What a bunch of crock!!!... :-( This is the usual kind of garbage opinions coming from opponents of metrication, and I felt I had to go over this in more details below. On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 15:36:07 Gustaf Sjvberg wrote: >The text below comes from bwmaonline.com. >They have some interesting opininons about metric quantities and their >disadvatages, and I have to say that I partly agree with them. And I'm sad to hear you even considered agreeing with thess idiots, Gustaf! However, hopefully what I'm about to share here will help dispell their "spell"! ;-) >.... It is obvious >that pro-metric people stab theirselves in the back when they say that >1000-multiples should be the only allowed, and which they unfortunately >still are. > But here I must agree! I, too, am wholeheartedly against any imposition of particular prefixes on people. I see nothing wrong with allowing the use of those additional 4 prefixes. It's not like they are that difficult to master (or remember), darn it! >... >The experience of metric demonstrates that it provides anything but >understandable information. This is > owing largely to the abstract nature of metric units: > Oh, as if a foot or inch or the hideous pound would, eh??? There can be nothing more abstract than a stupid Fahrenheit scale, for instance, with (this yes indeed) VERY abstract 32-degree non-sense attached to the freezing point of the water, totally detached of any rationality at all! > Metrication results in huge numbers on food >packaging (185g, 375g, 425g, 440g, etc). "Huge" numbers????? Give me a break, will ya? Then what about stating altitudes of mountains and stuff in *thousands* of feet, or flying in such "huge" numbers??? "Oh, I (conveniently) forgot about those(they'd say...)" or Oh, but that's different, right? Yeah, right! :-( :-( :-( What idiocy! Do these guys really think we're mentally retarded or something??? This vast > increase in the size of numbers occurs because >metric units are much smaller than customary > units; 28 grams to one ounce, over 450 grams to >one pound, 568 millilitres to one pint, and so > forth. AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!! :-( What ignorance, what stupidity! Don't they know that the official metric unit for mass is the kg (which BTW is actually much "larger"...)? And don't they know that one can use prefixes to "fix" the "problem" of size, if one wants? However, what's REALLY wrong with 400 g, 250 g, etc??? > <snip> > > Metric fails to produce consistent or easily >understood sizing scales. I beg your pardon??? "Easily understood sizing scales????" I cannot believe I'm hearing this nonsense! If metric is anything it IS consistent AND produces easily understandable information. It suffice for one to simply get used to them and be familiar. But, oh, I forgot, that info like "1 Qt. 1.8 FL. OZ." (as it appears, for instance, on the label of Mango Nectar, by Rubicon Exotic, or " 7' 8 5/16" " would certainly be more "easily understood"!!! :-( :-( :-( Unlike the 16oz pound that is > geared to multiples of two, the kilogram cannot >comfortably accommodate successive halving. What NONSENSE!!! Why not? What's wrong with 1 000, 500, 250 and 125? For most applications one would never require to go beyond this point. Besides, who said one really needs to "gear" stuff to "multiples of two"??? This is "ifp/mediocre thinking". A thinking which is passe', old-fashioned, discrete, limited (and limiting!). > Thus, while some metric packaging builds up as >100g, 200g, 400g, etc, this will not integrate with > one kilogram meaning that other packaging >progresses as 125g, 250g, 500g, etc. Other packaging > uses 75g, 150g, 300g, etc while others still use >110g, 220g, 330g, 440g, etc. This lunatic conveniently forgets that stuff like 110 g, 330 g, 440 g, 150 g and other mediocrities are actually a legacy of ifp-thinking. Had the industry REALLY switched to metrication and one would NEVER see such stupid sizes, period! And what's wrong with seeing some products labeled as single digits (the 100, 200, etc, series) and 125, 250, etc series??? The calculation of unit prices are still very much conveniently obtained with either series! (It would even with things like 750). Now, what this "smart ass" means with "will not integrate with one kilogram" is really beyond my level of intelligence as I have no clue what this "genius" is talking about here!... :-S A large variety of > packaged foods has no identifiable sizing scale at >all, for example, tomato ketchup and brown > sauce. > Oh... Then blame it on metric right? But what about "dry pints", "dry gallons" and the likes? No, no, these are actually very smart and well done!... Q@$%@#% > >The above factors have contributed to a general failure of metric units >to find common acceptance by British people for food and >drink packaging. Most probably, perhaps, largely due to the prevalence of mediocre package sizes which only add to the confusion in the market place, and to the fact that package manufacturers refuse to produce rational packaging sizes for markets to use. If you are using imperial sizes you'll find stupid things like 4.5-L containers, but if you use American ones, what one would see is 3.78-L sizes, etc! No wonder the public is frustrated with such array of ridiculous sizes around! But, hey, go visit a pure metric country and you won't find such nonsense around! ;-) Technically, metric indicates quantity as accurately as >the >customary system, Gee, thanks for letting me know!... When the truth is the other way around (as if customary were really THE standard for accuracy!...). but it fails to convey meaning or value. Only in his small tiny-bitty brain, perhaps! But they certainly carry meaning to me, instead of the stupidity of the things said below here: Whereas six >ounces of cheese actually sounds > like a quantity of cheese, 180g of cheese is just a very large number. > 'Nough said! I rest my case! :-) Marcus Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015
