First of all: I am NOT criticizing Jim Ellwell's choice of paper size.. But I think the expression 11" by 210 mm is highly irrational: multiplying ifp by metric. When the dot matrix printer reigned supreme I saw it on boxes of computer paper, stacked to the sky, either 11"*210 mm or 12"*210 mm. I regarded these sizes and these descriptions as abominations. We had an international standard based on our own system of units, which was under attack by a pure ifp standard. A4 continuous paper was available, but it was considerably more expensive than the other sizes. Worse, in many cases A4 continuous paper simply did not work with dot matrix printers; I had to use 12 inch paper because of it. I still have a box with about 800 continuous sheets of "12 inch * 210 mm" paper in a cupboard. In the university some OKI printers were used which would ONLY accept 11 inch paper! Thanks to the laser and inkjet printers, they have gone, A4 rules supreme once again in our computer shops. Of course I reverted to A4 paper at once when I got an inkjet printer. And the university, which now uses inkjet and laser printers has reverted to A4 paper as well. An ifp assault was repulsed in the end! Now for the computer screens, dpi etc.
Han Historian of Dutch Metrication, Nijmegen, The Netherlands ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 3:46 PM Subject: [USMA:19631] Re: Answer from MT editors > 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
