However, the AP is not God. As writers, we can choose to ignore them.
Carleton
-Original Message-
From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf
Of Robert H. Bushnell
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 17:39
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: USMA
Subject: [USMA:47894]
That seems a strange description of them, and not all like their own
description which is to provide a basis for global harmonization of legal
metrology. They certainly place the SI above "other units." Nonetheless, they
do provide a basis for the definition of other units. Many of their
pub
Dear Pat,
Yes, and as you know, I've been the source of much of that dripping
water that I hope will erode the resistance in the U.S. to the metric
system.
In the world of hams, 73 is usually taken as "best regards". But rest
assured. We all love you here. Grin.
Others here might enjoy re
On 2010/06/22, at 08:44 , John M. Steele wrote:
Pat,
May I offer some disagreement with the point below. OIML
Recommendation 63 and ISO Stds. 91-1 and 91-2 explicitly endorse the
API Petroleum Measurement Tables 1-60. While this do include
metric, they also include API gravity, US gallo
Dear Jim,
Congratulations on your letter to QST. Letters like yours are the
sorts of efforts that I believe are especially powerful in getting
more followers for the metric system, see the 6 minute TED Talk at http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement.html
for a giggle.
On Jun 21 , at 9:14 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> Btw, I don't have Zapfino, so I can't read it the way you wrote it.
Sorry! I was afraid that might be the case.
Here (attached) is a PDF file showing the comparison of samples of two fonts
(Helvetica and Zapfino). I hope you can read this.
I adm
This is a copy of the email I sent just now to the author of a report in
QST, pertinent to my recent posting. The address list included some of
the "powers that be" in QST and ARRL.
Jim
Original Message
Subject: Intelligent posting
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:41:21 -0500
From
QST is a monthly magazine and journal published by the American Radio
Relay League (ARRL). ARRL has long irritated me by publishing design
articles and figures in non-metric units in QST and its other
publications. This is especially idiotic, in my view, when discussing
antennae. The amateur
Pat,
May I offer some disagreement with the point below. OIML Recommendation 63 and
ISO Stds. 91-1 and 91-2 explicitly endorse the API Petroleum Measurement Tables
1-60. While this do include metric, they also include API gravity, US gallons
and barrels, long and short tons. and even (oh the
How do we know? Well. I have the 2009 AP Stylebook in my hand.
I got it from the boulder Public library. The text quoted is
on page 173 listed as metric system. This is the only place in the
stylebook that says do not use metric: "use metric terms only in
situations where they are universally
On 2010/06/22, at 03:29 , wrote:
Pat,
How do we know this pro-metric "Scriptorium" is actually extracted
from the AP Stylebook?
Gene.
Dear Gene,
I don't.
I only forwarded the item as of interest in any discussion about the
AP Style Book.
If nothing else it shows that others are al
Dear John and John,
Thanks for your comments. I should have been more careful.
My email to Pierre, with corrections, would now read:
Dear Pierre,
You're right, as a unit, centimetre is too big for type size – and so
is millimetre as it would necessarily involve fractions of some sort
that
My reading of it is that only the brief quote at the top is from the AP
Stylebook. The rest is his interpretation. But I get that impression from
crawling around the rest of the site.
From: "mech...@illinois.edu"
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Mon, June
Pat,
How do we know this pro-metric "Scriptorium" is actually extracted from the AP
Stylebook?
Gene.
Original message
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:48:31 +1000
>From: Pat Naughtin
>Subject: [USMA:47887] AP Guidelines
>To: "U.S. Metric Association"
>
> Dear All,
> For those wit
I checked some books and magazines (North American and UK). Most type size
(upper case, as well as letters with upper extenders) is between 2.0 and 2.5
mm. Larger for headlines, etc.
John F-L
- Original Message -
From: John M. Steele
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Monday, Jun
Pat,
Double-check those types sizes. I don't think I could read a book with 0.5 mm
type.
I measured text in the Wall Street Journal and a few books. Normal body text
seems to be about 1.4 mm lower case letters, 2 mm capitals. To include larger
fonts in headlines, I would probably stick with
Dear All,
For those with an interest in the AP Style Guide you might find this
interesting: http://editingmonks.blogspot.com/2010/06/metrics-in-stories-aps-guideline.html
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see
http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeader
On 2010/06/21, at 07:48 , Pierre Abbat wrote:
The *type size* in centimeters? That's too big a unit for measuring
letters.
Pierre
Dear Pierre,
You're right, as a unit, centimetre is too big for type size – and so
is millimetre.
I think that the printing industry will eventually get ov
Dear Bill and Gene,
Thanks for these thoughts. I shall go away and mull some more.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see
http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html
Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY
PO Box 305 Be
19 matches
Mail list logo
