Mike: Hmm, something tells me that showing a person emails from this list wouldn't be the most effective way of winning them over. The problem, as I see it, is largely one of context. To someone who has been following our discussion, it would make sense to see a reference to "the stupid horsepower" etc. To someone completely on the outside, though, it wouldn't make any sense at all. Most people don't think of a horsepower as being 746 W. They just know that it is a measure of how "powerful" an engine is--they probably think of something along the lines of "force", not energy per unit time.
To really get our point across to someone unacquainted with metrication, it takes a carefully built explanation of what we are doing and why (and an audience willing to listen or read for a few minutes). That is why I wrote the documents I shared in USMA:22927. Simply launching an attack on something that a person is familiar with but hasn't really thought about, like horsepower, will only confuse them and make them defensive. I have found that for written explanations of metrication, it takes a careful introduction and detailed explanations. For spoken conversation, it takes even more. It takes finding out what their concern is if they say that metric is hard. Believe it or not, the best response is not "No it isn't hard!" The best response would probably be "Why do you say that?" Then you can actually address what is weighing on their mind instead of just disagreeing. Most if not all of the emails on this list assume that the reader is an expert on metrication or physics or engineering. Most disagree with colloquial units, rather than argue (which is understandable, given the intended audience). Carl -----Original Message----- From: Mike Joy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [USMA:23525] CNN, metric products Carl, Good letter to CNN - well done. Re your weirdo co-worker, just print off a few of these e-mails so he can see how backwards he is (but I don't think he has the brains to know much). For instance the one from Han yesterday:- "Yes, the caballo is the stupid horsepower, only it is the European variety, of 75 kgm/s or 736 W, 9 W less than the US/UK animal. Although this travesty of a measuring units has been outlawed from 1978 it is indestructible. What makes it so, is beyond me. Is a unit the more durable, the more stupid and irrational it is? Caballo, cavallo vapore, cheval vapeur, Pferdestaerke, paardenkracht, all names in different languages for the same animal, the continental horsepower, that should really be sent to the knackers yard! Han" Regards Mike | My coworker had a small can of Pringles that was labeled something like: 1 | 3/4 OZ (50 g). I mentioned to him that P&G was one of the companies | requesting that they be allowed to use metric-only labeling, and he said, | "What a bunch of weirdos." I told him that it was pretty important for a | global company. I think he has already formed his opinions. Oh, well. | | Carl |
