Thanks for the correction. Stan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 5:10 PM Subject: [USMA:25181] Re: Replies to various postings
> Just a nit, Stan. > > "Metric tonne" (as opposed to "metric ton") is redundant. A tonne is, by > definition, metric. > > Bill Potts, CMS > Roseville, CA > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Behalf Of G. Stanley Doore > >Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 04:18 > >To: U.S. Metric Association > >Subject: [USMA:25172] Re: Replies to various postings > > > > > >A meaningful way to understand a metric tonne is to visualize one cubic > >meter of water which is 1000 litres. > > > >Stan Doore > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Carl Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:41 AM > >Subject: [USMA:25169] Replies to various postings > > > > > >> Mg vs. metric ton: > >> I'm with Gene and Gustaf in preferring metric tons to Mg. Jim Elwell, in > >> answer to your question, Mg is ridiculous because 1) a person will > >probably > >> be able to visualize 1000 kg much better than 1000000 g, 2) the > >metric ton > >> is authorized for use, 3) normally people will have an idea what a metric > >> ton is (an analog to the short ton), 4) normally people will > >think that Mg > >> is the same thing as mg, having never seen the first but having seen the > >> second many times. Comprehension will be served by using the metric ton > >as > >> a unit. Comprehension will be terrible in the vast majority of > >circles in > >> the U.S. if people use Mg as a unit (or Mm, etc.). Being > >incomprehensible > >> in metric usage is a good way to reinforce the idea that metric is > >> confusing. I understand that Mg is a technically legal way to do things, > >> but in practice I am more concerned with actually communicating. Just > >using > >> metric in the first place sets me apart, so I really don't care what some > >> document says somewhere about which is preferred. > >> > >> FPLA timeline: > >> Brian, someone said a few months ago that the proposed legislation needs > >to > >> work its way through a number of agencies before it is submitted to > >> Congress. They said it would probably be considered at the beginning of > >> next year, which is (apparently) the start of a session. I don't think > >> John's (kilopascal) statement that "nothing has come of it yet" doesn't > >> really give the full picture, as the legislation is expected to take some > >> time. > >> > >> euroisation and dollar hegemony: > >> I would be a lot more convinced if the author of these postings did not > >> routinely oversimplify economic processes, continually predict the > >imminent > >> destruction of America, compare Bush to Hitler, confuse "than" > >and "then", > >> ascribe anti-metric motives to just about any good business decision, and > >> generally make a nuisance of himself. > >> >"euroisation = metrication" MUST be our battle cry. > >> NOT. Why would we associate the metric system, which should be as > >American > >> as apple pie, with Europe, which a lot of us are annoyed with at the > >moment? > >> America's share of world GDP has been shrinking for decades, lately > >because > >> of Asia's development, not Europe's development or America's decline. > >Let's > >> promote metric on its merits, not by hoping the U.S. stumbles. > >> > >> RE: Some interesting conversations: > >> >So Carl, did you discuss with him the idea not > >> >to give in and continue to use SI when conversing > >> >with people? What good is paying lip service to SI, > >> >if the guy tries to appease the ignorant and > >> >struggles with FFU? > >> Actually, he used metric in a previous conversation, so I didn't think it > >> was necessary. Besides, I didn't think it was appropriate to the > >> conversation. He, like most people, is mostly interested in > >communicating > >> well, and especially in his position as a foreigner and > >non-native speaker > >> of English, he is probably extra-sensitive to making sure that people > >> understand what he says. I respect that desire. > >> > >> I agree with Stephen Gallagher that Canada will have trouble metricating > >> until we metricate. Like him, I see Canada's continued use of metric for > >> many things as very positive. As I see it, the pendulum swings > >both ways, > >> and we are in the midst of a swing the wrong way. It'll come > >back, but it > >> is encouraging to see that things are as good as they are at the moment. > >> > >> metric in construction: > >> According to the recent Baron's article, federal buildings are being > >> constructed in metric. > >> > >> Carl Sorenson > >> > >> >
