I agree with Louis and Duncan; and in fact also with Lady Attlee, who runs
the Metric Sense campaign. Hands off from the hectare and the liter. On the
other hand, death to the calorie (superflous) and the so-called 'metric'
horsepower or cheval vapeur (steam horse: the French name and the unit are
ridiculous). Being too rigorist is fuel for the BWMA c.s. SI is for
everybody who needs to measure.
Han
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis JOURDAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 2001 February 22, 07:12
Subject: [USMA:11236] Re: m2 not hectare
> At 21:55 -0500 01/02/21, Duncan Bath wrote:
> >In my opinion, the job of getting farmers and real estate folks to adopt
hectares over acres is difficult enough. To ask them to go from acres to
thousands of square metres would be to create a 'mission impossible'!
The hectare, like the litre, puts a 'human face' on SI. In both cases, it
is SO easy to convert to pure SI when needed for further calculations.
For the time being, let's get the C.I.A. [and others] to correct their
""World Fact Book". That's where one can find some real 'leverage'.
> >Duncan
>
> I fully agree.
>
> If I may give some advice from a metric corner of the world, don't be too
rigorist in your efforts to convince your co-citizens.
Even here, many people consider the pure SI as a matter for specialists,
compared to the old good metric system. Let's keep some "human face" within
SI, as Duncan says. It is a good service to render to the US' metrication
cause.
Louis
