2003-04-06 There are many reasons for it. An editor may not catch the litres in his rush to get the copy to print or a particular editor may not have a phobia about seeing SI in print. But, there are plenty of editors who go out of their way to make sure SI is not seen by the public. I could understand if an editor would add FFU to an existing SI declaration. I can't see the reason for taking SI away.
Does the editor want to convey that FFU was used all along? Does he not want to be criticised for sloppy conversions in order to make FFU appear round? Does he want to hide the fact that SI was the primary system used and FFU is an afterthought? Can you imagine if Joe Six-pack confronted someone at the scene and asked that person about something he read in FFU and that person would tell Joe that he doesn't know what Joe is talking about? Joe insists the FFU is correct and assumes FFU was used at the scene because it was reported that way in the news. The person at the scene tries to inform Joe that what he read was false because FFU was never used. I just wonder what Joe's response would be to that. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, 2003-04-06 11:19 Subject: [USMA:25452] RE: water > >All the reports that I have read and heard about Iraq quoted water > >quantities in litres. > > Even some US reports give water quantities in liters without translating > into gallons. >
