2002-05-12 That part I understood. My point was that there are multiple meanings to ifp. Does ifp refer to the US customary version, the US engineering version, the UK imperial version , UK engineering, which? The pound can be a unit of mass, or weight. The foot can be a survey foot or an international foot equal to 0.3048 m. And, there are the historical versions as well.
Because of the variations, we need to know what version the person using the term is referring to. I use the term FFU (Fred Flintstone units - Friedrich Feuerstein Einheiten (FFE) auf deutsch) to be a catch-all of all non-SI units. But, when I need to be specific, I need to state imperial when I mean UK units, or US customary when I mean US common units. Ifp is not specific enough of a term. Plus is falls into the BWMA trap that USC/imperial is a sound, coherent system equal to or better than SI. It does not point out the diversity of USC or imperial. It is not our place to give USC/imperial legitimacy, which is the case when some of us use terms like ifp. That's all. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wizard of OS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, 2002-05-12 10:00 Subject: [USMA:20018] Re: Some of you might find this interesting > ifp = inch/foot/pound > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 3:55 PM > Subject: [USMA:20016] Re: Some of you might find this interesting > > > > 2002-05-12 > > > > When you use the term "ifp", what version of ifp are you referring to? > > There is no standard ifp, there are many versions. If you are going to > use > > this term, can you be more specific as to which version you are referring > > to? We want to be precise. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, 2002-05-11 09:02 > > Subject: [USMA:20007] Re: Some of you might find this interesting > > > > > > > The authors of the 18th century's pre-revolutionary Encyclopedie > (Diderot > > > cs) also covered weights and measures and they did not know how things > > would > > > develop in the future. They hoped for unification. But I saw some tables > > of > > > length and weight in the Encyclopedie and they used British units as > > > standard. This was understandable and justified as British units in the > > > pre-metric era were the closest approach to a standardized system. Don't > > let > > > the BWMA know that! They will use what was justified then as propaganda > > for > > > today's issues. And the Cousteau's who speak ifp in heavily accented > > English > > > in their films - I saw one of their films recently for a time, then I > > > switched off with disgust - and the idiots from Maporama can not derive > > any > > > justification for their lunacy from the choice the Encyclopedists made. > > The > > > latter were right, the former are bootlickers without a shred of self > > > respect in their bodies, the fifth column. > > > What do NLG and Cousteau's films also have in common? The NLG magazine > > and > > > Cousteau's films are beautiful. However, I have been seeing more metric > > > programs on NLG television for some time. > > > > > > Han > > > Historian of Dutch Metrication, Nijmegen, The Netherlands > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:38 AM > > > Subject: [USMA:19993] Re: Some of you might find this interesting > > > > > > > > > > 2002-05-09 > > > > > > > > As wonderful as this seems to us as a good reason to adopt SI, it will > > > have no affect on the followers of the BWMA. The BWMA will argue that > the > > > British units are the true form, dating back almost uncorrupted to the > > time > > > of Adam and Eve. They will claim that they have had a standard set of > > > weights and measures dating to the time of the Magna Charta, where there > > was > > > only one set of measures and not the mess you see below. > > > > > > > > You have read in Tony Bennett's article the sour attitude his kind > > > processes regarding the events in France in the 1790's. I'm sure > Bennett > > > and the rest of the BWMA would remark that the French should have > adopted > > > the British > > > units or at least set their livres, etc. to equal those of the British. > > > > Designing a new system that would conquer the world and displace the > > > establish British units is considered an unforgivable evil in their > minds. > > > > > > > > This is their Armageddon and they are going to make the most of it. > Be > > > prepared to fight a harsh battle! > > > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > >
