[USMA:33151] RE: Bright secrets

[Daniel]

When you measure 30 cm on a ruler that only displays centimetres why would you or anyone relate it to a foot?  If you measure 12 inches on a ruler that only shows inches, why would you or anyone think of it as 30 cm?  It is only when you have a dual scale and peek over to the other side do you see a connection between 30 cm and a foot.    Calling certain metric dimensions by English unit names is to be expected.  We see metres changed to yards in the media even if the numbers stay the same, we see 1500 m being called a metric mile in sports.  In some metric countries a pound is an acceptable term for 500 g.  It works as long as the actual measurements are done in metric and not the other way around.    I wouldn't put to much into this practice.    Dan  ----- Original Message ----- From: H. Maenen To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 2005-06-09 11:27 Subject: [USMA:33149] RE: Bright secrets I agree that a length of 30 cm is a handy length, but I never, ever give it the unit name 'foot'. The metric system does not preclude the use of such modules as the BWMA and other enemies of the metric system always proclaim. Many school rulers do have that length, but no-one in an older metric country calls it 'a foot ruler'; it is simply a 30 cm ruler. We only use the British foot in aircraft navigation, but I hope to see the day when we will revert to metric in that sector. Something called 'foot' is also used to express the length of organ pipes. Han ======================================== Message date : 09-06-2005 10:28 From : "Stephen Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To : "U.S. Metric Association" Copy to : Subject : [USMA:33148] RE: Bright secrets Not to flood this board with an apparently two-person debate I will be brief in my final response:- >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. Fortunately I don't sit on a fence. I get your point - however I regularly choose a side of the fence to be in (rather than on). A good example of this being done by other people would be to look at australia.  Although the state is 100% metric (or prob about 95% if one were to be pedantic) people still use the "foot" unit to describe things.  I asked an australian person why, considering the unit would not have been taught to him and he looked oddly at me and exclaimed "because its a handy length".  He also asked why I asked such a weird question (which reminded me how few people get really bothered about this). > >* 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. I note this. I was just hoping that any "insider information" you received could be treated as fact.  It looks like you don't treat it this was - so thats fine. Interestingly I happen to know he 'gets off' on people talking about him.   So I'll stop!  ;-) > >* 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: Please note that I don't think I've debated that way. The only criticisms I have made of the metric system here is as a result of links to the BWMA board - by you! Yes, I "have a go" over there.  But my style of debate is extremely different here because I respect the wants of the posters here. If anyone were to compare my style on the BWMA site to my style here they'd see a different person - this is deliberate. However I think that adding an opinion to a debate is not a bad thing. Also - I feel compelled to correct bad information from a UK perspective because it does not help those who support USMA.  An example would be if someone said "The UK use kilometres on our roads so why not us?" - I would think it helpful to correct that assertion. (I don't want to use a real example as I believe such debates are finished). No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.6 - Release Date: 2005-06-08