Dear Pat and All, Those argument are more ridiculous than funny.br
Those kinds of argument are made only by people who can't face the reality, life and who don't have a vision of the future. Every single argument brought is false, I have been using SI for all of my life and NO ONE on earth will ever be able to prove me that British stupidity, like measurements, left-side driving, comes even close to such superior ideas like the SI. bye PS: Finally, we all know, the US is changing and sooner or later a time will come where young people and industry will reject using British brain wash. btw, Americans always seized for freedom, not shackled to a calc If british claim 12 and 16 base system ist a lot better, why don't they use such systems for counting? guess, too stupid, too lazy, too complicated? (LOL) Zitat von Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dear All, > > Over the last few weeks, I have collected 121 reason why people don't want > to change to metric. My sources were from Australia, the UK, and the USA. > > I have quoted each person's lines verbatim except for some light editing to > make sense of them � some were clearly written in anger. > > The headings (marked with an *) are mine, and they are somewhat arbitrary. I > have listed the headings according to their frequency with the smallest > first. > > I would appreciate any additions or comments especially on the way that I > have arranged them. > > Cheers, > > Pat Naughtin LCAMS > Geelong, Australia > > ____ > 121 arguments against SI > > * I don't want to change my mind (3). > > SI is unfamiliar to me and the old measures are familiar to me. > > We have always done it this way. We don't object to metric - we just don't > want to change. > > We simply don't want to change. > > * Old measures are natural (6). > > Britain has used both decimal currency and the metric system since 1964. > That there is still strong resistance to metrication in England shows that > the metric system is not natural. Even after all these years, it has not > been accepted. > > The old measures are natural. A woman wears size five shoes, size twelve > dresses, size six gloves, and size thirty-two hats, and she knows all these > sizes and she can remember them easily. > > The old system is natural: my thumb is an inch across; my hand is four > inches wide; my foot is about a foot long; and when I pace each step is > about a yard and it's about a yard from my nose to the tips of my fingers. > The old measures were designed to a natural human scale. > > The old system may be less rational, but it is more human. The inch was > first defined in 1150 by King David I of Scotland as the width of a man's > thumb at the base of the nail. Edward I of England redefined the inch in the > 13th century to equal three grains of dry and round barley laid end to end. > The inspiration for the foot's definition should be obvious. The mile comes > from the Latin, 'mille passus', which means a thousand steps. > > We have a feel for square feet and acres; square metres and hectares just > don't make sense. > > When you convert to metric you get strange numbers - for example, 4 inches > comes out at 101.6 millimetres - and that's a lot harder number to say and > to deal with than 4 inches. > > * There's nothing wrong with the old methods (7). > > Metric doesn't have any fractions. What will we do when we want a half, or a > third, or a quarter? > > Old measures are part of our culture, history, and heritage. > > SI means that everything will be decimal � eights in a boat race will have > to be tens; Beethoven will have to be resurrected to write another symphony; > we will have to write two of the apostles out of the bible. > > SI means we won't get 12 oysters in a dozen any more � we'll only get 10. > > The old ways are more intuitive than metric. > > These old measurements remind me of thumbs and feet and paces. They relate > to the familiar. I have a mental picture of what they are. > > We'll get ripped off in the shops because of metric downsizing. > > * It is old - therefore it is good (8). > > Inches, pounds, and feet are part of our heritage and as such, they should > be retained forever. > > Measuring in the old units works well. > > Metric is a sterile evolutionary dead-end. The leading-edge work in > fundamental physics has abandoned metric and is using so-called 'natural > units'. > > Metric requires greater numeracy than Metric, but this is a skill to be > encouraged! It is part of our culture and history and should not be replaced > by a soulless alternative. > > Old measures arose when they were needed in history and they are the best > measures because they were chosen from experience. > > The old units are part of our heritage. Our weights and measures have been > used for centuries in our literature, from Shakespeare to Roald Dahl. Their > loss would further weaken understanding and appreciation of this > inheritance. > > The proliferation of apparently unrelated units of measurement in our system > is anathema to the tidy minded. However, if it is so bad, why has it > survived all these centuries? > > This 'Think Metric' program failed miserably, because it stressed simply > conversion, with no practical application. It had the same effect of > mandating a language change from English to Esperanto. > > * Metric is foreign (11). > > Compulsory metrication is undemocratic. > > I found a message board that talks about weather, so I posted a message > advocating that weather be given in metric units. The answers given > included: 'move to Europe'; 'What are you, boy, one of them foreign national > subversives? and 'This is the U.S., we don't need no stinkin' metrics.' > > Men have the 'macho' thing, which requires them using feet, gallons, and > cubic inches, etc, rather than this quiche-eating 'metric' stuff. > > Metric is for third world countries. > > Metric is not 'American' or 'English'; it's foreign. > > People who believe in the metric system are commos. > > Metric is not American > > Metric is not British > > The metric system is foreign - it's just not British. > > The metric system is foreign - it's un-American. > > We don't export anything at our company so we don't have to change. Metric > is for foreigners. > > * It is too hard to change (12). > > All of our old recipe books would become redundant. > > Halves, quarters, and eighths are better than decimal because all you have > to do is halve things. > > It is too expensive to change to metric. > > It will take too long a time before we become conversant in metric. > > Metric units aren't easy for the average person to guesstimate. > > Our entire inventory is in old units and the transition to totally new stock > would take a very long time and would be too expensive. > > Some things should not change for safety reasons. For example, aircraft > should continue to fly in nautical miles and feet. > > The brain easily accommodates repeated halving (and doubling), which is > another way of saying 'powers of two', but powers of ten are anything but > natural. > > We should stick to old measures to save on the cost of retooling. > > We think that changing to metric would be too difficult. > > We think that changing would be too expensive. > > What will happen in our schools, when our kids have to learn both the old > ways and the new system? > > * We should have freedom of choice in measurement (13). > > International bureaucrats want to build a 'one size fits all' world where it > is easier for them to regulate more and more aspects of our lives. > > Old measurements are more flexible. There is a wider choice of units and a > wider choice of conversion factors. > > SI should not be compulsory > > The introduction of metric is unauthorised by any democratic process. There > has not been a referendum on metric measures. > > We already have decimal currency. Why do we want everything else to be > decimal? What's wrong with variety? > > We can handle metric; but that doesn't mean we want to ditch the old > measures. > > We could use both measurement methods together at the same time with old > measures for some things and SI for others. > > We do things in metric some of the time. We are flexible here; we can use > both methods - the old as well as the new. > > We need active public support to get the Government to end compulsion, and > to give us the freedom to measure how we like. > > We should be free to choose our measurements > > We should be given freedom of choice. A citizen should be able to choose > what units they choose to use and governments should not be able to stop > them. > > We should have freedom to measure any way we like. We should end compulsory > metrication. You can help to restore freedom of choice and to save part of > our heritage by writing to your MP and to your local newspaper. The time to > speak up is now. > > We should use be able to use dual methods at the same time. > > * There are better ways than metric (30). > > Any method of measurement is OK. We don't need new measures. > > It is an advantage for children to learn two sets of measurements. > > Learning fractions at school was good enough for me - so it's good enough > for my kids - it'll do 'em good. > > Now that we have calculators, we don't need to change to metric to save time > in calculations. > > On the farm, we are used to a range of units. Some examples are: inches, > links, feet, yards, rods, chains, furlongs, and miles. > > SI is changing all the time. > > SI is not natural. > > SI is scientific and not suitable for everyday living. > > The English System is based on one of the most basic measurement notions, > that of halving and doubling. There are 16 ounces to a pound, which means > that if you cut your quarter-pounder in half and then in half again, you > have an ounce. Similarly, half of a quart is a pint, half of that a cup and > if you halve that three more times, you have a fluid ounce. Half of that is > a tablespoonful. Double a quart twice and you get a gallon. > > The Fahrenheit temperature scale is better than Celsius because its got more > degrees on it. This makes it more accurate. > > The general public are not smart enough to handle metric measures. > > The Imperial System is more practical because its units were developed from > use, rather than by Committee. > > The metric system is just a rip-off. Metric units are very close to the old > ifp units: a metre is really just a long yard, a litre is about the same as > a quart, and so are a tonne and a ton. > > The metric system is not a coherent stable whole (it has internal > contradictions and it is in flux) and the US does not use the 'Imperial > System'. > > The metric system is too complicated. It uses the speed of light just to > define a metre - who can understand that - everybody could understand what a > foot is. > > The metric system is too rigid; there aren't enough units to be able to > choose the best unit for the job you are doing. > > The metric system seems to always come back to the old values. Look how > often they use 300 mm - why not say a foot? What about 30 mL; why not use an > ounce? In buildings, they use 1200 mm all the time; what's wrong with four > feet? Metric measures are constantly shifting toward the old units. > > The metric system violates the natural human requirement of subdivision into > 3, 4, 6, 8, ... parts. The metric system is also inadequate for the > subdivision of the circle, for the 24 hours in the day, the 12 months in the > year, and the 32 points of the compass. All these requirements are met by > changing the number base from 10 to 12. We need a duodecimal system rather > than a decimal system. > > The old imperial measurements worked very well. They were easy to imagine > but they were sometimes difficult to use in calculations. This didn't really > matter because few people did many calculations. > > The old ways of measuring are not bad. Proponents of SI should not attack > them. Just because the metric system is better does not mean that USA > measures are bad. I'm tired of the constant diatribe against the old > methods. > > The old ways were not inefficient. > > The whole metric system, which seems to be rational on paper, is irrational > in practice. For example, the gram was first defined as a cubic centimetre > of water. This was too small, so they switched to a kilogram and defined > that, not as 1000 grams of water, but in terms of a platinum cylinder kept > in a suburb of Paris. Am I supposed to go to Paris whenever I want a > kilogram of cheese? > > There are more natural number choices rather than 10. Twenty and twelve are > better choices. > > Today, the meter is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in > a vacuum in 1/299,792,458-th of a second. Isn't that a handy rule of thumb > when buying a string of sausage? > > We can understand the old ways better than metric. > > We know we are getting good value when we shop using the old measures. > > We should have a rich and diverse choice of measurement > > Why do we have to use a base-10 system? Why can't we use a base-12 system? > Tens only divide into twos and fives, but twelves divide into twos, threes, > fours, and sixes. > > With metric things have to be done in tens; we can't get a dozen eggs any > more! > > You have to be clever with numbers to be able to use the metric system. In > the old days, everyone could understand feet and inches. > > * Other people use old measures � so old measures are OK (31). > > All the sports are reported in feet and pounds. > > Babies are measured in pounds and ounces. Have a look at the Birth Notices > in the local paper. > > Computers have their screens in inches. > > Football is still in feet. > > French and German plumbers use inches. > > Heights are still in feet. > > I was in Germany last year and I could buy apples in Pfund. Even the Germans > haven't changed fully to metric. > > In the UK, we have been free to use the metric system for over a century - > there are still very few takers. > > Most people haven't changed to metric yet. > > My customers don't understand the old measurements and that is good for me; > I can tell them what I like, and they'll believe me. > > My staff is too old and they won't go along with the change to metric. > > My staff is too young; they will not be able to handle the change to metric. > > Nobody wants SI. > > Old measures are the 'industry standard'. > > Old weights and measures are preferred. Most people, in all age groups, > prefer the old weights and measures. > > Our customers, readers, bosses, clients, etc do not understand the metric > system and complain every time we use metric units'. > > Our national identity (in the USA) is defined by our difference to others, > that's why we cling on to the old measures. > > People like the old ways better. > > People won't change to metric voluntarily. > > Politicians actively support and include references in speeches to the old > system. > > The majority of consumers do not understand metric measurement. Moreover, > consumers are not demanding that their food products be packaged and > labelled using the metric system. > > The measurement issue will never be decided in a government office. It will > be settled at the checkout counter, in grocery stores and kitchens, on the > desks of editors and drafters, on shop floors, and on highways. > > The metric system is becoming more unpopular in Britain. > > The metric system is for scientists and engineers, and not for us ordinary > people. > > The press support the old measures: pounds, pints, inches, ounces, and feet. > > The printing trade still uses old measures such as: ems, ens, points, lines, > and inches. > > The U.S.A., with the world's largest economy, uses English feet and inches, > pounds and ounces, and intends to continue doing so. Why shouldn't England > continue to use them? > > We can still trade internationally with old weights and measures. > > We can't work in metric because we talk inches and pounds all the time in > our normal life. > > We do things that are familiar to our customers, readers, bosses, clients, > etc. > > We just have to work in metric - the head office ordered it, but there are > plenty of people in my office who would go back and work with the old inches > and feet; they reckon it's more natural. > > >
