Here in Sunderland and other North East regions, we used to call them dickies!!
Sorry, Bill, couldn't resist!!
Regards,
Steve.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 10:47 PM
Subject: [USMA:18802] Re: Short unit names -- Humorous Aside
> Actually, in American and Canadian English, they're cooties. In British
> English, they are definitely nits.
>
> You must be thinking of gnats.
>
> E gnuff of this silliness.
>
> Bill Potts, CMS
> Roseville, CA
> http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Duncan Bath
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 13:37
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:18801] Re: Short unit names -- Humorous Aside
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Potts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: March 16, 2002 16:11
> Subject: [USMA:18799] Re: Short unit names -- Humorous Aside
>
>
> >I was told of the existence of nits in 1943.
> >
> >My maiden Aunt Mabel spent hours getting them out of my hair with a
> >fine-tooth comb.
>
> I thought those were tats.
> D.
>
>
> >Given that usage of the term, I think its adoption as an SI unit might
> cause
> >some amusement in English-speaking countries. (However, I wouldn't argue
> >against its use.)
> >
> >Bill Potts, CMS
> >Roseville, CA
> >http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> >Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 09:07
> >To: U.S. Metric Association
> >Subject: [USMA:18792] Re: Short unit names
> >
> >
>
