Dear John,
I must admit that I skipped over your request for some comments as I felt
that these issues were long ago dead and buried in Australia. You are right
in that (most) Australians have moved on over the last three decades.
However, I have interspersed some remarks. I have used *** to identify my
remarks.
on 08.01.2001 03.07, kilopascal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 2001-01-07
>
> It would be nice if Pat Naughton
*** Correct spelling is Naughtin
> could comment on these articles. I wonder
> if the BWMA holds on to 26 year old news and actually believes that the
> anti-metric sentiments are the same today as then. What was experienced was
> the conversion program itself. But, once the bridge is crossed, people move
> on and in most cases, never look back, and would never want to cross back
> again.
>
>> I foud this o one of the pages of the BWMA site. Sour grapes, indeed, as
>> these
>> voices must have died out by now,
>>
>> Han
>>
>>
>> Australian Comments
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>> Extract from "The Abacus" (B.A.M.Moon)
>> The metric system violates the natural human requirement of subdivision
> into 3,
>> 4, 6, 8, ... parts. It is also inadequate for the subdivision of the
> circle,
>> for the 24 hours in the day, the 12 months in the year, and the 32 points
> of
>> the compass. All these requirements are met by changing the number base
> front
>> 10 to 12, as has been pointed out repeatedly. The advantages of the
> present
>> metric system are retained and the disadvantages are overcome, merely by a
>> change of base.
>>
>> The metric system was introduced into this chapter merely as an example of
> the
>> difficulties that the human race encounter, when it slavishly adheres to
> the
>> Base Ten system. Undoubtedly a better base could be found for general use.
> Of
>> course, the practical obstacles in the way of changing the thinking of
> mankind
>> from one base to another are formidable.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>> We're halfway to lunacy
*** Halfway to lunacy, indeed. Anyone who feels that the adoption of a new
base for our numbers, and a new measuring method built on this, will be
readily accepted and adopted has no idea of the difficulty of getting people
to change their minds. This guy is living in 'Cloud Cuckoo Land'.
>> (The Bulletin, 25/1/75)
*** Note the date. The BWMA must be truly desperate if this is the latest
pro Imperial opinion that they can find.
>> THE NATION, says the Metric Conversion Board. is now more than half metric
> in
>> thought, word and deed. We are past the point of no return.
*** This was probably about true - even understated - by early 1975.
>> And a pig's wishbone to that. sirs.
*** And if you have no information to refute the facts, then begin with your
best emotive words and phrases as you know that these will have a longer
term effect than 'cold, hard facts'.
>> The nation is blundering wretchedly with the metric system. We are not
> even an
>> eighth - I beg your pardon: 0·125 of the way there. And it would be a
> great
>> saving and a relief if we stopped at this point and forgot. or tried to
> forget,
>> all about it.
*** Next trot out your best humour. Playing with numbers is good - you know
that many of your readers are functionally innumerate.
>> The metric system, in Australia is a bloody disaster.
*** Firmly stated opinions are good. They give the writer the illusion of
leadership.
>> Who do you know - take your time about it -- who actually uses metrics?
> Who
>> speaks comfortably, or even uncomfortably, of metres and litres and
> hectares?
*** Whip in a few rhetorical questions. These are an interesting device to
distract attention away from their answers.
>> Sports broadcasters. yes. The horse-fanciers are probably closer to the
> point
>> of no return than any other section of the community.
*** The horse racing industry were leaders in the change to SI and have
retained this leadership to this day. This was a surprise to me as I regard
this industry as fairly conservative.
>> True, a mile and a
>> quarter still sounds unreal as 2,000 m. A jockey riding at 51·5 kg seems
>> nothing short of adipose. And the 200 m mark will never replace the
>> furlong pole.
*** Now here is the nub of the issue. The reader is pleading with his
audience, and the subscript is; 'I don't want to change my mind!' And this
is the writer's essential case in a nutshell. 'I don't want to change my
mind - its too difficult'.
>> But racing is a world of busy and objective businessmen who'd weigh
>> jockeys in Cypriot okes and punt in ticals and akkers rather than waste
> time by
>> arguing the toss.
*** Let's have another bit of humour to break up the whingeing tone of the
writer.
>> On the other hand cricket will never be a metric sport. It is simply
>> embarrassing to hear Alan MeGilvray and Lindsay Hassett writhingly
> describe,
>> say, Tony Greig. crouching "about three metres from the edge ofthe
> wicket" ---
>> or a ball zipping by --- "hardly a centimetre from the off slump".
*** Here's the 'I don't want to change my mind!' argument again. In this
case he is belittling the sports commentators who were attempting to change
their mindsets from Imperial to metric measures. The cricket commentators
led the way in this area and in the current summer series between Australia,
Zimbabwe, and the West Indies, all (bar one or two) of the many thousands of
measures have all been given in SI.
>> And where conversion depends on the public en masse nothing good is
>> happening
>> at all. Just about everybody in industry is trying to use the metric
>> system and
>> just about everybody is hating it. Flour miller, and stockfeed packers,
>> who
>> converted as early as December 1972, still say that metrics are --- "a
>> bloody
>> nuisance" and a "hindrance" to business. The chain stores' descriptions
>> range
>> from "an expensive waste of time" to "you wouldn't believe it." It'd suit
>> retailers and it'd suit the public if we went back to Imperial measures
>> right
>> now.
*** Sure, people complained, and then they got on with the conversion of
their practices, their businesses, and eventually their minds, and got on
with their lives. In 2001 all the industries mentioned here wouldn't know
enough about the old measures to go back to them anyway. Generally speaking,
old measures are simply ancient history.
>> It seems only fair to keep the metre-fanciers on their toes. to let them
> know
>> that they're getting away with nothing.
*** I don't think that I'll invite this writer on to my prognostication
team. He doesn't have enough scores on the board to recommend him.
>> Who, for instance, started all this rot? We may never know. The Metric
>> Conversion Board certainly doesn't know who started it. "There was," says
> a
>> spokesman, "a Senate Select Committee and it recommended metrics to the
> Gorton
>> Government."
>> Yes, yes, yes. But who or what got the Senate Select Committee going in
> the
>> first place?
*** Back to the rhetorical questions. Always a good stalwart when you are
short of argument.
>> Well, the Weights and Measures Act established a National
>> Standards Commission to 'advise the Minister with respect to weights and
>> measures'." That was in 1949. but it wasn't until 1967 that the Senate
> Select
>> Committee got busy with its inquiry into "the practicability of the early
>> adoption by Australia of the metric system of weights and measures." It
> brooded
>> for 18 months, then gave metrics a unanimous okay in a report upon which
> the
>> Government, in its turn, brooded for two years before adopting.
*** And then another spot of derisory humour.
>> But we're still no nearer to an answer. WHO wanted metrics? WHOSE idea was
>> this "early adoption?" Who stood to gain so much that he could put the
> nation
>> to the staggering expense - an expense too great for the United States -
> of
>> changing a yard to a metre? The MCB claims that "exporters and importers
> stand
>> to gain".
>>
>> Which exporters? Which importers?
*** Before we go back to rhetorical questions.
>> The fact that Europe is big in metrics is neither here nor there.
> Uniformity in
>> international trade might be nice but it's by no means essential. Were it
> so
>> we'd all be speaking Esperanto, because the problems of weights and
> measures
>> are simply picayune in comparison with problems of language.
*** A bit of implied racism, under the heading of nationalistic feeling is
always good.
>> The more one looks at the situation the more likely it seems that the
> original
>> damage was done by some bureaucrat: for the bureaucrat is probably the
> only man
>> who stands to win with metrics all the way.
>> As long as there is a three-foot building alignment to be changed to a
> one-
>> metre alignment; as long as there is some ordinance to be re-written,
> using
>> litres instead of gallons, there will have to be a pants-polisher to
> rewrite
>> it. And - angels and ministers of grace defend us'. - we haven't yet
> started
>> trying with pascals, joules and newtons.
*** A a bit of bureaucrat bashing is also in order here - just make sure you
stick to the right stereotypes.
>> And what, after all, are we adopting? We are adopting a system created in
> the
>> late 18th century for no better reason than the discovery, by some
> nameless
>> Frenchman, that he had five fingers on each hand and could thus count up
> to10
>> It's worth noting that his forbear, an ancient Gaul, used a system of
>> measurement based on the figure 20 almost certainly because he wore no
> boots
>> and could thus count higher.
*** Some more rhetorical questions
>> I for one am ready to say. firmly that things would have been a lot better
> for
>> us all had the Gauls stayed barefoot.
*** And some further attempts at humour, and all because the writer has no
idea how to change his mind.
Fortunately, since 1975, all that is this writer predicted has not come to
pass. Put simply he reacted to his own emotional needs, and he was wrong.
>> FACE TO FACE WITH METRICATION
>> B.A.M. Moon
>> Norman Stoke
*** I think the correct name is Norman Stone. I have commented on this
article as a whole. My remarks are at the bottom of the piece - with *** as
a marker.
>> Chief Information Officer, Metrication Board,
> London:
>> "Some traditional weights and measures are funny enough in themselves. I
> cannot
>> say "Two fardels equal one nooke" to myself with out smiling; I am
> delighted
>> that the fathom originally meant the distance a Viking encompassed in a
> hug;
>> the Statute of Henry I which defined the foot in terms of thirty-six
>> barleycorns taken from the width of the ear has a charm of its own; there
> is
>> something laughable in the fact that the gauge of railways in Britain is
> the
>> same as the distance between the wheels of a Roman chariot; and who would
> not
>> be amused at the recollection that the basis of much modern town planning
> is
>> the acre, an area ploughable in one day by a team of two oxen. It is one
> furrow
>> long (furlong) by one chain." (1)
>>
>> Well, well, well! And has the droll Mr. Stone heard of similarly bizarre,
> but
>> obsolete, units like the decigramme and dekalitre, quaintly related to
> other
>> well-known units such as the hectogramme and megalitre by certain powers
> of the
>> number of his fingers? So compelling is the mystique of this number that
> some
>> simple fishmongers believe they are now required to sell oysters in
> multiples
>> of it, not in heretical dozens, while many of the more sophisticated
> amongst us
>> feel that Cambridge and Oxford should each increase the number in their
> boats
>> so that they both contain a nice round number. What matter if the number
> of
>> Symphonies Beethoven wrote equalled the number of Muses? He was clearly
> remiss
>> in failing to write another. After all, the number of Commandments was
> hiked by
>> two to satisfy this most fundamental of criteria. (2)
>>
>> Let us also remember to do proper homage to that most profound of all
>> touchstones of scientific virtuosity - the metre. Nearly, but not quite,
> the
>> length of a second pendulum at the poles at sea level; nearly again, but
> not
>> quite, a certain mystical fraction of the length of the meridional
> quadrant of
>> the Earth, it is actually, wonder of wonders (!), equal to 1,650,763·73
> vacuum
>> wavelengths of the orange radiation of krypton 86. The commonsense and
> harmony
>> with nature encapsulated in the choice of this unit will be obvious to
>> philosophers and practical men alike.
>>
>> By contrast, the naivety of good King Henry in applying sound statistical
>> methods in the definition of the foot as the length of thirty-six
> barleycorns
>> placed end to end, or the alternative of the year 1514, when the a verage
> of
>> the lengths of the feet of sixteen men (measured as they happened to pass
> out
>> of church when the Sunday service was finished) gave a right and lawful
>> standard, very properly permits us to smile indulgently, secu re in the
> know
>> ledge of our own superior erudition and wisdom. Good for you, Mr. Stone!
> All
>> right -thinking men will quickly abjure today the old admonition "by their
>> deeds shall ye know them" - will disregard the wrongheaded choice of the
> foot
>> instead of the metre for the first moon landings - will properly condemn
> as
>> wilful a comparison of the relative amounts of the oceans of the Earth
> charted
>> using the metre and that ridicul ous alternative, the distance encompassed
> by a
>> Viking in a hug.
>>
>> With a splendid opportunity to adopt with open arms the beautiful, pure
> and
>> rational metric system that the kind bureaucrats wish to bestow upon them,
> how
>> pe rverse and ungrateful indeed are the Anglo-Saxon yeomen in continuing
> to
>> prefer their own rude ways and customs.
>>
>>
>> R.L.Weber & E. Mendoza (eds): 'A Random Walk in Science', p.123
>> R. Graves: "The White Goddess", p 471.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>> What about a national referendum on that last awful gift of the Menzies
> era -
>> metrication?
>> We can guess that there'd be a loud "Yes" from the Australian people in
> favor
>> of calling a halt to replacement of our good old pints, inches, pounds,
>> Fahrenheit and the rest by unfamiliar metric measures.
>>
>> Decimalisation of our currency WAS overdue, although marred by a poverty
> of
>> imagination among Our Betters who could think of nothing better than the
>> imitative and confusing "dollar" as our main monetary unit.
>>
>> But whom do they think they're benefiting by a rush into metrics in areas
> where
>> the Americans won't have a bar of them, and where even European
> housewives,
>> artisans and merchants stick to pints, inches and dozens?
>>
>> The argument that metrication would simplify our overseas trade Is exposed
> as a
>> furphy. Ninety-five per cent of our exports aren't affected. Of the
> remaining
>> five per cent some are advantaged, some handicapped.
>>
>> Soon it will be too late to stop the next squander - a Board of Works plan
> to
>> replace all its metres to measure our water consumption In kilolitres
> instead
>> of gallons, at vast cost to taxpayers and profit to scrap-metal merchants.
>>
>> So it's time for the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, to step in and hold that
>> referendum.
>>
>>
>> A WARNING
>> The outcome wouldn't be binding on the states. But an almighty national
> "Yes"
>> in favor of reverting to century heat waves, inches of rain. and
> recognisable
>> vital statistics for beauty queens would be a warning to the metric
> madhatters
>> to go slow. The Sun,Tues Mar.18,1975
*** You can expect a raft of these 'humurous' articles after a year or two
of metric conversion.
They are part of the normal response to change and they are fairly
predictable. These articles art part of the process of adapting to (and
adopting) change. The first part of the process is called 'denial' by
Elizabeth Kubler-Ross.
I sometimes refer to Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's 'On Death and Dying' when I
want to think about response to change, because she is dealing with death, a
situation when the change is irreversible, so there is no possibility of
reverting to previous practices. According to Kubler-Ross, the predictable
stages we cycle through as we adapt to change are firstly Denial, then
Anger, and finally Acceptance. She regards these as being quite predictable
and different members of a family might be at different stages of the
process at any given time.
I think that Kubler-Ross's ideas are relevant to any 'change' process
including metrication, and I think that these humourous articles are simply
part of the 'Denial' cycle, which essentially says 'I don't want to change
my mind. It's too hard!'
>> METRICS ON THE SOFA: LOGIC: is IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.
>> I have a great many books on the metric system in our home. I was sitting
> on
>> the sofa reading one of them. My wife Ruth, was also sitting on the
> sofa --
>> also reading a book.
>> Suddenly Ruth closed her book and announced: "This system is really
> designed to
>> be easy!" I closed my book too and listened respectfully. "This system is
>> logically designed for people who cannot count over 20." Ruth continued.
>>
>> That made me uneasy. I protested: "You are 165 cm tall; you weigh 60 kg;
> and
>> when we visited in Europe we bought 200 grams of lunch meat for our
> sandwiches.
>> How can you say that this system is designed for people who cannot count
> over
>> 20?"
>>
>> With considerably greater calm Ruth answered. "I'm not reading a book
> about the
>> metric system. I'm reading an English detective novel. They just found a
> rather
>> heavy corpse-it weighed 17 stone and 13 pounds. This was long before
> England
>> had gone metric. When they got up to 14 pounds they called it a stone and
> most
>> people weighed under 20 stones. For human height. when they got up to 12
> inches
>> they called it a foot and most people (in those days at least) were under
> 20
>> feet tall. As to their money: it took 12 pence to make a shilling and 20
>> shilling to make a pound and in the days of this novel the pound was worth
> s0
>> much that most people had 20 or fewer pounds around the house. So - for
> human
>> height and weight and for everyday money transactions they could usually
> get
>> along without ever counting over 20. This system was logically designed to
> keep
>> numbers low. Without such a logical system the English could not have put
>> together such a large empire and dealt successfully with the many
> uneducated
>> People in their colonies."
>>
>> OGONTZ METRIC NEWS, Jan. 22, 1977
*** These days we wear shoes - so it's more difficult to count to twenty!
>> MERCURY, Tas. 29/1/76.
>> The metric rip-off
>> A few days ago an article appeared in The Mercury telling the public that
> it is
>> cheaper to buy butter by the 500gm standard as against the pound (454gm).
> The
>> 454gm (pound) is selling at 74c, while the 500 gm is 86c. I wonder if
> people
>> like to be hoodwinked or do they not care?
>> On the basis of 74c for 454gm the 500 gm should be 84·5c. Who reaps the
> extra 4-
>> 1/2c on each packet of butter?
>>
>> H. CRAWFORD. Sandy Bay.
*** Clearly someone has made a simple error in writing and editing the
original piece for the Hobart Mercury. And no doubt the writer and editors
are suitably chastened and will be much more circumspect in future. However,
it was too good an opportunity for H. Crawford of Sandy Bay to use this
isolated case to push his Imperial barrow - backwards.
*** Again I would like to remark that the dates 1975, 1976, and 1977 suggest
a desperation on the part of the BWMA. But I suppose that is largely what
they are on about - looking backwards.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin CAMS
Geelong, Australia
