Gavin: I suggest you read the USMA message digest more carefully. The message to which you're replying is not from me (Bill Potts), but from Bill Hooper.
On the other hand, your quotation of what I say on the SI Navigator site is correct. (And what I say in the piece you quote is factual.) As for Bill Hooper's use (not mine) of "bastardizing," that is not in the least bit inflammatory, so I will rise to his defense. In the context in which he used it, "bastardizing" is simply a synonym for "debasing." Again, in that context, debasing simply means lowering the quality, value or significance. You may object to his characterization of such use of prefixes, but claiming it's inflammatory is something of a stretch. I'm not sure which Bill you are accusing of being combative. As you are replying to Bill Hooper's message, though, I would guess he's the target of that accusation. Again, in his defense, I find him to be thorough, quite scholarly, and not in the least combative. I endeavor to maintain a similar tone in my own messages. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of Gavin Young >Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 13:12 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:29445] Re: USMA digest 1573 > > >After the the entrie world has converted to the current SI system, the SI >second shown be thrown out the door. Then a new SI time unit should be >created that is based upon a standard day (which would equal >exactly 86,400 of >the current SI seconds). > >I know you don't like posts about decimal time on this server, but >as long as >you comment about decimal time on this server in a negative manner, I will >defend decimal time on this server! > >Interesting I notice that your website at http://metric1.org/ on the page >called Date and Time Notation says the following: > >"Although there is a metric unit of time (the second), there is no >such thing >as metric time. There have been several proposals, over the years, to >decimalize the way we express time � at least for the hours, minutes and >seconds in a day. None of them ever caught on." > >The reason why metric time (decimal time) has not caught on is >because people >like you try to prevent discussion of it in forums that are >devoted to metric, >even though people like you are fans of metric for other usage. As long as >forums even devoted to metric are against metric being used for talk of >decimal/metric time proposals (other than the SI second) and as >long as such >forums prefer that Babylonian units (hours and minutes) to be used >in conjunction with the SI second, then of course metric time will >have a hard >time catching on. However it is ironic that fans of SI metric are against >reforming the SI system to expand the metric system to include all >of the time >units that are equal to a day and smaller! > >Your comment of "bastardizing of the prefixes" is outrageous and a >misrepresentation of what I think Pat Naughtin was trying to say. >I believe he >was saying what I also have said, namely that the SI second should >be scrapped >as the fundamental time unit and that the new fundamental time >unit should be >called the SI day and the SI day should be defined in such a >manner that it >exactly equals 86,400 of the current SI seconds. After the new SI >unit becomes >the SI day, it will then be appropriate to use the metric prefixes >of deci, >centi, amd milli in conjunction with it. > >I notice that you often use inflammatory language (such as your use of the >word "bastardizing") directed to anyone (such as myself and Pat >Naughtin) that >posts comments contrary to your views. How would you like if >myself and others >started using the same language directed at your posts? Must you be so >combative? Can't this forum be used in a civilized manner? Can we disagree >without be disagreeable? > >The above comments are reply to Bill Potts comments listed below. >------------------------------------------------------- > >Recently Pat Naughtin suggested: >> 1 milliday = 86.4 s 1 new minute a bit longer than an old >> minute >> 1 centiday = 864 seconds about a quarter of an old hour >> 1 deciday = 8640 seconds a little under 2 1/2 hours > >I can't help feel uncomfortable using the SI prefixes with non-SI units >(SI prefix milli with non-metric day to make milliday). > >We may not be able to control what others do but I'm not sure those of >us who want to promote SI metric should encourage such bastardizing of >the prefixes. > >Also, I would maintain that breaking the day into smaller units of >millidays, centidays and decidays, where each is an odd multiple of >seconds, is not much of an improvement over 24 hours, 60 minutes and 60 >seconds. > >However, I am happy to see that Pat agrees with the importance of not >changing the size of the SI second in any half baked effort to simplify >civil (daily) time. That would cause more problems than it would solve. > > >Regards, >Bill Hooper >Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA ><><><><><><><><><><><><> >Make it simple; Make it Metric ><><><><><><><><><><><><> >
