Marcus: Just to come to Harry's defense. He was not advocating a return to FFU, or even parallel use of FFU. He was simply conceding that backpackers and mountaineers feel comfortable with 500 foot intervals. If they do, they do, of course, and won't be anxious to change overnight. That's reality.
Here are his words: ----------------------------------------------------- I know many people involved in mountaineering and backpacking, and it is very difficult to get them to relate to metric heights. We must admit that there is a certain ease to thinking of common backpacking elevations in units of even five hundred or a thousand feet. Thus, it is easy to think "7000 feet, 7500 feet, 8000 feet" and so on. On the other hand, the interval between, say, 2000 and 2500 m is rather large. I wonder if anyone has a suggestion on how to deal with this problem. ----------------------------------------------------- I think the key part is the last sentence. It elicited a very reasonable, informative and non-judgmental response from Bill Hooper (as opposed to Predrag's somewhat scathing "Are you for real?"), suggesting 100 m intervals. My own view is that 200 m might be more manageable, but it's no big deal. They're both easy submultiples of 1000 m. By the way, if you want to see old messages, they're archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] The REI Brochure thread is still close to the top of the first page. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of Ma Be >Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 12:08 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:29069] Re: REI brochure > > >"Girls"... (no offense intended, please!) May we inquire what >the nature of the 'problem' is, please? Based on what's published >below the rest of us have absolutely no idea what the thread is >all about... Thank you kindly. > >Marcus >
