Remark preceded by an *: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, 2002-06-27 16:08 Subject: [USMA:20684] Re: Comments on flawless documents
> At 12:03 PM 27 June 2002 +1000, Pat Naughtin wrote: > >... > >Writers and editors have been brought up using dictionaries. They believe that dictionary definitions are correct and that they are suitable for defining the words they use. ... Many journalists are actively hostile to fixed definitions of words as they then do not have the freedom to vary their subtle flavors to suit their current article.... > > I've seen the same attitude in the somewhat different (albeit less precise) context of politics. Try and tell a writer that his article about you does not really reflect your political positions accurately, and the definitions start flying fast and furious. > > > > If you have a generation or two of people who have grown up with metric, who have (presumably) been taught proper metric usage in school, then why is there so much improper use of the metric system in these countries? > > > >I wish that we had 'been taught proper metric usage in school', but in Australia this has not been the case. > > I find this thread interesting. With all due respect to foreign list members, what causes you to spend your efforts trying to metricate the USA, when apparently there is plenty of SI work to be done in your own countries? > * I am active in my own area when it comes to defend SI and working for its proper usage. But I am also a member of this list to support metrication in general and also in the USA. A metric USA benefits the entire world. And it is good to have comrades in arms, so that one does not feel alone. <snip
