But really the George could come into it. After all we would have 13 and one third Georges per minute and 800 per hour and 19,200 per day. Imagine the fun the people could have with the fractions.
It was named in honour of the mad King played by Nigel Hawthorne.
It is at least as rational as any other FFU.
I am in a humorous mood today, so please forgive the levity. 270 students who work part in imperial and part in metric is enough to drive anyone mad.
John Nichols
John Nichols BE, Ph.D. (Newcastle), MIE (Aust), Chartered Professional EngineerFrom: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [USMA:23499] Re: Let's Stick to SI Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:14:02 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-Loop-Detect: 1 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]For the record, Marcus, I have often agreed with things you have said here. Sometimes I say so; sometimes I let others say so. I don't respond to every post, regardless of my agreement or non-agreement. My treatment of you in that respect is no different from my treatment of, say, Jim Frysinger, Jim Elwell, Joe Reid, or any others on this list. What I have never done is claim to disagree with you when I do, in fact, agree with you. If that is your claim, then I'm at a loss to understand it. I stand by my request to stick to SI. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >Behalf Of Ma Be >Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 08:20 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:23494] Re: Let's Stick to SI > > >On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:23:19 > Bill Potts wrote: >>Marcus: >> >>I respect your right to believe bible stories as though they were >historical >>fact. > >Unfortunately your comment below clearly negates your "show of >respect" above! Why? If you *really* 'respect' my (or anybody >else's for that matter!...) 'right to believe bible stories' you >would NOT *judge* my beliefs in such (at a minimum) uncorteous >fashion. Certainly words like 'arrogant, annoying' are not >indicative of 'respect'!!! > >What saddens me the most though is your apparent bias against me >no matter what I say! I don't recall you having EVER showed >agreement with me on ANYTHING I said, even when I knew you were, >based on posts you published in this forum! (I DO observe these >things!... ;-) ) > >It's very unfortunate that you seem to let your personal >feelings/stereotyping towards me get in the way of objectivity at >times. But, don't worry, I won't "return the favor", I promise >I'll always look at what you wrote with the (real) respect and >objectivity it deserves. Besides, as a true Christian I can't do >otherwise... > >Before I leave you with the above thoughts I feel I do need to >comment on your sentence below though. > >> However, although I can only speak for myself, I suspect very few of >>the people on this list share your fundamentalist perspective. > >It really doesn't matter whether or not others may share in my >'fundamentalist' (SIC) approach to Scriptures or not. My use of >the Bible IMHO was fully justifiable as I was trying to address >the *scientific* point of why the utils theory is what it is, a >dogmatic yet very valid concept to use in studying human behavior! > >I felt it was important to use it to make a case as like "even >Scriptures agree" with that *scientific* concept, despite its >evidently NOT being a book of science! In other words, *in >essence*, basically, even Scriptures, a "non-scientific" book >agree or indicate that this approach is sound. > >Finally, as for your statement below: > >>I, for one, find your proselytization (which is what the paragraphs below >>amount to) > >No, they're not! As I explained above 'proselytization' had >nothing to do with it. > >> arrogant, annoying and, more to the point, totally irrelevant to >>the topic of SI. >> >I don't call your points-of-view, arguing lines of thought and >personal beliefs and values that! But I guess I can only just >hope that next time you'll exercise some more moderation and *real >respect* towards what I think and say in this forum. Such words >above are not conducive to healthy discussions, positive attitude >and constructive criticism. I know you can do a lot better than >that. So I sincerely hope you will... (and no, this is not a >threat or anything like that, but rather wishful thinking that the >atmosphere here be somewhat less adversarial on your part!...) > >Respectfully, > >Marcus > >>Bill Potts, CMS >>Roseville, CA >>http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >>>Behalf Of Ma Be >>>Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 09:35 >>>To: U.S. Metric Association >>>Subject: [USMA:23460] Re: Experimentaleconomicsvalidatesfree-market >>>metrication >>> >> >>>Human beings are very complex subjects. When God created us He >>>did it according to His own image. In His view, His creatures >>>would (or should) NOT be happy by having "too much freedom". So, >>>in essence, the increase in *number* of certain freedoms (like in >>>my example of freedom to kill) may NOT translate into 'maximizing >>>people's freedom', but 'restricting' certain particular ones would! >>> >>>In His wisdom God knew that the human race should not be *totally* >>>free to do *absolutely WHATEVER* it pleased him/her, hence He gave >>>us His 10 commandments to drive that point home clearly. He saw >>>in His infinite wisdom that violating certain principles would >>>only harm us. The apostle Paul makes a very important statement >>>in Scriptures to illustrate this principle when he said: "all >>>things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient" 1 Co. 6 :12. >>> >>>Unfortunately Adam & Eve learned that lesson the hard way and >>>thought they could have the fruit and 'maximize their personal >>>freedom'. Had they *restricted* themselves from that hideous >>>fruit and we would certainly not be discussing metrication here >>>today... :-) >>> >>> >> >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! >Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
Assistant Professor
Texas A&M University
Department of Construction Science
Langford AC
Rm: A414 MD 3137
College Station, TX 77843-3137
Electronic mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telephone: 979 845 6541
Facsimile: 979 862 1572
-----------------------------------------------------------------
a fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi
in front a precipice, behind a wolf
-----------------------------------------------------------------
