*Devil's Advocate Alert!* I would argue that while there is nothing wrong with 3-digit driving distances (mi or km) most would have a problem with 3-digit clothing sizes or shoe sizes. The same goes for measuring small lengths (lengths under a meter.)
Of course if we are talking anatomy, a 3-digit number might be quite desirable. As Robin Williams once said, "I can't wait until we convert to the metric system. I'm 120, call me mister tripod." -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Hooper Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:35 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:33073] Re: Use of millimetres On 2005 Jun 1 , at 7:53 PM, Bill Potts wrote: > Bill Hooper wrote: "Do I try to report this 456 mi. figure as 57 > furlongs > ...?" > I certainly hope not, seeing as there are 8 furlongs to a mile. > Perhaps you were thinking of leagues. Mea culpa! No, I was not thinking of leagues. I really was thinking of furlongs but did not know how long a furlong was; I had to look it up (on Google) and when I got the answer "1 mile = 8 furlongs", I read it BACKWARDS. If I had read it correctly, I'd have realized that furlongs would not do as my example. Thanks for suggesting leagues but that wouldn't work because it would still lead to a 3 digit number (456 mi. = 118 leagues). My point still is, there's nothing wrong with three digit numbers and the fact that most of us are comfortable with hearing that an automobile trip was 456 miles long, is evidence of the fact that there is nothing wrong with three digit numbers, so we do not even try to convert it to some other unit that gives us a smaller numerical value. Thanks to Bill Potts for pointing out my mistake. I think the point I was trying to make is still valid in spite of the careless error in my example. Regards, Bill Hooper Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Go Metric America! Or get left behind! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
