On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:56:29 Nat Hager III wrote: >Missed the "thousands of miles" Marcus, but did note: > >"Mr. Fajardo produced a nine-centimeter segment of hollow fiber..." > >"Corning was obtaining promising results from five-meter samples..." > >"The new geometric design has enabled Corning to make hollow fiber tens of >meters long..." > >Nat ... Darn it! Indeed, Nat. You're right. Gee, I should have been more careful. But, what happened was that I was reading this thing and about half-way I just "glanced" over the rest of the document and couldn't visually identify any measurement *figures* anywhere. Actually this may perhaps have been very clever on their part and perhaps an interesting idea on the part of these guys (but I don't know if this was done on purpose!...) when it comes to put metric in articles. Do it "in full" as they've done here and there will be a huge chance that people may simply miss them altogether, like I did! ;-) Another "tactic" was the one highlighted by another colleague here that shared that Olympic games article where the number was there but not the unit. Gee, to what degree these folks from the press go to avoid metric or do it in such a way that there will be a huge chance that these will be "missed"!... :-( Thanks for setting me straight, Nat, and sorry for my blunder. Marcus Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
