Here! Here! I second that idea. Publishers of almanac-type books try to
be as non-controversial as possible so as not to alienate potential buyers.
If the publisher learns that that stupid article upset a customer so much
that he returned the book and then wrote them pledging to never buy one
again, they WILL take notice. Every company and organization assumes that
one letter (especially a postal letter on paper) represents some large
number of people who feel the same way but didn't write in.
Jason
----- Original Message -----
From: kilopascal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 4:30 PM
Subject: [USMA:9343] RE: The 2001 Almanac for Farmers and City Folk,
pp.115-116
> 2000-11-24
>
> Paul,
>
> I strongly suggest you return that book for a refund. Maybe the book has
> some worthwhile features, but returning the book would be your form of
> protest against the publishers including such articles in the future.
Also,
> I would write to the publishers and tell them of your dissatisfaction with
> such narrow-mindedness and you will never purchase nor recommend for
> purchase any publication that held such arrogant views.
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Paul Trusten
> Sent: Friday, 2000-11-24 12:40
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:9326] The 2001 Almanac for Farmers and City Folk,
> pp.115-116
>
>
> Hi, fellows of SI!
>
> Thought I'd follow the latest news for a while, so I've resubscribed.
> But, I also resubscribed to bring the following to your attention.
>
> I knew about something called the Old Farmer's Almanac all my life, but
> yesterday I discovered a similar publication called The Almanac for
> Farmers and City Folk, published in Las Vegas, NV (wonder what green
> they grow there besides money). I'm trying to work my OCR software so I
> can post the entire article in question, but in the meantime, if you
> can, please find a copy (I got mine at Walgreens, so it may not be hard
> to find) and look at pages 115-116 in the 2001 edition of this almanac,
> an articled entitled "Are We Going Metric?", by Michael Sinclair.
>
>
>
> This concepts in this article seem to me to represent the worst kind of
> prejudicial thinking relative to metrication in the USA. The author
> raises objections to the metric system that go to the heart of American
> jingoism on this issue. It seems to suggest, primarily, that Americans
> should not do any thinking when it comes to measurement. In particular,
> it makes a shallow swipe at NASA:
>
> So let the shuttle astronauts measure outer space in their
> sissy metric units, just as the French weigh their frog
> legs; give us that good, old-fashioned, organic ounce
> any day. In fact, maybe we should start a crusade
> to get the rest of the world to change back to our
> standard measures and thereby save them from their metric
> impoverishment. Okay,okay, just a thought.
>
> I've heard WOMBAT called many things, but this is the first time I've
> seen it called "organic". In any case, those of you who read the whole
> article will find your blood temperature rising to 100.
>
>
> --
> Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
> 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apt. 122
> Midland TX 79707-2872 USA
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> "No one from the Audubon Society has yet documented the
> finding of a modified barium swallow."
> --Byrd Ona Wyng, Forensic Ornithologist
>
> "Free Billy Rubin!" ---Medical Technologists' protest cry
>
>
>
