At 02:58 PM 4/24/2002 +0000, Barbara and/or Bill Hooper wrote: >There are two glaring error of fact in Adrian's message (quoted here): >... >(1) The editorial in Metric Today is not erroneous. >... >(2) The editor of Metric Today [Valorie Antoine] is not an enemy of the >metric system. >....
Add my wholehearted agreement to what Bill and Jim F. said here. This reminds me of the "liters per flush" argument of a few months ago. There is absolutely nothing that makes the ISO-sized papers inherently superior to American sizes. It is just a standard size, as American A, B, C, D, etc. are standard sizes. Sure, it has a metric basis, but that is totally meaningless (or unknown) to 99.9999% of all people who use it. However, some list members are so anxious to cram what they perceive as "pure metric" into every corner of American life, that they would spread our efforts over a billion minute and nearly-meaningless issues, rather than concentrate on the important ones. I have had some personal involvement in printing materials, and choosing the size of the finished product. For a recent endeavor where we really wanted A4 finished size (which says nothing whatsoever about the size of the paper the printer purchases), my marketing assistant has spent probably 12 to 14 hours on the phone with printers and paper distributors. We finally got what we wanted, but it was hardly an easy or cost-free effort. Yet, some of you would have Valerie Antoine spend her volunteer time doing this type of work rather than all the other work she does for the USMA. Personally, I agree with Bill: Adrian owes Valerie an apology. BTW, our company catalog is trimmed to 11" high and 210 mm wide. That way it fits any type of folder, binder, cabinet, etc. Jim Elwell Electrical Engineer Industrial manufacturing manager Salt Lake City, Utah, USA www.qsicorp.com
