----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnathan McClure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 7:21 PM Subject: Re: [USMA:22793] Crazy anti-metric argument
> Woohoo! You tell 'em! > > Johnathan McClure > > > In the first place: I would round 171.7675 cm to 172 cm and then divide by > > 3. This value was an exact conversion from Imperial to metric. > > This had nothing to do with metric. The calculator was necessary because a > > CONVERSION from Imperial to metric had to be made. Anything that uses > metric > > from the outset will never use figures like 171.7675 cm or 57.255833 cm > > either. Claims that metric uses such crazy values are anti-metric > > propaganda. Suppose it had been 100 cm; divided by 3 would have been 33.3 > > cm. If you choose 120 cm, divide it by 3: 40 cm. I surely do not need a > > calculator for that. > > I far prefer the metric method; I reject British and USA units. A method, > > metric or Imperial, may be best for any individual who is familiar with > one > > or the other. > > > > > > > > Han >
