[USMA:9802] too costly to split run
Hello All The following is an exchange with a sales representative (Eileen Dent) and her marketing manager (Julie Blackburn) from Fisher Scientific, a scientific supply company based out of the United States for those who are not familiar with them. It is clear that the American producer of the literature does not care that Canada and other English speaking countries use a system other than WOMBAT. It is just "too expensive" to produce separate [English] literature for Canada. greg Hi Greg, Here's my Marketing Manaker's reply to your tip observation. Eileen -- Forwarded by Eileen Dent/Fisher/CA on 12/14/2000 02:53 PM --- Julie Blackburn 12/14/2000 09:35 AM To: Eileen cc: Subject: Re: price quote (Document link: Eileen Dent) Thanks Eileen for the "tip" on our tip literature. The literature was produced by the supplier who is American. That is why we often have to live with inches rather than metric. It is too costly for them to print separate literature for Canada. Have a good Christmas Julie To: Julie Blackburn/Fisher/CA@Fisher cc: Subject: price quote Hi Julie, Here's a suggestion for the next rendition of our tip literature, Ei -- Forwarded by Eileen Dent/Fisher/CA on 12/13/2000 09:42 AM --- "Gregory Peterson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 12/12/2000 05:01:30 PM To: Eileen Subject: price quote Hi Eileen, I was looking at the tip catalogue that you had given me awhile back and I have one concern. Through-out the catalogue the tip lengths are given in, of all things, inches. I would feel much more comfortable, as a customer of yours, if these were listed in millimetres (mm). I really don't understand why Fisher would continue to use Imperial when the entire biotech industry is metric and most of the people ordering the supplies in Canada, like me, have more familiarity with millimetres and centimetres than they do with inches. I hope you can pass my concern onto the marketing people. Thanks greg
[USMA:9803] RE: Bush and metrication
2000-12-18 Yes, the Bush-Sr. record on metrication (1991 executive order) is a good one, which, hopefully, Dubya will cultivate. Don't count on it! 1991 was a much different year. The US was in a deep recession and near national bankruptcy. At the time the Asian tigers were out performing everyone. There was pressure from the outside to convert in order to increase exports to reduce our debt. But, within a short time, the US rebounded and the need for metric was not there. Small and medium US companies started to do some exporting and found that even though the measurement issue was a nuisance, we could still sell FFU to the world. The new government will make every effort to get FFU accepted world-wide. The 10 year delay in Europe will be a time used to spread the FFU gospel, not to conform to SI only usage. Not long ago, some American "writer" or what ever he is, complained in an article that the BIPM must make "all the units people use part of SI". In other words accept FFU as part of SI. Does anyone remember this article? Does anyone have a copy of it still? Maybe we need to re-read it. Unless there is a strong recession/depression in the USA and major resistance from abroad, don't expect this new administration to be any more metric friendly then the previous ones. John Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt frei zu sein. There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free! Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
[USMA:9804] Re: too costly to split run
From: Gregory Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: December 18, 2000 09:02 Hello All The following is an exchange with a sales representative (Eileen Dent) and her marketing manager (Julie Blackburn) from Fisher Scientific, a scientific supply company based out of the United States for those who are not familiar with them. It is clear that the American producer of the literature does not care that Canada and other English speaking countries use a system other than WOMBAT. It is just "too expensive" to produce separate [English] literature for Canada. Yes, National Geographic is also hampered by this. Every time they 'invite' me to re-join NG, I politely tell them the publication is of no use to me either as a current source or as a 'library' into the future as long as it uses obsolete units of measure. Duncan greg
[USMA:9806] RE: FW: Out of the mouths of babes.... [Yahoo! Clubs: Metric America]
2000-12-18 There was no year zero. The first year was "1", thus the first century began with the first day of year 1 and ended the last day of year 100. Carrying this up to our time, 1901-01-01 was the first day of the 20-th century, and 2000-12-31 is the last. So, 2001-01-01 begins the next, or 21-st century. This also follows for millenniums. The first millennium went from the first day of year 1 to the last day of year 1000. The 2-nd millennium started on the first day of 1001 and ends the last day of 2000. The third millennium begins the first day of 2001. If the 3-rd millennium had begun on 2000-01-01 as many falsely believed, then the 2-nd millennium was not a millennium at all, as it would not have consisted of 1000 years. It would only have 999 years. But, because so many Americans are innumerate, it is easy for them to make this mistake and get the year wrong. John Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt frei zu sein. There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free! Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) -Original Message- From: Duncan Bath [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 2000-12-18 09:11 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [USMA:9797] FW: Out of the mouths of babes [Yahoo! Clubs: Metric America] From: kilopascal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: December 17, 2000 21:15 John Folks: the real new millennium comes January 1, 2001. How so? Duncan
[USMA:9808] What we can
2000-12-18 Many Americans know the metric units either by their education or by reading from the dual labelled products. But they think that the others know only the imperial units. For ex - if I meet any one of you in a gas station and want to know how far is this place, I will ask in miles and you will also respond in miles. But in reality both of us support metrication. In the same way, the companies also think that their customers dont know metric units while the customers thinks that the companies dont use metric at all. A big communication gap. But now with the more interactive internet, things will change. Here is what we can do * Change the measurement system to Metric in your computer at home and if possible in the office also. * Change the date format to -mm-dd in the computers bank checks, all other documents and resumes, websites and emails. * Buy A4 / A5 standard papers. * Visit websites which gives the metric option. * Start saying temperatures in celsius to everyone (unless someone resist it) __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/
[USMA:9810] Re: International proposal
2000-12-18 OK! So, who is this Tony Steinmetz and what power does he hold? Is there anything you can tell us as to what they plan to do in the near future to promote our cause beyond promises and words? What is their plan of action? And, can they do anything to change the 10 year delay to something closer to now that will put more pressure on the TABD to metricate? We want to send a strong message to the TABD that the 10 year delay was to give them one last chance to metricate, not to use the time to entrench FFU further in the world, as they appear to be doing now. John Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt frei zu sein. There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free! Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ma Be Sent: Monday, 2000-12-18 10:15 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:9807] Re: International proposal On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 15:46:02 chris wrote: ...Thanks, Jim, but I can't claim any credit for it. I was sent this by Tony Steinmetz, the guy Mike Jenkins mentioned on the list a little while ago. I contacted him with my feelings on the subject, and this was the result. As I had not heard of ICSA before, I'm not in a position to talk about their degree of influence. Well... Since "the cat is out of the bag", I, too, like Chris, should comment that our organisation, GO SI EH, has also been consulted by Mr. Steinmetz on the very subject above! Actually I've been in contact with this gentleman on behalf of GO SI EH for quite a few times now. We've had a very healthy discussion on this issue and I should report that it has been largely very positive. He's indicated to me that he would be taking some actions which I can largely construe as very positive for our cause. Therefore, I'm confident that we can expect significant progress on this front in the European front. Let's just hope that his actions will bear fruit where it counts the most, with US authorities and TABD, too. Marcus Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
[USMA:9809] RE: too costly to split run - clarification
To clear some things up, If you can recall some of the biotechnology programs, documentaries, or movies that you have seen there is an instrument called a "pipettor" when is a hand-held devise that resembles (for lack of a better comparison) a screwdriver that distrbutes very small volumes of liquid. Examples can be seen at: http://www.gilson.com/micr.htm --- pipettor http://www.gilson.com/diam1.htm - tips The "tip" is the small plastic cone that is attached to the end that actually holds the liquid. These are disposable to prevent cross contamination and maintain sterility of the work environment. These tips are sold based on the maximum volume (in metric only) of liquid that they can hold. Usually this is 10 µl, 250 µl, 1000 µl, and 5000 µl. Different companies make different pipettors, and different pipet tips are used for different applications. Some may wish to have a longer tip to reach into long narrow test-tubes where others only require a shorter one. As a curtosy Fisher Scientific in its literature incluced the length of each of the tips only in INCHES. Since this is sold only to the scientific community it could easily be assumed that the scientific community knows what a millimetre is. The marketing department, however, chose to use inches for the English speaking marketplace, primarily in the United States. I have not seen the French literature. There is at least a 50/50 chance that they would have included mm since the literature could also be used in Europe. Apparently it would be too expensive to have English literature in metric and English literature in WOMBAT, though judging from the pamphlet that I have there was ample space to list the length of the tips in mm as well as inches. This is a good example of the arrogance and ignornace found in corporate America; rather than using only metric in all their literature Fisher decides to use WOMBAT in all the English literature. Surpisingly their Canadian catalogue, a 2200 page 8 cm think book-end which happens to have Canadian dollars listed, lists most of the measurements as "metric" or "WOMBAT (metric)". Thousands of these are produced every couple of years in Canada at a great expense, I am sure. Julie is a member of the marketing department in Canada. They most likely receive most of their information from the American office for distribution here in Canada. This particular document didn't have prices listed so I can assume that this is used in more than one English speaking country (such as Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Canada) where the currency and price would differ (not to mention the various "corporate rates" that different institutions and companies would have). Eileen is the sales representative... the travelling salesperson... with very little control over the literature she distributes. I did send her an email telling her that I will be considering other suppiers because of this issue. greg "kilopascal" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2000-12-18 08:34:12 2000-12-18 I'm not sure exactly what this "tip literature" is. Is this "tip" as in a suggestion or advice, or does "tip" refer to a point, such as the tip on a pencil? Either way, are you telling us that they use ONLY inches and don't include millimetres at all? At least including both would not be "too expensive". Another point, is they produce scientific instruments, which should only be using SI. Why are they using inches at all? Even their US customers, who use their products should be knowledgeable enough in SI that only millimetres should be used. Are people like Eileen and Julie the ones who publish these tips? Are they SI ignorant and ASSUME, because they are, all others are too? Is there a more SI friendly competitor to their products, that you could buy from? Maybe if you could point out a competitors sales literature and note that since they are SI friendly, they and not Fisher will get your future business. BTW, what do they provide as far as French language literature for Canada? This again proves what I have been saying. American companies will not bend to the worlds use of SI, but will go that extra "mile" to promote the use of FFU world-wide. And with minimal or no resistance, they will continue to do so. Greg, don't let this issue die! John Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt frei zu sein. There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free! Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gregory Peterson Sent: Monday, 2000-12-18 08:59 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:9802] too costly to "split run" Hello All The following is an exchange with a sales representative (Eileen Dent) and her marketing manager (Julie Blackburn) from Fisher Scientific, a scientific supply company based out of the United States for those who
[USMA:9811] Re: nat'l geopgraphic (former split run)
I wrote to Nat'l Geographic this autumn when they started sending me renewal notices telling them that I would let my subscription lapse if they didn't consider including metric units. I complented them on their beautiful photography and then said: Unfortunately beauty is only skin deep. I prefer to also have the intelligent - metric - content as well. They never wrote back. When they send me invitations to "re-joing" I will also send some polite letters telling them why I do not want to read their magazine. greg "Duncan Bath" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2000-12-18 08:18:33 Yes, National Geographic is also hampered by this. Every time they 'invite' me to re-join NG, I politely tell them the publication is of no use to me either as a current source or as a 'library' into the future as long as it uses obsolete units of measure. Duncan
[USMA:9812] RE: FW: Out of the mouths of babes.... [Yahoo! Clubs: Metric America]
From: kilopascal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: December 18, 2000 09:47 2000-12-18 There was no year zero. Of course there was no "year zero" - there was no calendar to put it on! Furthermore, the exact year of the 'event' from which our calendar times itself is in doubt by a number of years. D The first year was "1", Nor was there a "year 1" - see above. D thus the first century began with the first day of year 1 and ended the last day of year 100. Carrying this up to our time, 1901-01-01 was the first day of the 20-th century, and 2000-12-31 is the last. So, 2001-01-01 begins the next, or 21-st century. Folks: the real new millennium comes January 1, 2001. How so? Duncan
[USMA:9814] 10.6m or 10.6 m
A copyeditor on the CE-L list insists that the proper notation for 10.6 meters is 10.6 m. I think it's 10.6m. Which is correct? Can you quote sources if the answer is 10.6m?
[USMA:9815] RE: 10.6m or 10.6 m
The preferred form is the one with a space -- 10.6 m. If common usage is anything to go by, they are both correct, but in different places. In Britain, it's customary to omit the space before the symbol. On the other hand, the style section of the IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 document (Standard for Use of the International System of Units (SI): The Modern Metric System) specifies the use of a space. Bill Potts, CMS San Jose, CA http://metric.org [SI Navigator] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Papsun Sent: December 18, 2000 08:56 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:9814] 10.6m or 10.6 m A copyeditor on the CE-L list insists that the proper notation for 10.6 meters is 10.6 m. I think it's 10.6m. Which is correct? Can you quote sources if the answer is 10.6m?
[USMA:9816] Re: too costly to split run
That's bolloney (and they know it!)! Therefore, let them know you will no longer ever consider dealing with them and will go elsewhere for the service/goods you're looking for! Hurt them where it counts: their pocket!!! Marcus On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:58:35 Gregory Peterson wrote: Hello All The following is an exchange with a sales representative (Eileen Dent) and her marketing manager (Julie Blackburn) from Fisher Scientific, a scientific supply company based out of the United States for those who are not familiar with them. It is clear that the American producer of the literature does not care that Canada and other English speaking countries use a system other than WOMBAT. It is just "too expensive" to produce separate [English] literature for Canada. greg Hi Greg, Here's my Marketing Manaker's reply to your tip observation. Eileen -- Forwarded by Eileen Dent/Fisher/CA on 12/14/2000 02:53 PM --- Julie Blackburn 12/14/2000 09:35 AM To: Eileen cc: Subject: Re: price quote (Document link: Eileen Dent) Thanks Eileen for the "tip" on our tip literature. The literature was produced by the supplier who is American. That is why we often have to live with inches rather than metric. It is too costly for them to print separate literature for Canada. Have a good Christmas Julie To: Julie Blackburn/Fisher/CA@Fisher cc: Subject: price quote Hi Julie, Here's a suggestion for the next rendition of our tip literature, Ei -- Forwarded by Eileen Dent/Fisher/CA on 12/13/2000 09:42 AM --- "Gregory Peterson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 12/12/2000 05:01:30 PM To: Eileen Subject: price quote Hi Eileen, I was looking at the tip catalogue that you had given me awhile back and I have one concern. Through-out the catalogue the tip lengths are given in, of all things, inches. I would feel much more comfortable, as a customer of yours, if these were listed in millimetres (mm). I really don't understand why Fisher would continue to use Imperial when the entire biotech industry is metric and most of the people ordering the supplies in Canada, like me, have more familiarity with millimetres and centimetres than they do with inches. I hope you can pass my concern onto the marketing people. Thanks greg Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
[USMA:9817] Re: President Bush (an ally?)
I was wondering about this as well...
It might be worth a couple of well placed letters to the US president if the new year
to get a feel for what he might do.
Though the USMA is not a lobby group, the USMA may have enough credibility and clout
to get some sort of a feeling about Dubya's feeling towards metricating the United
States.
Afterall, he has to do something to make himself memorable in history
greg
"James J. Wentworth" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2000-12-16 00:39:34
If we play our cards right, we may be able to get some help for our cause
from the new president.
He has some interest in continuing his father's agenda, and President G.H.W.
Bush did sign the 1991 executive order mandating the federal agencies to
metricate. Also, G.W. Bush's interest in expanding free trade is a perfect
reason to push for completing metrication in the US (eliminating the
built-in trade barrier, etc.). He could even use it as part of his
self-deprecating humor ("Hey, even *I* can count to and multiply by 10!").
Jason
Jason
[USMA:9819] UK NG respons- was Re: too costly to split run
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:18:33 -0500, "Duncan Bath" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, National Geographic is also hampered by this. Every time they 'invite' me to re-join NG, I politely tell them the publication is of no use to me either as a current source or as a 'library' into the future as long as it uses obsolete units of measure. Duncan What a timely message, Duncan. I think I mentioned a little while ago that I had returned an invitation to NG's UK office, saying I would never consider buying their magazine while they 'maintain [their] outdated aversion to metric units.' Today my note was returned to me, together with a hand-written note (unsigned) saying the following: "Get a life!!! It is a US publication after all. Readership of 90 million+ worldwide don't mind." Customer service - what's that? -- Chris KEENAN UK Metrication: http://www.metric.org.uk/ UK Correspondent, US Metric Association
[USMA:9820] Re: too costly to split run
I have no sympathy for scientific supply houses. I assume they can handle metric, and if they can't it's their problem. If they get the order wrong because of a translation error, I send it back and let them handle the added cost. Three recent examples: 1) Dealing with a supplier of microwave coaxial cable, the fellow tries to talk decimal inches and I ignore and talk millimeters. Sensing I have no familiarity with decimal inches he reluctantly uses mm, since what's the point of getting the order wrong? End of problem. 2) Dealing with a supplier of thermocouple wire, the girl says "give me the diameter in inches". I sense a defensiveness since she probably deals with international customers. I politely say I don't have any inch micrometer around (which is true) and give her the diameter in millimeters. She says she doesn't understand, so I flip up the Windows calculator, divide by 25.4, and read her the result. I don't know whether it's right or not, but if it isn't there'll be a return parcel. 3) Chemicals I don't talk anything other than liters. Try talking pints/quarts/gallons/etc in this day and age I'll simply go somewhere else. Wine/liquor/soda/water/etc have been metric for many years and there's simply no excuse. End of discussion. Scientific supply houses are in the business of supplying scientists, and I play hardball. Nat That's bolloney (and they know it!)! Therefore, let them know you will no longer ever consider dealing with them and will go elsewhere for the service/goods you're looking for! Hurt them where it counts: their pocket!!! Marcus On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:58:35 Gregory Peterson wrote: Hello All The following is an exchange with a sales representative (Eileen Dent) and her marketing manager (Julie Blackburn) from Fisher Scientific, a scientific supply company based out of the United States for those who are not familiar with them. It is clear that the American producer of the literature does not care that Canada and other English speaking countries use a system other than WOMBAT. It is just "too expensive" to produce separate [English] literature for Canada. greg Hi Greg, Here's my Marketing Manaker's reply to your tip observation. Eileen -- Forwarded by Eileen Dent/Fisher/CA on 12/14/2000 02:53 PM --- Julie Blackburn 12/14/2000 09:35 AM To: Eileen cc: Subject: Re: price quote (Document link: Eileen Dent) Thanks Eileen for the "tip" on our tip literature. The literature was produced by the supplier who is American. That is why we often have to live with inches rather than metric. It is too costly for them to print separate literature for Canada. Have a good Christmas Julie To: Julie Blackburn/Fisher/CA@Fisher cc: Subject: price quote Hi Julie, Here's a suggestion for the next rendition of our tip literature, Ei -- Forwarded by Eileen Dent/Fisher/CA on 12/13/2000 09:42 AM --- "Gregory Peterson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 12/12/2000 05:01:30 PM To: Eileen Subject: price quote Hi Eileen, I was looking at the tip catalogue that you had given me awhile back and I have one concern. Through-out the catalogue the tip lengths are given in, of all things, inches. I would feel much more comfortable, as a customer of yours, if these were listed in millimetres (mm). I really don't understand why Fisher would continue to use Imperial when the entire biotech industry is metric and most of the people ordering the supplies in Canada, like me, have more familiarity with millimetres and centimetres than they do with inches. I hope you can pass my concern onto the marketing people. Thanks greg Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
[USMA:9821] RE: President Bush (an ally?) -- uniquely American internationalism
I agree with Louis. Most people do not see the garbage next to metric on dual labels. If attempts were made to impose ifp on us, people would see what trash it really is and oppose it. Then I think that any tolerance for non metric next to metric on products would cease. No-one would want to see any ifp anymore. When Britain used LSD it was taught in the schools and it was a hated subject. If we exposed pupils to ifp for a short time, having them solve a number of problems in USC and in metric they would become resistant to it. It would be like a vaccination. People who do not know ifp cannot take a position for or against. Han - Original Message - From: "Louis JOURDAN" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "U.S. Metric Association" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: maandag 18 december 2000 07:02 Subject: [USMA:9800] RE: President Bush (an ally?) -- "uniquely American internationalism" At 21:28 -0500 00/12/17, kilopascal wrote: 2000-12-17 This directed to Louis and Han. How do your friends, neighbours and relatives feel about the metric issue? There no metric issue : we live in a metric environment, period. Do they care if the US would force them to accept FFU along with metric? As long as metric measurements are given, they won't care if some odd measurements are also given. Do they take using SI for granted? Definitely. Would they resist efforts to replace SI with FFU or would they go along with it? Would they openly oppose any effort to increase the use of FFU at the expense of metric? Going back to any system of measures not metric is simply out of thinking. Would they oppose any effort to allow secondary declarations on packages indefinitely? Maybe not, if that may satisfy a few people using weird systems of measures. Louis
[USMA:9822] resisting metric
2000-12-18 I said something not long ago that needs repeating. Why is it the women and girls seem to be the most insistent on using FFU? If the person in example 1 was female, she would have insisted you deal with her only in inches and proclaim she doesn't understand. If example 2 was a male, for sure he would have accommodated you as the guy in example 1 did. He might have done so reluctantly, but he would have done so. Even Greg's experience had to do with two women. There seems to be a pattern here. I know there are many women out there who prefer metric, but I'll bet more prefer FFU then don't. Even where I work, the women resist it more then the men. I'm sure for some of you, this may be an issue you don't want to touch with a 10 m pole, but from experience, which sex seems to be more metric friendly? John Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt frei zu sein. There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free! Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Nat Hager III Sent: Monday, 2000-12-18 13:15 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:9820] Re: too costly to "split run" I have no sympathy for scientific supply houses. I assume they can handle metric, and if they can't it's their problem. If they get the order wrong because of a translation error, I send it back and let them handle the added cost. Three recent examples: 1) Dealing with a supplier of microwave coaxial cable, the fellow tries to talk decimal inches and I ignore and talk millimeters. Sensing I have no familiarity with decimal inches he reluctantly uses mm, since what's the point of getting the order wrong? End of problem. 2) Dealing with a supplier of thermocouple wire, the girl says "give me the diameter in inches". I sense a defensiveness since she probably deals with international customers. I politely say I don't have any inch micrometer around (which is true) and give her the diameter in millimeters. She says she doesn't understand, so I flip up the Windows calculator, divide by 25.4, and read her the result. I don't know whether it's right or not, but if it isn't there'll be a return parcel. 3) Chemicals I don't talk anything other than liters. Try talking pints/quarts/gallons/etc in this day and age I'll simply go somewhere else. Wine/liquor/soda/water/etc have been metric for many years and there's simply no excuse. End of discussion. Scientific supply houses are in the business of supplying scientists, and I play hardball. Nat That's bolloney (and they know it!)! Therefore, let them know you will no longer ever consider dealing with them and will go elsewhere for the service/goods you're looking for! Hurt them where it counts: their pocket!!! Marcus On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:58:35 Gregory Peterson wrote: Hello All The following is an exchange with a sales representative (Eileen Dent) and her marketing manager (Julie Blackburn) from Fisher Scientific, a scientific supply company based out of the United States for those who are not familiar with them. It is clear that the American producer of the literature does not care that Canada and other English speaking countries use a system other than WOMBAT. It is just "too expensive" to produce separate [English] literature for Canada. greg Hi Greg, Here's my Marketing Manaker's reply to your tip observation. Eileen -- Forwarded by Eileen Dent/Fisher/CA on 12/14/2000 02:53 PM --- Julie Blackburn 12/14/2000 09:35 AM To: Eileen cc: Subject: Re: price quote (Document link: Eileen Dent) Thanks Eileen for the "tip" on our tip literature. The literature was produced by the supplier who is American. That is why we often have to live with inches rather than metric. It is too costly for them to print separate literature for Canada. Have a good Christmas Julie To: Julie Blackburn/Fisher/CA@Fisher cc: Subject: price quote Hi Julie, Here's a suggestion for the next rendition of our tip literature, Ei -- Forwarded by Eileen Dent/Fisher/CA on 12/13/2000 09:42 AM --- "Gregory Peterson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 12/12/2000 05:01:30 PM To: Eileen Subject: price quote Hi Eileen, I was looking at the tip catalogue that you had given me awhile back and I have one concern. Through-out the catalogue the tip lengths are given in, of all things, inches. I would feel much more comfortable, as a customer of yours, if these were listed in millimetres (mm). I really don't understand why Fisher would continue to use Imperial when the entire biotech industry is metric and most of the people ordering the supplies in
[USMA:9823] National Geographic
2000-12-18 I never could understand why NG doesn't at least use both. If the article is about any place outside the USA, it can use the format SI(FFU). If it is about the USA, then the reverse. Why are they so resistant to even making that compromise? Now, I remember reading or hearing something about American readers writing in and opposing any inclusion of SI, even as a secondary measure, when NG attempted to do so back in the '80s. If I remember correctly, hundreds of subscribers threatened to cancel their subscriptions if NG did not return to FFU only. Now, does this make sense to anyone? According to the reply Chris received, NG has a readership of 90 MILLION PLUS world-wide. Don't you think that a few hundred out of 90 million is a drop in a bucket? Maybe only a few of those 90 million plus are actually paid subscribers. Some of those readers could be reading translations in other languages, where SI is used. But, for a few hundred ignorANUSes to hold the whole world hostage is American arrogance at its finest. Now, if I was Chris, I would contact NG, show them the response you got, consider it in poor taste and demand some action be taken. That person has to be a BWMA member and works for NG to promote FFU. John Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt frei zu sein. There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free! Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 2000-12-18 13:14 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:9819] UK NG respons- was Re: too costly to "split run" On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:18:33 -0500, "Duncan Bath" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, National Geographic is also hampered by this. Every time they 'invite' me to re-join NG, I politely tell them the publication is of no use to me either as a current source or as a 'library' into the future as long as it uses obsolete units of measure. Duncan What a timely message, Duncan. I think I mentioned a little while ago that I had returned an invitation to NG's UK office, saying I would never consider buying their magazine while they 'maintain [their] outdated aversion to metric units.' Today my note was returned to me, together with a hand-written note (unsigned) saying the following: "Get a life!!! It is a US publication after all. Readership of 90 million+ worldwide don't mind." Customer service - what's that? -- Chris KEENAN UK Metrication: http://www.metric.org.uk/ UK Correspondent, US Metric Association
[USMA:9825] RE: FW: Out of the mouths of babes.... [Yahoo! Clubs: Metric America]
From: Duncan Bath [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: December 18, 2000 11:03 From: kilopascal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: December 18, 2000 09:47 2000-12-18 There was no year zero. Of course there was no "year zero" - there was no calendar to put it on! Furthermore, the exact year of the 'event' from which our calendar times itself is in doubt by a number of years. D The first year was "1", Nor was there a "year 1" - see above. D Folks: the real new millennium comes January 1, 2001. How so? Duncan
[USMA:9826] RE: resisting metric
I think women resist for different reasons. For women it's too much of a "bother", for men there's some sacred political issue involved (anti-government, anti-EU, etc) The girl I spoke with just didn't want to be "bothered" with metric. If most of here customers spoke metric and she had gotten used to it, then she wouldn't want to be "bothered" with ifp. But it was obviously a mixed bag, which was why she was quick to specify english even before I used metric. It's laziness, pure and simple. I made it difficult because I didn't feel, as a customer, I should have to accomodate 100% to someone selling me something. Though I was certainly polite, I made it obvious I was doing a rough translation from millimeters, and she better take some reponsibility for making sure the translation's correct. I hope the order's correct or it will have to be returned. Nat Even Greg's experience had to do with two women. There seems to be a pattern here. I know there are many women out there who prefer metric, but I'll bet more prefer FFU then don't. Even where I work, the women resist it more then the men.
[USMA:9827] Re: resisting metric
I'll dare to drop my "3 m pole" and approach this topic head on. If you were to go into a fabric store in Canada your heart would be warmed. All the fabric is priced by the metre and the women (since these stores have a mostly female customers) ask for 'x' number of metres of fabric at the cutting table. Most notions (zippers, buttons, velcro, elastic) are in metric only or WOMBAT (SI). Those that have any WOMBAT on them are usually "Made in USA". Metric tape measures and metre sticks (usually with inches on the reverse) are readily available. Patterns are mostly from the United States or targetted for the US market so the English instructions for fabric amounts are in yards/inches. However, the French label for those sold in Canada have only metres. Most women just read across to the Fench side and buy their products in metres. Cooking, another primarily female oriented industry, is still entrenched firmly in the world of quarts, cups, spoons, and Fahrenheit. In a recent cook book fund raiser project here at work I was the metric converter (only because I volunteered to do so). If it wasn't for my efforts 99% of the recipies would have been strictly in WOMBAT. Most Canadians no longer understand Fahrenheit (most can't spell it), but it is still used for cooking. Many prepared foods will give the oven temperatures as °F (°C). Most cookbooks will list both the WOMBAT and the rounded metric equivalents i.e. 1 cup = 250 ml. The ¼ cup usually sees the greatest variation from 50 to 75 ml. Other traditionally female issues such as baby weight and length, and personal weight are still stuck in WOMBAT as well. This may simply be because the effort has not been made by this area of society to change. The police still use feet/inches and pounds to describe suspects in the media and the hospitals still are willing (without question) to give the weight of a newborn in pounds/ounces and length inches regardless of the metric on the hospital form. To suggest an answer for you, John, I suggest the following. Women are much more practical than us men. If the industry uses metric, they use metric. If the industry uses WOMBAT, they use WOMBAT. If a decision is made to change the measurement system, they change the measurement system. None of this whining about culture, history, or tradition. How many men do you know stand around talking about horsepower, speed in mph, weight in pounds, distances in feet or yards, volume in gallons, or height in feet. Men like to compare these dimensions and are uncomfortable if this "tradition" is altered. They lose there benchmarks and dislike the awkwardness of misquoting a "vital" statistic (just look at the ribbing the members of this list receive when they misquote a conversion or formula) Now, I don't suggest that the women in North America cannot be leaders. I suspect that if they had the time and energy (or political clout) they would have a strong voice on this issue. I suspect they prioritize differently and don't consider this as important of an issue as other issues that impact more directly on their lives. For my wife the metrication issue is a non-issue. Just convert to metric, be done with it, and quit your bitching. My MLA (member of the provincial legislative assembly) happens to be a women. She fully supports the idea of complete metric conversion and a single system. She also confided in me that she prefers to see her weight (mass) in kilograms rather than pounds. It looks better ;) Now whether she considers this an important issue in Saskatchewan is another story. I my humble opinion if metrication in the United States and Canada was left to the women, it would have been completed in the 1970s. There's my 2¢ worth. greg "kilopascal" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2000-12-18 12:40:49 2000-12-18 I said something not long ago that needs repeating. Why is it the women and girls seem to be the most insistent on using FFU? If the person in example 1 was female, she would have insisted you deal with her only in inches and proclaim she doesn't understand. If example 2 was a male, for sure he would have accommodated you as the guy in example 1 did. He might have done so reluctantly, but he would have done so. Even Greg's experience had to do with two women. There seems to be a pattern here. I know there are many women out there who prefer metric, but I'll bet more prefer FFU then don't. Even where I work, the women resist it more then the men. I'm sure for some of you, this may be an issue you don't want to touch with a 10 m pole, but from experience, which sex seems to be more metric friendly? John Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt frei zu sein. There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free! Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Nat Hager III
[USMA:9828] Re: 10.6m or 10.6 m
Mark Papsun asked in USMA 9814 A copyeditor on the CE-L list insists that the proper notation for 10.6 meters is 10.6 m. I think it's 10.6m. Which is correct? Can you quote sources if the answer is 10.6m? International Standard ISO 1000-198 states: "Unit symbols should be placed after the complete numerical value in the expression for a quantity , leaving a space between the numewrical value and the unit symbol". International Standard ISO 31/0 also states: "international symbolsshould beplaced after the complete numerical value in the expression for the quantity , leaving a space between the numeriucal value and tne unit symbol." I suspect that this rule was adopted when the lower case L (i.e. l) was the only symbol for litre. Thus does 12.3l mean 12.3 litres or pure number 12.31? In the United Kingdom the newspapers frquently omit the space.
[USMA:9829] Re: woman and SI
kilopascal wrote: I said something not long ago that needs repeating. Why is it the women and girls seem to be the most insistent on using FFU? If the person in example 1 was female, she would have insisted you deal with her only in inches and proclaim she doesn't understand. If example 2 was a male, for sure he would have accommodated you as the guy in example 1 did. He might have done so reluctantly, but he would have done so. I don't think it has anything to do with sex -- or if so, only indirectly. I think it has to do with a person's experience. When I was in high school in the mid-60s taking chemistry and physics, the classes were almost entirely male. Girls didn't take those classes, so they didn't learn metric (we called it cgs, then.) and I would imagine that the girls of my high school class, who are now women, probably now have trouble with SI. My daughters have learned FFU in their U.S. public school, of course, but the sexual segregation is not so strong now, so they have taken science classes and they have also learned to use metric units. They prefer SI for any kind of computation. All the women I know who have been educated overseas have no trouble with SI. If you want to know why someone insists on FFU, look at their education. Women for many years in the US were discouraged from taking the "hard" science classes and were encouraged to take homemaking, where the customary units are really bizarre. A love of FFU has nothing to do with sex directly. Incidentally, I've met plenty of men who weren't interested working in SI. When I was teaching stagecraft at Portland State University in 1980 I had a student from Iran who was a great artist; I could give him anything to paint as long as I could describe its size in centimeters, millimeters or meters. The other students -- male and female -- had a hard time working with him because he didn't think in inches and feet. The guys seemed to be a bit more resistant to working with Hamid because he was a foreigner.
[USMA:9830] Re: UK NG respons- was Re: too costly to split run
Ah, the Ugly American is alive and well, make that "ill". Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:18:33 -0500, "Duncan Bath" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, National Geographic is also hampered by this. Every time they 'invite' me to re-join NG, I politely tell them the publication is of no use to me either as a current source or as a 'library' into the future as long as it uses obsolete units of measure. Duncan What a timely message, Duncan. I think I mentioned a little while ago that I had returned an invitation to NG's UK office, saying I would never consider buying their magazine while they 'maintain [their] outdated aversion to metric units.' Today my note was returned to me, together with a hand-written note (unsigned) saying the following: "Get a life!!! It is a US publication after all. Readership of 90 million+ worldwide don't mind." Customer service - what's that? -- Chris KEENAN UK Metrication: http://www.metric.org.uk/ UK Correspondent, US Metric Association -- Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!" James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/ 10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
[USMA:9831] Re: UK NG respons- was Re: too costly to split run
Yes, National Geographic is also hampered by this. Every time they 'invite' me to re-join NG, I politely tell them the publication is of no use to me either as a current source or as a 'library' into the future as long as it uses obsolete units of measure. Duncan What a timely message, Duncan. I think I mentioned a little while ago that I had returned an invitation to NG's UK office, saying I would never consider buying their magazine while they 'maintain [their] outdated aversion to metric units.' Today my note was returned to me, together with a hand-written note (unsigned) saying the following: "Get a life!!! It is a US publication after all. Readership of 90 million+ worldwide don't mind." Suggested reply: Get a life, YOURSELF!!! Stop sending me flyers for a magazine you know I'd never subscribe to. Nat
[USMA:9832] Re: UK NG respons- was Re: too costly to split run
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:29:34 -0500, you wrote: Ah, the Ugly American is alive and well, make that "ill". Jim I've no way of knowing, Jim, but I assume that most of the staff in the UK office will be British. It would certainly be atypical of American customer service to give such a reply. Chris
[USMA:9834] Re: National Geographic
Kilopascal wrote in USMA 9823: I never could understand why NG doesn't at least use both. If the article is about any place outside the USA, it can use the format SI(FFU). If it is about the USA, then the reverse. Why are they so resistant to even making that compromise? Now, I remember reading or hearing something about American readers writing in and opposing any inclusion of SI, even as a secondary measure, when NG attempted to do so back in the '80s. If I remember correctly, hundreds of subscribers threatened to cancel their subscriptions if NG did not return to FFU only. That is my memory of events. Now, does this make sense to anyone? According to the reply Chris received, NG has a readership of 90 MILLION PLUS world-wide. I suspect that they reckon that each copy of their magazine is by at least ten persons.
[USMA:9833] Re: resisting metric
Kilopascal wrote in USMA 9822 I said something not long ago that needs repeating. Why is it the women and girls seem to be the most insistent on using FFU? If the person in example 1 was female, she would have insisted you deal with her only in inches and proclaim she doesn't understand. If example 2 was a male, for sure he would have accommodated you as the guy in example 1 did. He might have done so reluctantly, but he would have done so. I would like to put in a word in defence of the ladies. Sometime in the late 70s or early 80s dressmaking win Canada went metric. The sale of cloth became by the metre. Dressmaking patterns went metric, although made by American companies who could now export the same patterns throughout the world. Incidently, American patterns are much easier to use than German patterns. Thread spools stated the length of the thread they held in metres. I can't remember any riots or demonstrations of protest.
[USMA:9835] French beer measures
I've already sent this message to Louis, but it occurred to me that someone else might know this answer. I'm engaged in a discussion on uk.food+drink.real-ale about selling beer in metric measures. One chap is claiming that the French 'pinte' is roughly a 'pint', while the 'demi' is un demi pint. Bill Potts told us that the pinte is nearly a litre, so is a demi half of that pinte? Please feel free to join in the newsgroup (and the one on uk.transport, which has lurched into 'America cancelled metrication last year' territory) Chris -- Metrication information: http://www.metric.org.uk/ UK legislation, EC Directives, Trading Standards links and more Pro-metric mailing list now available.
[USMA:9836] RE: French beer measures
Chris Keenan wrote: Bill Potts told us that the pinte is nearly a litre, so is a demi half of that pinte? To be specific, I think I said that pinte was used, in the Province of Quebec, for quart (Imperial). For pint (Imperial), they used chopine. That makes a chopine a demi-pinte. I think pinte and chopine were used, pre-metrication, for French liquid-container labels in the rest of Canada, too. Joe Reid should know for sure. Bill Potts, CMS San Jose, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
[USMA:9837] Re:RE: French beer measures
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:45:52 -0800, "Bill Potts" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Keenan wrote: Bill Potts told us that the pinte is nearly a litre, so is a demi half of that pinte? To be specific, I think I said that pinte was used, in the Province of Quebec, for quart (Imperial). For pint (Imperial), they used chopine. That makes a chopine a demi-pinte. I think pinte and chopine were used, pre-metrication, for French liquid-container labels in the rest of Canada, too. Yes, Bill, you gave the Quebec measure, but you also said: "In France, "pinte" is an ancient measure, equal to 0.93 L (as opposed to the 1.136 L of the Imperial quart)." That is confirmed by Cardarelli's book. My memory of going to Grenoble in my undergraduate days was that pubs sold 'un demi', meaning 'un demi litre'; but I didn't want to categorically say that that was true, as my memory may be playing tricks on me. I'd also be interested to hear from Louis, Han etc. how strictly controlled beer glasses are in the rest of Europe. I get the impression that they are not so tight on giving exact measures as we are in the UK. Chris -- Metrication information: http://www.metric.org.uk/ UK legislation, EC Directives, Trading Standards links and more Pro-metric mailing list now available.
[USMA:9838] Re:RE: French beer measures
2000-12-18 German glasses are very regulated. Whenever I was in a restaurant, each glass had a white line half way around the top with its contents marked. For example, if you had wine in a 200 mL glass, and it was filled to the line, you know you got 200 ml of product. German beer steins are usually one litre in capacity. I don't know if all are, as I don't drink beer, but the people I was with who did, always had a litre in front of them. John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 2000-12-18 18:06 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:9837] Re:RE: French beer measures On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:45:52 -0800, "Bill Potts" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Keenan wrote: Bill Potts told us that the pinte is nearly a litre, so is a demi half of that pinte? To be specific, I think I said that pinte was used, in the Province of Quebec, for quart (Imperial). For pint (Imperial), they used chopine. That makes a chopine a demi-pinte. I think pinte and chopine were used, pre-metrication, for French liquid-container labels in the rest of Canada, too. Yes, Bill, you gave the Quebec measure, but you also said: "In France, "pinte" is an ancient measure, equal to 0.93 L (as opposed to the 1.136 L of the Imperial quart)." That is confirmed by Cardarelli's book. My memory of going to Grenoble in my undergraduate days was that pubs sold 'un demi', meaning 'un demi litre'; but I didn't want to categorically say that that was true, as my memory may be playing tricks on me. I'd also be interested to hear from Louis, Han etc. how strictly controlled beer glasses are in the rest of Europe. I get the impression that they are not so tight on giving exact measures as we are in the UK. Chris -- Metrication information: http://www.metric.org.uk/ UK legislation, EC Directives, Trading Standards links and more Pro-metric mailing list now available.
[USMA:9839] RE: French beer measures
200-12-18 Can you give us the full URL to these news groups? What you have below gives me a can not find the server error. I even tried adding the usual www and .com.uk and it didn't link. John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 2000-12-18 17:36 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:9835] French beer measures I've already sent this message to Louis, but it occurred to me that someone else might know this answer. I'm engaged in a discussion on uk.food+drink.real-ale about selling beer in metric measures. One chap is claiming that the French 'pinte' is roughly a 'pint', while the 'demi' is un demi pint. Bill Potts told us that the pinte is nearly a litre, so is a demi half of that pinte? Please feel free to join in the newsgroup (and the one on uk.transport, which has lurched into 'America cancelled metrication last year' territory) Chris -- Metrication information: http://www.metric.org.uk/ UK legislation, EC Directives, Trading Standards links and more Pro-metric mailing list now available.
[USMA:9840] reply from Saskatchewan Ed.Minister
I received a snail mail reply today from the Saskatchewan Education Minister, who was responding to my remarks to him that old units should not be taught beside SI. Here is his response: December 12, 2000 Mr. Paul Trusten Apartment 122 3609 Caldera Boulevard MIDLAND TX 79707-2872 USA Dear Mr. Trusten, Thank you for your recent letter concerning the current debate about use of the Imperial measurement system. The Saskatchewan curriculum has employed metric measurement for many years and continues to be fully metric at this time. We understand, however, that Imperial measurement is still used in certain occupations. The curriculum related to specific occupations will teach the Imperial system in order to prepare interested students for jobs when they finish school in those industries that use Imperial measurement. For example, the Practical an Applied Arts, Construction and Carpenty Curriculum deals with measurement in inches and feet, as much of that industry still uses those units. Imperial measure appears in other places in the Core Curriculum when appropriate. I am confident that the curriculum will change as people of the "metric generation" convert the construction, agriculture, and other industries to metric. If you are interested, you can access the Saskatchewan curriculum on the World Wide Web at http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca. Thank you for taking the time to share your views with me. Sincerely yours, Jim Melenchuk -- Paul Trusten, R.Ph. 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apt. 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 USA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[USMA:9842] Re:RE: French beer measures
2000-12-18 From Meyer's Blitz Lexikon (Bibliographisches Institut AG. /Leipzig 1932), a pinte is equal to 2.93 L. John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 2000-12-18 18:06 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:9837] Re:RE: French beer measures On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:45:52 -0800, "Bill Potts" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Keenan wrote: Bill Potts told us that the pinte is nearly a litre, so is a demi half of that pinte? To be specific, I think I said that pinte was used, in the Province of Quebec, for quart (Imperial). For pint (Imperial), they used chopine. That makes a chopine a demi-pinte. I think pinte and chopine were used, pre-metrication, for French liquid-container labels in the rest of Canada, too. Yes, Bill, you gave the Quebec measure, but you also said: "In France, "pinte" is an ancient measure, equal to 0.93 L (as opposed to the 1.136 L of the Imperial quart)." That is confirmed by Cardarelli's book. My memory of going to Grenoble in my undergraduate days was that pubs sold 'un demi', meaning 'un demi litre'; but I didn't want to categorically say that that was true, as my memory may be playing tricks on me. I'd also be interested to hear from Louis, Han etc. how strictly controlled beer glasses are in the rest of Europe. I get the impression that they are not so tight on giving exact measures as we are in the UK. Chris -- Metrication information: http://www.metric.org.uk/ UK legislation, EC Directives, Trading Standards links and more Pro-metric mailing list now available.
[USMA:9843] Fw: Yards/Meters signs at Busch Gardens picture taken Thansgiving
To all, My daughter and son-in-law scanned and forwarded this picture which I took the day after Thanksgiving whilemy wife and I were there with them. Norm signs2.jpg
[USMA:9844] Re:RE: French beer measures
John Schweisthal wrote: From Meyer's Blitz Lexikon (Bibliographisches Institut AG. /Leipzig 1932), a pinte is equal to 2.93 L. That's obviously a misprint. Petit Larousse Illustré, 1983, has the following entry for PINTE: Ancienne mesure française de capacité pour les liquides, qui valait 0,93 litre à Paris. and Ancienne unité de mesure anglo-saxonne de capacité, qui valait 0,568 25 litre en Grande Bretagne et 1,136 litre au Canada (un quart de gallon). Larousse is one of the leading authorities on the meaning of French words. Meyers Blitz Lexicon is a very interesting document (which is why I still have those three pages on the SI Navigator site), but is by no means an authority certainly not on old French units of measure. Bill Potts, CMS San Jose, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
[USMA:9846] RE: French beer measures
On 2000-12-18 at 18:33, kilopascal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Can you give us the full URL to these news groups? news:uk.food+drink.real-ale Or you can go to http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/qs.xp?ST=PSsvcclass=dnyrfirstsearch=yespreserve=1QRY=metricdefaultOp=ANDDBS=1OP=dnquery.xpLNG=englishsubjects=groups=uk.food%2Bdrink.real-aleauthors=fromdate=todate=showsort=scoremaxhits=25 Or if that's too long, just go to http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml and search for metric in the forum uk.food+drink.real-ale For "Results type", select "Deja Classic" and you'll be happiest.
