2001-08-31
My comments were not questioning which method is easier, but a sarcasm
directed at the BWMA. I wanted Han to contact the BWMA and have them show
me, by example, as I did, how FFU can be easier, even if metric pricing and
packaging might not be rational. Even with the example, irrational SI
sizing and pricing was much easier to calculate then rational FFU sizing.
And as someone pointed out later, prepackaged items in some areas, already
carry a mass, price and price per unit. so, these types of calculations are
becoming increasingly unnecessary.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, 2001-08-29 14:23
Subject: [USMA:15062] Re: From Yardstick August 2001
> I am myself (as many on the UKMA list will testify) in no way, shape or
form
> a maths whizz, John, yet, what system would you consider to be the easiest
> to use??
>
> The one that is always divisible by 10 whatever you measure, or the one
that
> has to be divided by 4 for pounds and ounces, by 3 for yards and by 12 for
> feet and inches??
>
> Which is simpler to understand??
>
> 1km = 1000m
> 0.5km = 500m
> 0.25km = 250m
>
> ..........or:
>
> 1mile = 1760 yds
> 0.5 mile = 880 yds
> 0.25 mile = 440 yds
>
> Which are the more accurate scales?? The ones calibrated in ounces only??
> (1oz = 0.0625lb or 1/16lb) Or the ones that are calibrated in grams?? (1g
=
> 0.007oz or 1/14oz)??
>
> Which one of these is infinitely more accurate and simpler to use??
>
> I know which one of the two I would pick!!
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 5:25 AM
> Subject: [USMA:15052] Re: From Yardstick August 2001
>
>
> 2001-08-28
>
> First of all recycling old news means they are hard up to find anything
new
> that is news worthy.
>
> The next thing, is this group is either the dumbest group of people on the
> earth, or the cleverest group of con artists.
>
> I agree with them in pointing out the stupidity of mixing metric and FFU
in
> the same paragraph. But, that is as far as I will go.
>
> They state:
>
> > And Christopher Pierpoint was amused, during the intensely exciting
final
> drama
> > of the US presidential election, to see the ghastly weather forecasters
on
> > British TV, predicting temperatures in miserable Celsius numbers,
followed
> > directly by the latest news from sunny Florida, with reporters
announcing
> > that "it has been another glorious day here - not too hot - in the
mid70's
> all
> > day." If our weather forecasters were still watching, it must have made
> them
> > sick with envy! Of course, references to the weather during golf
> commentaries
> > from the USA are equally refreshing.
>
>
> Doesn't this sound like us, when we complain about the media announcers
who
> convert Olympic events to FFU when the display board right in front of our
> eyes shows metric measurements?
>
> They state:
>
> > '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?] 0.395kg @ �2.31kg". 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 near-est penny? Indeed, how many shoppers
would
> even
> > realize that 0.395kg equals 395g? 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!
>
> This one is what really makes me wonder if they are stupid or clever con
> artists preying on a stupid consuming public. By their argument, using
> their units I can make the same argument. How many people can figure out
in
> their heads the cost of 14 oz of aubergines at 1.05 �/lb? Now, let me
see.
> If 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.
>
> Now, I agree with them that a package size of 395 g is ridiculous and the
> size should be 400 g. Instead of complaining about the metric system,
they
> should be pushing for rational sizing. That is the real issue. I would
> think after 30 + years of metric education in the schools, only a real
> retard would not know that 0.395 kg is the same as 395 g.
>
> Another point: Maybe when they were in school learning imperial, it took
up
> so much time, they weren't able to learn basic estimating principles in
> math, and need to do these unnecessary exact calculations to get a price.
> How hard is it to estimate the cost? How hard is it to multiply 0.4 kg x
> 2.30 �/kg to get 0.92 �. I multiplied in my head 23 x 4 to get 92 and
just
> placed the decimal point in the right place. If you did the same method
in
> FFU, you would still have to reduce the fractions, then convert to a
> decimal, then round your two factors (0.9 x 1 = 0.9 �). I'm convince FFU
is
> soo-much easier!!!!!!
>
> Only someone brainless fool would fall for this poppycock! And they would
> deserve to be cheated.
>
>
> Han,
>
> I hope you will be able to contact your friends and show them my
> calculations in both FFU and SI and explain to me, a dummy, how
calculating
> in FFU is easier? Also, I still want an answer to the questions we posed
a
> few months ago. Can you repost them here since I deleted them some time
> ago? I don't care if you have to ask them daily for an answer. We
deserve
> to hear the truth.
>
> I would really like to see the Trading Standards come up with some sort of
> pamphlet showing the difficulty of calculating in FFU and the ease of
> calculating is SI. Even if the pricing and sizes are irrational in SI,
the
> calculations still come out easier.
>
> Better yet, will someone please put these people out of their misery?
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2001-08-28 11:51
> Subject: [USMA:15028] From Yardstick August 2001
>
>
> >
> > One of the latest articles in BWMA's Yardstick.
> > Especially the bit about 'a perfect cup of coffee' is a real joke.
> >
> > METRICATION MADNESS
> > (Yardstick Aug 2001)
> >
> > This was the title of a feature article by Bernard Levin in The Times on
> 15
> > August 1995 - yes, six years ago!
> > For he was one of only two leading journalists who were alive to the
evils
> of
> > the metric regulations before they came into effect. The other, of
course,
> was
> > Christopher Booker, who was the first to investigate and expose the
Euro-
> > Whitehall conspiracy that plotted and enforced compulsory metrication,
> whereas
> > Bernard Levin was inspired simply by sheer outrage at its tyranny and
> cultural
> > vandalism.
> > That prophetic article had passed us by, because BWMA's campaign got
under
> way
> > a month later, in September 1995. But every word of it is as true today
as
> it
> > was then. Not only that, but it reminds us that the lies characterizing
> the
> > process of implementation throughout the intervening six years of our
> campaign
> > were merely a continuation of the several earlier years of lies that had
> > characterized the inception and enactment of these regulations. After
two
> > general elections, this reminder is timely. We therefore reproduce these
> > excerpts now.
> >
> > "We all knew that this government lies to us, that it has always lied to
> us and
> > that it will continue to lie to us.We also knew that this government
> ignores
> > our wishes, has always ignored our wishes and will continue to ignore
our
> > wishes. Nor is that all.For we all knew that this government has cheated
> us out
> > of our heritage, has always cheated us out of our heritage and will
> continue to
> > cheat us out of our heritage. In short, this government is based on
> nothing but
> > mendacity, cowardice, arrogance, bluster and desperation. But the worst
is
> yet
> > to come. And it comes in the form of metrication.
> > When did the British people give permission to change - and overnight -
> from
> > their ageold imperial measures to the metric ones? When did the British
> people
> > accept the criminalisation of half a pound of cheese? When did the
British
> > people allow themselves, by the total loss of any kind of guard, to be
> entirely
> > open to crooks and scoundrels? When did the British people deny their
> > Britishness?
> > Do you seriously believe that if this government had come out and told
the
> > truth about what was imminent we would have allowed it to happen? But
the
> > deeply rooted culture of lying by which this government lives has so
> sprouted
> > that it towers over everything. If you think I am making it up, let me
> tell you
> > that when the secret, the hidden agenda upon which the British people
are
> now
> > impaled, was revealed and our rulers were asked why they had not come
out
> with
> > the truth at once, they said it was not necessary be-cause the British
> people
> > had already agreed - in 1965.
> >
> > Please understand that I am not trying to call down lightning upon the
> heads of
> > the European Union. But what would anyone deduce from the lying and
> cheating
> > and hiding that the British government is so prone to? There could only
be
> one
> > answer: that the British government is doing something dirty, and the
dirt
> is
> > inevitably going to be found on the British people. For otherwise why
> would
> > there be any need for secrecy? Only, of course, because if there were no
> > secrecy the truth would be bared."
> > Plus �a change, plus c'est la m�me chose!
> >
> > Steve Tamblin from Wellingborough sent a copy press release from
> Railtrack,
> > dated 9 March, which seems to reflect the muddled state of that company.
> It
> > concerned a contract between Virgin Trains and Railtrack for the
upgrading
> of
> > parts of the Cross Country network. It states that "The Cross Country
> routes
> > cover some 5,300 track miles" but that "The project will see the
> replacement of
> > over 3,400 metres of track, 24,400 metres of ballast and 7,300
sleepers."
> Quite
> > apart from the conflicting use of imperial and metric units, ballast is
a
> > measure of weight or volume - not of length - and why boast about "over
> 3,400
> > metres of track" which is only a little more than 2 miles?
> >
> > James Bye was amused when, watching 'Trading Up' - one of those
ubiquitous
> > house 'make-over' style TV programmes - he saw the normally very
> politically
> > correct presenter proudly displaying some amazingly inexpensive material
> she
> > was about to use, declaring that at a cost of only so much per square
> metre,
> > she could afford to use "yards and yards" of it.
> >
> > And Christopher Pierpoint was amused, during the intensely exciting
final
> drama
> > of the US presidential election, to see the ghastly weather forecasters
on
> > British TV, predicting temperatures in miserable Celsius numbers,
followed
> > directly by the latest news from sunny Florida, with reporters
announcing
> > that "it has been another glorious day here - not too hot - in the
mid70's
> all
> > day." If our weather forecasters were still watching, it must have made
> them
> > sick with envy! Of course, references to the weather during golf
> commentaries
> > from the USA are equally refreshing.
> >
> > 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."
> >
> > Mr G F Goodwin, a Member from Brighton, received an unusual response to
> his
> > complaint about metricated BBC weather forecasts, in the form of a
> telephone
> > call directly from a young man in the Met Office at Bracknell, who
accused
> him
> > of being a 'Little Englander', insisting that they must deal in
> international
> > units because this is an international business. "But", pointed out Mr
> > Goodwin, "you don't deal in international units. You have recently
changed
> from
> > an international measure - knots for wind-speed - to a British customary
> > measure - miles per hour." Spluttering at the other end!
> >
> > '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?] 0.395kg @ �2.31kg". 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 near-est penny? Indeed, how many shoppers
would
> even
> > realize that 0.395kg equals 395g? 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!
> >
> > A glossy brochure published by the Overseas Placing Unit (Employment
> Service),
> > as a guide to European citizens working in the UK, includes an
> imperial/metric
> > conversion table, the top line of which reads: '1 inch = 2.45cm'.
Clearly,
> this
> > should have read '2.54cm'. It was especially stupid, because the next
line
> > correctly stated "1 foot = 30.48cm" and obviously 2.45 x 12 = 29.40
which
> is
> > far short of 30.48! As Vivian Linacre pointed out in a letter dated 31
> > May: "This cannot be dismissed as a simple typographical error, for the
> text
> > must have been vetted and approved by several sets of eyes through the
> many
> > stages of production. It shows yet again that even those in authority
are
> > unfamiliar with the most basic conversion factors." Needless to add, no
> reply
> > has been received.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
