Dear Adrian, We've gone through this debate before. Perhaps you were not around when it took place here. In essence the conclusion that was "reached" was that there is indeed a difference between *industrial* standards and the SI system on one hand, but that the use of such standards should eventually replace non-SI ones for the simple reason that they were rationally developed using rational SI parameters of reference.
I personally feel that you do have a point to press for MT to set the example in joining the "industrial age under the SI system". I also must agree with your persuasive argument that MT may not have strong enough a justification to stick with US-sized paper, especially considering your personal kind offer. However, I also feel we should be careful about how we go about making such requests and avoid unnecessary grief. In this sense I can also understand Bill's intervention here. So... In conclusion, I'd like to add my voice to yours in requesting that MT seriously consider your offer on one side while encouraging them to continue to keep up with their lofty contributions to the cause. Marcus On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:10:20 Adrian Jadic wrote: >In the latest MT there was a note from the editor regarding our discussions >about using A3 paper for MT instaead of 11"x17". >It bothered me that we still don't get it that the A series as well as B and >C series are *metric* sizes and people who are supposed to be specialists in >metric matters still believe that since the sizes of the A4 are not round >cm or dm values than the A4 is not metric. > >I wrote a small explanation letter asking them to publish it in response to >the eroneous Editor's note but instead I got the cold shoulder similar to >what we get from all enemies of the metric system. In the meantime all >readers have been "assured" that the A series are not metric therefore such >move is not justified. > >I am attaching my letter in MS Word 2000 format (no bugs). I need to use a >word processing format since I used special text formatting. > >Adrian Jadic > >Following is the MT reply: I will comment on it in my next message to the >listserv. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Valerie Antoine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, 04 April, 2002 12:28 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: Lorelle Young; Hillger, Don >Subject: Letter to the Editor > > >Thanks for your "Letter to the Editor" input, Adrian. You make some good >points. However, USMA's mission is to make [correctly used] SI the only >measurement language used by the United States, not to promote international >standards. Of course, most international standards DO use SI. But we are >not chartered to promote international standards. > >I get so MANY letters on various subjects from members and non-members that >most of the 8 pages of Metric Today would be filled with only those letters, >if I printed them. I cannot print letters from some members, and ignore >letters from other members. > >There are times when I can't find room for ALL of the news articles >available for an issue of Metric Today, much less find room for letters. >Therefore, a policy has been established to NOT print letters to the editor >in Metric Today, but to supply the Listserver for the exchange of comments >between members. > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
