extremely convenient as it scales up and down nicely
Then he wrote this:
> How are factors of 2 and sqrt(2) "based on metric"? At some level you could say that the U.S. measurements are "based on metric" since almost all of them are defined in terms of metric units. You just have to apply the proper factor (which is a decimal, but a terminating one --- unlike the sqrt(2) business).
(Emphasis mine.)
That is where the "You appear not to understand the actual utility behind the page width/height ratio used in ISO/DIN page sizes." comment came from. I wasn't calling him dumb. I hadn't flipped the bozo bit on him at that point, though I had by the time I wrote "Ok. I'll be super explicit about this." later on.
> They're not part of the metric system, simply based on it. The 1:sqrt(2) ratio used is extremely convenient as it scales up and down nicely
TM thought those two sentences were related. Ve thought you were saying that the factor of sqrt(2) was what made it metric. Ve was correcting something that you hadn't actually said, but which would have been wrong if you had said it.
And then your reply to ver made the same mistake, and you do not get to feel superior about this.
("You appear to not understand" isn't literally calling someone dumb, but that's pretty much what it boils down to.)
I'm not going to make another of the same mistakes you did: I'm tapping out here.
