I have not bought it, just read aboutt he book on one of their websites, but
as I am interested in the history of weights and measures, I would buy it,
if possible. I think that there will be a lot of omissions anyway,
Han
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Linacre's book
> Better yet, we should challenge him to "go it alone". Let's suggest that
HE be the subject of the definition of such mediocre stuff, then he can
finally go down in history as the *one* after which this imperial crap is
named for... ;-)
>
> But then again, I'm curious to know how the pint, ounces and gallon are
*specifically* defined. Did he yield such definitions to the "American"
way, or is he sticking with the British one, which "universal Anglo-Saxon"
definition is he clinging to? (Evidently, I won't be wasting my hard-earned
dollars buying such trash... ;-) ).
>
> Marcus
>
> On Mon, 07 May 2001 15:10:57
> han.maenen wrote:
> >
> >I really wonder if Mr Linacre gives the present day definitions of the
inch,
> >foot, yard, pound and Imperial gallon! Has he mentioned the Mendenhall
order
> >and the agreement of 1959?
> >
> >If he has done so, he has shot himself in the foot!
> >
> >Han
> >
> >
>
>
> Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
> http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
>
>
