there is no harm but you should know that the mass is stupid and the it
believes almost everything what the media say them!
that's the point!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:57 PM
Subject: [USMA:20551] Re: Comments on flawless documents
> At 10:45 PM 6/21/2002 +0200, Wizard of OS wrote:
> >We are talking here about the grammar and spelling of measurement
notation!
> >
> >if you write some kind of paper in school, would the teacher mark all
> >mistakes done by you? or would he/she write: Jim, I averse now to score
the
> >mistakes but next time you have to do it right!
> >
> >got my point?
>
> I see the point you are trying to make, and I agree to some extent. I am
> happy with fundamental unit definitions, and with internationally-accepted
> symbols, and some of the more basic "rules of measurement grammar."
>
> But, just like languages are legitimately used in different ways depending
> on the specific context, so to for the "grammar" of measurement systems.
>
> For example, contractions are common in everyday language ("I don't
know.")
> but generally discouraged in formal writing ("I do not know."). Neither is
> grammatically wrong.
>
> Do we really want to force the most precise and unforgiving "measurement
> grammar rules" into every aspect of life?
>
> I recognize that such precision is necessary in some areas (e.g., science
> and engineering), but why does that mean we must use the same precision
> everywhere?
>
> And, I think reality shows that humans are NOT going to accept such
> precision where it is not necessary. That's why I have this bottle of
> German beer that lists the contents as "500ml." Where is the harm in that?
> Who would not immediately understand it? Where could it possibly cause any
> confusion?
>
>
> Jim Elwell, CAMS
> Electrical Engineer
> Industrial manufacturing manager
> Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
> www.qsicorp.com
>
