2002-03-11 This typical response is beginning to feel like a form letter. It seems every business, no matter where in the world they come from seem satisfied that this response is all that is needed to end the question as to what units are to be "standard". All one has to do is claim that Americans are their major customer and the use of FFU is justified.
Notice, they don't even attempt to put metric on the page, even as a secondary indicator. They want you to make the effort to link to a converter to translate to SI. They are so afraid that SI numbers will look more sensible than FFU they can't dare let the public see it, for fear of scaring them away. What a joke! John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Duncan Bath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, 2002-03-11 16:34 Subject: [USMA:18680] Fw: Modern Measures > > -----Original Message----- > From: Info Intrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Duncan Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: March 11, 2002 14:18 > Subject: RE: Modern Measures > > > >Thank you for your e-mail. Approximately 90% of our passengers are from > >the United States, where this is the common unit of measurement. We do > >provide a link to a measurement converter on our site at > >http://www.intrav.com/index.asp?Navigation=news/nav.asp&Content=news/links. > a > >sp > > which we hope will be useful for those who do not normally use these > >units of measure. > > > >We sincerely appreciate your comments and understand your reasoning. Thank > >you for your interest in Intrav. > > > >Cordially, > > > >Linda Hall > >Intrav/Clipper Cruise Line > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Duncan Bath [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 11:03 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Fw: [USMA:18661] Modern Measures > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Duncan Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: March 10, 2002 11:22 > >Subject: [USMA:18661] Modern Measures > > > >I have just received an INTRAV travel brochure entitled "Ancient Treasures > >of China and the Yangtze River" (via the University of Alberta). > > > >I was astonished to note that numerical information was given in > >old-fashioned feet, acres, miles etc. This despite the fact that 95% of > the > >world's population uses SI measures. Just to give a 'flavor' of the > >contrasts in the two ways of 'doing numbers', please see a comparison of > >"700-acre" [Pg. 2] and 285-hectare. > > > > Sq.ft. Acres Sq.mi. > >30,492,000 700 1.09 > > > > m^2 hm^2 (ha) km^2 > >2,850,000 285 2.85 > > > >It can be seen that the customary way involves a mismatched mixture of > >units. > >The SI way has an obvious harmony inherent in it. > >In China, they do it the SI way. > >Why not emphasize the lure of far away places by using their measures > >rather than pretending that 'everyone' uses feet, acres, miles etc.? > >Duncan > >DT Bath, 861 Kensington Dr., Peterborough ON K9J 6J8 > >(705)743-4297 > > > > > >
