Hi Jim & all Afraid I do find the term FFU's objectionable. Primarily because it spreads the myth that people who lived a few centuries ago were stupider than people today. Generally speaking I think the reverse is nearer the truth.
Your comment: << American units evolved from British units during a period when there was very little agreement as to what an inch was, or what an ounce was, and the fact that they developed a bit differently in the USA over the 200 to 300 years before things really started to standardise has nothing to do with "wanting to be different.">> could however very reasonably be called the Homer Simpson version of history and is a long way from accurate. As I understand it Newton published his results in French Paris livres rather than English Troy or Avoirdupois pounds because he wanted to reach a bigger audience. All these separate measures were well understood, adequately accurate to his purposes, and had been rather stable for several centuries prior to his birth. Newton was also (like me) fascinated by the mathematical genius involved in matters to do with historical measure. SI is a widely accepted international standard that is very practical (and in consequence rather dull). There are good arguments for supporting it. Having read postings to this list for a few months now I find the campaign for metrification often seems to get mixed up with separate matters to do with historical dumbing down, and also with rather authoritarian attitudes to legislation. Speaking personally - my fears of both dumbing down and authoritarianism are far greater than my love of metrification. My thoughts often drift back to what Orwell was saying in '1984' when I read some of the posts. Sorry if this gives offence - that isn't my intention - its just an honest response to what I read. rob (Robert Tye, York, UK) PS - Am away from home tomorrow - so advance apologies for delays in reply to comments.
