Dear Stephen
As a final response from me I will deal with the key issues you raise (in no
particular order) without requoting everything.
* ARM:
I mentioned the Lincolnshire bridge incident from memory just as an example
to highlight the wrecklessness and intolerance of that group. I wasn't
deliberately hiding any reservations you may have expressed on that occasion
about disallowing coincident metric and imperial signs (I wasn't actually
aware of it). Anyway just for the record:
www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=101360&messageid=1110666115&lp=1111666117
And to be fair I reproduce your (somewhat belated) remarks:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
" SteveH and Bryan, can you please confirm that - I'm not 100% sure of your
opinions on this "
My opinion.....
Every effort should be made to get local authorities to be consistent in
their signage.
I'm happy for renegade action to be taken on replacing 'm' with 'yds' as I
can't see this as being dangerous, plus it's two fingers up to the PC
brigade who seem to think that we'd like metres instead of yards.
I'm afraid I can't bring myself to support the removal of height and width
signs that show metric measures if there are imperial ones too.
The pro-choice and pro-imperial church is a wide one.
So is, I presume, the pro-choice and pro-metric church.
Maybe the second of those two churches is more like a 'cult' though! Only
joking! ;-)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
However there were plenty of other occasions where they could have legalised
the signage by *adding* an imperial sign instead of obliterating the metric
one. To be consistent with your proclaimed stance of metric tolerance and
concerns about safety you should be condemning the actions of this group in
much broader terms.
* ... I AM NOT ANTI-METRIC!
I accept that you see yourself not to be anti-metric. That much is clear.
But I'm not sure you know what it means to be *pro*metric. If you bear with
me I will try to explain this.
Metric is a system not just a collection of units. If it is to be used
properly it should be applied consistently. The depth of thinking on
measurement varies from one person to another and according to circumstances
sure. So much of what I have to say might seem academic to a lot of people
particularly those who only ever use measurement superficially and seldom,
if ever, calculate.
However metric is easy to use, and easier to use than imperial when it comes
to those higher level applications. This is easily demonstrated and few
people challenge metric on those grounds - in fact it is often accused of
dumbing things down and even criticised for being boring because of its
uniformity and so, by implication, its simplicity is acknowledged.
I've strenuously argued previously that it is hard to think and use metric
properly unless the society around you presents and is receptive to metric
measurement data consistently. Therefore at that level no one really has a
choice and with a mixture everyone is forced to become 'bilingual'. Some
cope with this easily others don't, but above all it is likely to be an
obstacle to routinely using measurement beyond simple comparison. People
don't complain because they have lived with it so long and don't realise the
potential that a coherent decimal system of measurement offers them.
However people may well be open to the contention that a society that plays
host to both metric and non-metric is not sensible and it will gain in the
long run by allowing the more logical system to predominate. Some will take
full advantage while others merely adapt and only gain marginally. But once
they understand that none of this can be achieved by clinging on to
superfluous incompatible measurement units in a public context where, rather
like passive smoking causing others to inhale it, they may accept that
relatively minor imposition.
In conclusion this is (in my view at least) the perspective of someone who
is truly prometric. This is why it makes no sense to support the continued
and indefinite use of imperial, however laudible or democratic it may seem,
whilst at the same time claiming to accomodate those who prefer metric. When
it comes down to it there is no fence to sit on and trying to do so lacks
integrity and a proper understanding of the issues.
* The EURIC phenomenon
If you look back over my comments you'll find that I do not rely on any
opinion about you supplied by him or anyone else. I merely make observations
about what you have actually said on this forum and elsewhere.
* Quality and purpose of debate on this forum
The purpose of this forum isn't to debate the pros and cons of metrication.
If you review the page that introduces it:
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/listserv.htm
It talks only of exchanging information not debate. Naturally, discussion
takes place and opinions aired about the subject. But it's meant to be in
the context of a favourable (or at least open minded) disposition toward
metrication and to further its cause. It isn't to call into question the
wisdom of it or to provide entertainment for those who actively oppose it.
Their minds are already made up and its just a matter of how and when not
*if*. You can continue to post here all you like, no one will stop you, but
you won't be heeded much if all you do is try to challenge things from your
particular perspective.
Finally, just to set things straight, I never asked for you to reveal any
private correspondence from others on this list. All I did was invite them
to show their hand if they are still prepared to support your presence here.
The invitation stands.
Phil Hall
