In USMA:23606 Han wrote:
>Simple. Mars Products America is trying to prove that metric is ridiculous,
>difficult, always yielding monstrous numerical values and therefore it
>should never be adopted in the USA. On the other hand this company is
trying
>to prove that USC is rational, simple, always yielding sane numerical
values
>and the only sensible choice of units.

I was at the store today and I saw a bottle of liquid soap labeled as
follows:
19.95 FL. OZ. (1.24 PT) 589 mL

It seems that this product isn't a part of The Great Corporate American
Conspiracy to Subvert Metrication By Means of Product Labeling.  If this
company had a reason (or no reason in particular) to make and label a
product like this, obviously without doing it as part of some anti-metric
conspiracy, maybe, just maybe, the same is true for M&M Mars.

Of course, today I asked for a hamburger without onion and it had an onion
ring on it.  It must be part of a conspiracy to make us eat onions.  You
have to watch out for those conspiracies.  Oh, wait, maybe they just weren't
paying attention.

In USMA:23209 Marcus wrote about unrounded package sizes:
>What if the day after tomorrow American consumers all of
>a sudden start seeing 946 mL, 341 mL, 85 g, 591 mL and all
>the likes?  Now compare with if they saw 1 L, 300 mL, 100 g,
>600 mL instead.  Which situation do you honestly think would
>trigger the most complaining???

You know, I didn't notice anyone complaining about this strange non-metric
size.  Maybe they were busy organizing a letter-writing campaign to the
manufacturer about this horrid 19.95 fluid ounces on the label.  They will
surely want to stop this company from producing this kind of anti-customary
label!

I think Jim Elwell hit the nail on the head in USMA:23188 when he said:
>You are right that most people in the US don't care if values look
>"rational." Of course, most people in the ENTIRE world don't care either.
>Likewise, once we metricate, people in the US won't care whether toothpaste
>is in 100 mL or 110 mL or 96.2 mL containers.
>Heh, heh, heh .... actually, I suspect that everyone in the world who cares
>is already on this forum!

Of course, no one else will stay on the list if we spend all of our time
dreaming up conspiracies to be afraid of.

Carl

Reply via email to