WHAT HAPPENED FIRST

I took a photo a margarine lid inside a margarine tub. The lid was at an angle but the tub as not. I compared the apparent length and width of the lid to the margarine tub. I pointed out that the apparent width and apparent length are no where near half a much (The width was reduced to 90% and the length was reduced to 84%) and that the shape of the lid, viewed at an angle, is far too distorted - which is what I told them would happen (so I'm using the lid as the "angled rectangle" and the margarine tub as the "reference rectangle").


THE DAFT MARGARINE "IDEA"

People complained that a margarine lid is ever so slightly bigger than a margarine tub, they complained that the rectangle I was using for the angled rectangle that was ever so slightly bigger than the reference rectangle.

This was an immenely stupid complaint. A few milimeters as compared to the size of a maragrine lid corresponds to only a few percent. Given that we started out in the 80% range, a correction of a few percent isn't going to matter!!!! This should be obvious to anybody with any sense!!!! And it is not difficult to do the calculation to compensate for the fact a margarine lid is ever so slightly bigger than a margarine tub - see next couple of jpg files.

Also, the shape is still be far too distorted!



THE MATHS PEOPLE KNEW THEY IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO WORK BUT ALLOWED PEOPLE TO BULLY ME WITH IT

These so-called maths people know damn well that quibbing over a couple of millimeters will make next to no difference, but they allowed stupid gullible people to believe that if I had used identical rectangles then the rectangle at an angle would have been half the length and width. And that the shape wouldn't be too distorted! Encouraging stupid gullible people to bully me with this is the criminal offence of incitement to harass.

And yes people actually believed in this!

So I tried their "idea" to prove it to be nonsense. See Fig A and the next text file.