Let me add my voice Paul, that IS a good letter.  

As the fellow admitted in his earlier reply, that was just a humourous
column, maybe because he didn't have anything better to write that day.
Maybe he'll take your letter, and craft a SERIOUS article on
metrication.

Nat

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pat Naughtin
> Sent: Saturday, 2003 June 14 21.31
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:26090] Re: In for a penny, in for a ... 
> kilogram--your recent column
> 
> 
> Dear Paul,
> 
> Well done.
> 
> I am convinced that thoughtful well considered letters like 
> yours have an effect on the progress of metrication. Even if 
> the only effect is to have the column writer pause for a 
> little thought before he attacks the metric system again.
> 
> Cheers and best regards,
> 
> Pat Naughtin LCAMS
> Geelong, Australia
> 
> on 2003-06-15 07.41, Paul Trusten, R.Ph. at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > Dear Mr. Lewis,
> > 
> > I read with great interest your online column "In for a 
> penny, in for 
> > a...kilogram" (May 29, 2003), and have spent the interim 
> preparing my 
> > response. Since my parents did not raise me to speak and 
> write vulgar 
> > slang, I waited two weeks so I could calm down before writing this.
> > 
> > Your article asks why the United States, after 28 years of 
> considering 
> > conversion to the metric system, is still "pounding and inching 
> > along". One of the primary reasons for this, I believe, is because 
> > people such as yourself have newspaper columns, and singlehandedly, 
> > are in a position to publish opinions and information as 
> prejudiced, 
> > as narrow, and as fractured as the material you put into the 
> > above-mentioned column. The prevalence of such dim views of 
> a subject 
> > make me yearn to have a newspaper column of my own so that 
> I could at 
> > least back up my widely disseminated opinions with facts. Does your 
> > paper have an opening for a new writer?
> > 
> > I start by saying that I am an American, native born and 
> lifelong, who 
> > is proud of the United States and what it has done for its 
> people and 
> > for the people of the world. I wholeheartedly support 
> President Bush 
> > in his effort to protect the United States from terrorism. And 
> > accordingly, I condemn the French for their barbed 
> opposition to our 
> > efforts to eliminate a great threat from Iraq. But there is 
> one thing 
> > that I will always thank the French for, and that is their 
> invention 
> > of the metric system.
> > 
> > 
> > You say that the metric system is "boring and sterile", and 
> "suitable 
> > only for mathematicians and other colorless folk". I've 
> never before 
> > heard someone compare units of measurement for their entertainment 
> > value, and I do not measure things to be entertained. I 
> measure things 
> > to accomplish some task, such as framing pictures, cutting 
> paper, or 
> > judging how much space I need for a carpet. Sometimes I 
> need to expand 
> > these measurements into larger units or reduce them to 
> smaller units. 
> > The American plan of measurement, using 12 inches to a 
> foot, etc., is 
> > so cumbersome and so silly compared to a decimal system 
> that I would 
> > equate it to being sterile of thought. I long to use a measurement 
> > system in which all the units are decimally related. That, this 
> > inch-weary American feels, would be a most exciting and 
> fertile change 
> > in our society. I yearn for what you call, almost with 
> approval, "the 
> > all-too-even 10". No,  the  "Way Of Measuring Badly in 
> America Today" 
> > (I use the acronym WOMBAT to describe our "system" of 
> measurement, which is
> > unsystematic)  is not, as you say, "just fine". It is bad 
> for the individual
> > user, and, as you shall shortly read, bad for America.
> > 
> > You were partially correct when you observed that the 
> United States is 
> > one of only three nations not officially using the metric system. 
> > However, the Congress declared in 1988 that the metric 
> system is the 
> > "preferred system of measurement for trade" in the United States. 
> > Congress has long known what the American people have been 
> reluctant 
> > to recognize: that being alone in the world with our 
> measurements is a 
> > major hindrance to our global competitiveness as a people, both in 
> > academics and in trade. American producers must produce one set of 
> > goods with US units for domestic sale and one set of goods 
> with metric 
> > units for export, and this has to be a major incumbrance to our 
> > economy. So, I must disagree with your statement that our 
> metrological 
> > kinship with Liberia and Myanmar is "a good thing". I think it is a 
> > very bad thing, since much of the world looks to the United 
> States for 
> > wisdom, not backwardness.
> > 
> > Of all the provocative statements you made in your column, the one 
> > notion which irks me above all the others is your using that 
> > ignorance-perpetuating old ruse about metric units, making hard 
> > conversions of US units to metric and using them in a statement to 
> > show how supposedly cumbersome metric is, e.g., that Newville was 
> > 17.7028 kilometers from Carlisle. Please tell your readers 
> that, in a 
> > metric America, one will say that Newville is about 18 
> kilometers from 
> > Carlisle, period.  Once the US converts to metric, there will be no 
> > more frequent converting. There will only be metric units 
> being used. 
> > Please stop spreading that kind of prejudicial venom, which 
> I believe 
> > is a hindrance, not just to metric conversion, but to much of human 
> > progress.
> > 
> > You may know that the United States was the first nation to 
> introduce 
> > decimal currency. Would you like to return to the "human 
> touch" of the 
> > old British system of (this may not be right) 20 pence to 
> the shilling 
> > and 12 shillings to the pound, the system discarded by the 
> British in 
> > 1971 in favor of our own decimal system?
> > 
> > I'm not a mathematician, but I would not describe mathematicians as 
> > colorless folk. On the contrary, I sense that their craft 
> brought much 
> > color into the world, including the color pictures of all 
> types we now 
> > see from around the world on our web browsers. These people are 
> > actually the color of the world, and a few of them, a couple of 
> > hundred years ago in France, gave the world an easy and 
> convenient way 
> > of measuring things. Both as a patriotic American, and as 
> someone who 
> > just has to measure stuff from time to time, I want to join that 
> > world. But I can't join it if American columnists like you 
> persist in 
> > attempting to rob America of the measurement system it deserves.
> > 
> > Please reconsider what you have written.
> > 
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > 
> > Paul Trusten
> > 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122
> > Midland TX 79707-2872 USA
> > 432-694-6208
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > "There are two cardinal sins, from
> > which all the others spring: impatience
> > and laziness."
> >                         ---Franz Kafka
> > 
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to