Gene:
This is getting silly.
I'm not at all reluctant to acknowledge the contemporary meaning. However,
it should have been obvious from the context and content of my message that
it was the original meaning that I intended in that particular case.
Why is that? Well, I was talking about comparing masses, something only the
"traditional" BALANCE BEAM scale does. I would have expected that you would
have inferred the appropriate device from the discussion.
Now, can we get back to serious matters -- like how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin? <g>
Peace.
Bill Potts, CMS
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Gene Mechtly
> Sent: July 11, 2001 18:24
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Cc: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:14327] RE: Balances
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Bill Potts wrote:
>
> > Gene Mechtly wrote:
> > > "Historically, the word 'balance' referred to a two-pan scale ..."
> >
> > Exactly, and that's how I meant it.
> > I'm very surprised you didn't understand that.
>
> The "contemporary usage" of the word "balance" is much broader than the
> historical two-pan meaning. It was *not* clear that you meant only the
> two-pan balance.
>
> I'm disappointed that you seem so reluctant to acknowledge the existence
> of the contemporary meaning of the word "balance" which includes even
> "spring type scales."
>
> Gene.
>
