At 5 February 2003, 07:57 AM, Ma Be wrote:
I beg your pardon??? I challenge you to show where in ANY OF MY POSTS that I have EVER said that 'metrication (is) a moral issue'!!! There is a fundamental difference between considering this a **matter of principle** and a *moral issue*, sir! These do NOT necessarily mean the same thing.Don't blow a gasket here Marcus. I think that Joe was just alluding to the fact that most list members see metric as being more rational and systematic than alternatives, but most also know that it is hardly a an ideal or perfect system, or something where "principles" are involved. Metric just happens to be better than alternatives that humans have tried.
'Matter of principle' evidently means that defending metrication is TOTALLY in step with scientific developments since I've sustained here over and over and over again that this is the domain of **SCIENCE** and NEVER arts or culture or *even less* morals (S-I-C)!!!!! If I'm a man of science I have NO CHOICE but to vehemently defend metrication on grounds of *principle*, scientific principles. Therefore, please, **once again**, stop distorting my words or position, Joe.
And, as your post evidences, you see it as far more a matter of principle. Joe just used a bit stronger word when he said "moral." I don't think he was trying to distort or put words in your mouth.
I certainly don't claim to speak for any other list members, but I suspect more than a few would agree with me when I say that metrication is not even an issue of principle. It is an issue of efficiency -- metric works easier and has less room for errors and is more widely accepted than other systems of measure. If there is any principle involved, it is economic efficiency.
Jim Elwell, CAMS
Electrical Engineer
Industrial manufacturing manager
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
www.qsicorp.com
