Sir, What is the BWMA's position about the present official definitions of the foot, inch, pound, the Imperial gallon etc.? You should know that the metric system is being used to define Imperial and US units nowadays. If the BWMA doesn't accept the "official" definitions, how does it account for any errors that will exist between their definitions and the "official" versions? What is the BWMA's position on Britain having signed the Metric Convention in 1884 and being a member state of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures under this convention? I also read the article about 'metric madness' on the footrule site (Yardstick August 2001). I agree with you about confusing and misleading pricing but not with blaming the metric system per s� for such con-tricks. Defective legislation should be blamed for it, not a system of units. Supporters of the metric system oppose and condemn such misleading pricing. Quote: Yours faithfully,> 'Private Eye' (1 June) highlighted the madness of metric pricing by reproducing a supermarket advertisement which read: "aubergines [but spelt 'aubergenes' - some superior variety of genes?] 0.395 kg @ �2.31/kg". How many shoppers could work out in their heads that this represents 91.245p? What would the customer actually be charged - 91.00 or 92.00p? What is the point of measuring the weight of fruit or vegetable to the thousandth of 1kg when the price has to be rounded up or down to the nearest penny? Indeed, how many shoppers would even realize that 0.395 kg equals 395 g? Is not this mystification calculated to harm consumers'interests? When BWMA Members notice this type of price ticket, will they please bombard their local Trading Standards Officers with these questions and let us see their replies! Unquote In metric countries the package contains 400 g, not 395 g, just as the speed limit in built up areas in France is not 48.28 km/h but 50 km/h. We prefer rational quantities in metric, just as you prefer them in Imperial. If it was 400 g @ �2.32 kg, I would divide 2.32 by 10 and multiply by 4. But I would demand that the price of the package itself should be given, regardless. What I buy in our Dutch shops is always priced correctly: the price of the given amount and the price per kg. For instance, pieces of cheese. On the label is the weight, the price per kilogram and the price of the piece. No-one can ever convince me that bad pricing is typically a 'metric' practice. It happens regardless of the system of measurement, it is a tool to bamboozle and confuse consumers whenever the law is defective. An example: 14 oz of aubergines at 1.05 �/lb? A pound is 16 oz, then the cost will be 14/16 of 1.05. Or 7/8 of 1.05? How many people on the street can figure that out mentally? And in a short time? Well, using a calculator, 7/8 = 0.875. 0.875 x 1.05 = 0.91875. Now, what would the customer actually be charged - 91.00 or 92.00p? And then, try the same calculation using Lsd? No matter what system you use, one will never be able to come out with a price that is right on the nearest penny. The quoted thing below is frankly abhorred and condemned by any supporter of the metric system. In fact, we regard this as a typical expression of non-metric thinking. We also repudiate bastard units like oz/m2, W/in2, g/mile, kJ/lb, metric ton/in2 etc. To supporters of SI bastard units are the worst in the world. Quote Christopher Pierpoint also sent an article from The Daily Telegraph on 14 April, entitled "The perfect cup of coffee", containing this incredible paragraph: "Your cup should contain between 1.0 and 1.2 fluid ounces of coffee, which should have been delivered at a water pressure of "9 Bar" and a temperature of 90 degrees celsius. Any milk added to the drink should be warmed to a temperature of between 155 and 160 degrees fahrenheit." Unquote I have never, ever, seen such incredible nonsense in metric countries! This recipe would be in metric units throughout. Yours faithfully, H. Maenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
