2003-04-04

I hear what you are saying.  But, if you played that clip right in front of
Joe Six-pack, most likely the reference to 200 m would go in one ear and out
the other.  If you quizzed him as to how far the thing went in the air, the
response would be "I dunno"  If you played it back for him and told him to
pay close attention to the words spoken and then asked him again, he would
say " a couple hundred FEET".  At that moment you lose it and walk over to
the wall and bang your head against it.

John



----- Original Message -----
From: "Nat Hager III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, 2003-04-04 18:30
Subject: RE: [USMA:25422] Re: 121 arguments against SI


> If there's any doubt I just saw a CNN clip of a couple soldiers defending
> their position at Baghdad International Airport.  After hitting an Iraqi
> position they exclaimed "that thing went 200 meters in the air!"
>
> When you're in a situation like that, that's REAL metric thinking.
>
> Nat
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of kilopascal
> Sent: Thursday, 03 April 2003 18:07
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:25422] Re: 121 arguments against SI
>
>
> 2003-04-03
>
> I know that!  But, Joe Six-pack does not.  He thinks the military his
taxes
> support use "good old feet and inches".  Joe Six-pack still thinks alcohol
> is sold in galls and fifths and American cars are made to FFU specs.  You
> can beat the truth into Joe's head with a baseball bat.  But, for some
> reason even that won't convince him otherwise.
>
> That was my point.
>
> John
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nat Hager III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, 2003-04-03 05:04
> Subject: RE: [USMA:25411] Re: 121 arguments against SI
>
>
> > > We are whipping
> > > Saddam's ass using good old feet and inches.
> >
> > No we're not.  The Army's metric.
> >
> > Nat
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to