Dennis does have some very good points in this post, like the ones below (even though I dispute #3 as "necessary"!!! ;-) ), but I wanted to comment on a "small detail" below. On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:37:20 Dennis Brownridge wrote: >... the newsletter recommends that the easiest and most >efficient way of building "metric" is: > >(1) The architect designs the building in conventional inch-foot modules. >(2) The architect then soft-converts all the dimensions on the plans to >metric, to comply with the federal mandate. >(3) The contractor [apparently] converts back to inch-foot on the job. > >... (As we discussed >in USMA 8761 and later postings, working with soft metric dimensions on the >job would be ridiculously awkward.) The newsletter then gives examples very >similar to mine, with 16" block. >... Awkward, perhaps, but I wouldn't go as far as to say "ridiculously" so. I'd, personally, rather deal with "broken/irrational" numbers in metric than "whole" ones in ifp, especially if I'm allowed to reevaluate my construction methods to adjust them to rational metric approaches whenever possible. Marcus Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
