[USMA:31361] Re: Guz

[Euric]

In response to my comment below, FFU (Fred Flintstone Units), which are all units that are not SI whether they be imperial, USC or old Indian all had varying definitions.  Even today, there is more then one version of the gallon, quart and pint, as wells as ounces, feet and miles.  Just to name a few.  When and if these units are used one is unsure of the meaning intended unless one qualifies the unit somehow, but very few do.   I'm sure the publication you quoted from referred to British inches in use before 1960, which are not the same as those that existed after 1960.  To the masses who don't really care about the differences between dissimilar units of the same name the meaning may be clear.  But to those of us who know that there are in fact variations find it impossible to know what is meant when an FFU is used.    By using only metric this problem NEVER arises.   Euric     ----- Original Message ----- From: ewc To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Monday, 2004-10-25 03:54 Subject: [USMA:31352] Guz Hi Euric   If it is "impossible" to know what I meant (message 31341) then how come you worked it out (message 31336)?   There are valid arguments to put forward supporting metrication - but the case is badly undermined when supported by false claims - especially when they are presented in a supercilious manner.   I recommend you study Princep on the how the Liberal minded administration of India in the 19th century brought about its standardisation of measure.    Rob   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~     Euric wrote:   <<With so many meanings and variations of FFUs it is impossible to know what is meant when an FFU is used.>>