I have a preference for "U.S. customary." It helps, of course, to point out
to the reader that the stress is on "customary," as opposed to a U.S.
standard -- which is non-existent.
Bill Potts, CMS
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Harry Wyeth
> Sent: May 16, 2001 00:50
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:12788] WOMBAT
>
>
> Well, my objection to the use of WOMBAT (the phrase, that is) is that it
> sounds cutsy and derogatory. If I were telling a neighbor that I thought
> he was doing something rather old-fashioned by "using WOMBAT
> measures", and
> explained what the term meant, he would think that I was telling him that
> he was a bad person. At least there is an implication to that
> effect. And
> that would be very counterproductive.
>
> In writing, a reader I was trying to convince would think that this is a
> somewhat rude term coined by metric boosters to put down everyone
> else. It
> is somewhat less than neutral, in other words. This is important point
> when trying to convince people.
>
> I don't know what the solution is. I prefer to use the old "ifp",
> inaccurate as it is, at least in writing.
>
> HARRY WYETH
>
