That one's a keeper, Jim. Your argument about filing cabinets is a strong one, although the main issue is more one of 3-ring binders (available in great variety at decent prices) versus 4-ring A4 binders (marginally available in very limited variety from one or two suppliers at much higher prices). The USMA certainly doesn't have either the resources or the mandate to lobby for A4 binders.
If the US Government were to standardize on A series paper sizes and binders, availability would soar. At that point, it might be reasonable for USMA to publish Metric Today on folded A3 paper (and with no greater effort than Valerie applies to the current format). In the meantime, I agree with you wholeheartedly, both from the point of view of the available binders and of the considerable extra effort Valerie would have to expend finding sources for A3 paper (or persuading the print shop she uses to acquire it for her -- at, no doubt, a premium price). One change I would suggest (strongly) regarding Metric Today is to send it out by first-class mail. I, for one, would be more than happy to pay an increased annual membership fee and, given how low that fee is, I don't think that anyone could really object to that. My reason for wanting such a change (which would not take extra effort on USMA's part) is that I'm constantly reading references, here, to articles in the current edition as much as two weeks before I receive my own copy (even though it's mailed in the state where I live). I currently edit and publish an 8- to 10-page newsletter (2 ledger-size sheets plus, about half the time, an additional letter-size sheet -- both 90 g/m2) which, in the 10-page form, still qualifies for the 34 cent rate. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of James Frysinger > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 16:12 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:19620] Re: Metric standards or not? > > > I concur wholeheartedly with Bill Hooper's reply (USMA:19614) to Adrian > Jadic's message (USMA:19610) regarding his letter to the editor > of MT and her > reply. But I would like to add a few words of my own. > > Refering to Bill's points: > "(1) The editorial in Metric Today is not erroneous." > Indeed! I recently submitted a paper for publication in a > journal, the > authors' guide for which specifies paper dimensions of > "approximately 28 cm > by 22 cm". Those dimensions look just as metric to me as do 297 > mm by 210 mm > (or 30 cm by 21 cm). I suggest that Adrian has confused "metric" with > "rational". > Since the actual area of the sheet of paper is of minimal > significance, one > is just as good as the other, in my opinion. For the nitpickers, > neither (279 mm)(216 mm) > nor (297 mm)(210 mm) > equates to 0.0625 m2 exactly. In fact the former comes closer to a nice > rational area, namely 0.60 m2. I would prefer telling people that > this makes > a nice rule of thumb than I would flaunting the latter as "one-eigth of a > square meter". Keep in mind, too, that the commercial > specifications on paper > sizes are not always very tight. > > "(2) The editor of Metric Today is not an enemy of the metric system." > You can have that statement cast in bronze, BIll. Valerie > Antoine has been > pushing the metric system longer than many of the people on this > mail list > have been alive. Just the number of hours she has worked voluntarily for > metrication may exceed the lifetime employment history of some > people here. > You could even double her salary without breaking USMA's bank > account since > twice nothing is nothing. "An apology is required" hardly states the case! > > I would add: > (3) Nature of the reply > Adrian, in his first message, characterized Antoine's > response as being > "cold shouldered". Sheez! What did you want, Adrian? Chocolates > and roses? > She took the time to send you a personal reply, not a form > letter. My wife, a > secretary in a public shcool, has observed that people who hear > "no" as an > answer to their requests often characterize the person (e.g., my > wife) who > gave that answer as being mean or cold. Antoine disagreed with > you; she did > not brush you off or ignore you. Hopefully this is not the first > time in your > life that someone did not share your opinion. If it is, then you have > probably become very spoiled and filled with unreasonable expectations. > > And, lastly, in response to a comment in this message of Adrian's: > (4) On USMA's mission > On Wednesday, 2002 April 24 1425, Adrian Jadic wrote: > .... > > I don't know how other USMA members on this list feel about it but I for > > one I find that it does not reflect USMA's real mission nor does it's > > originator seem to understand what a metric transition truly implies. > > > > There is no way that we can talk about metrication in US > without involving > > us in standardization. Like I said in my letter to MT, if > USMA's ultimate > > goal is to have the metric system (solely) used throughout the > country than > > this can ONLY be achieved by implementing *hard* metric standards. > > Thanks for inviting my opinion, Adrian. I will give it to > you. There are > thousands of standards in the world. Probably, the vast majority > of those are > written with their dimensions in metric units. It is not USMA's > mission to > support all of those. I do not want my dues to be spread among a zillion > campaigns; I want them to be dedicated to efforts promoting > metrication of > the U.S. Thankfully, I note that this is indeed the mission of the USMA. > > Furthermore, I think that your last phrase ("hard" metric > standards) is a > linguistic antagonist to our mission. Our mission is to get Americans to > realize that the metric system is "easy" and that with metrication > international dialogue and commerce becomes "easy". Since no more than a > hundred Americans have actually read the specifications and standards for > paper size, they are oblivious to the units used in those standards > documents. As Bill said, they could be written so as to give the > dimensions > in cubits and hardly anyone would be the wiser. Telling Americans > that they > have to change out their filing cabinets and collections of > notebooks or put > up with ill-fitting contents would be a good way to sabotage our > cause. No > thanks, Adrian. > > My response also is "no", and I mean that very warmly. > > Jim > > -- > James R. Frysinger University/College of Charleston > 10 Captiva Row Dept. of Physics and Astronomy > Charleston, SC 29407 66 George Street > 843.225.0805 Charleston, SC 29424 > http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cert. Adv. Metrication Specialist 843.953.7644 > >
