Folks, That interview was as interesting in the lead up to it as it was in the conduct. Bo Peterson had called me for some technical advice on sea breezes (a topic of my master's thesis). I had told him that I liked a lot of what he wrote and I asked him when he was going to write a piece for the paper on the metric system's inevitable adoption in the U.S. His immediate response was that he hoped it never would! We chatted for a bit and I apparently piqued his interest enough that he went to the editor for the go-ahead for this article.
Bo entered the interview stating total lack of knowledge on and use of the metric system. I dispelled those errors in his self-appraisal during the hour that we chatted. His last question, wrapped in a pre-apology, was "Pardon me for asking this, but are you a nut?" That gave me the opening to review some points and to remind him that I was on the side of 96 % of the people in the world. And that if I were a nut, every "sane" American would then have to give up those many things we had talked about: electricity, medicine, nutrition, and so forth. In all, I was pleasantly surprised to see such a positively written article. I had feared that it would be one of those "you won't believe what some folks think!" articles. He even did further research to back up some of my assertions in that interview. I think Bo truly had an epiphany during that interview. Please treat him kindly! Yes, I did stress that we did not teach the metric system by use of conversions; that "quiz" was just an old "blankie" that he was not ready to let go of yet. Bo is just at the start of the learning curve on this. Most of us --- at least the older ones among us --- were at some time in the past. Jim On Friday 09 September 2005 19:29, Remek Kocz wrote: > As riddled with errors as this article is, I do appreciate that another > journalist is presenting SI as a rational, coherent, and > an easy-to-use measurement system. I'm also glad to see that financial > consequences of _not_ adopting the metric system have been brought up. It's > an argument that the pro-metric side must make time and time again. Like it > or not, money is the most persuasive argument for converting the US. > Politicians can translate it to jobs, and businesses can equate it to > revenue and profit. Voter and consumer can then vote with their ballot and > dollar. > > On 9/9/05, Nat Hager III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Did Jim's interview here make it onto our list? > > Nat > > The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC) > > The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC) > > August 29, 2005 Monday FINAL Edition > > Correction Appended > > *SECTION:* LOCAL/ STATE; Pg. 1B > > > > *LENGTH:* 715 words > > > > *HEADLINE:* The pound takes a pounding AH: Is metric really the future > > for U.S.? Some predict so > > > > *BYLINE:* BO PETERSEN Of The Post and Courier Staff > > > > *BODY:* > > The jigger is up. > > > > In fact, so is the teaspoon, the pint, the foot, the yard and likely the > > mile. It's metricate or stay home. That's what Jim Frysinger thinks, and > > he's not alone. > > > > <snip> -- James R. Frysinger Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist Senior Member, IEEE http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: Physics Lab Manager, Lecturer Dept. of Physics and Astronomy University/College of Charleston 66 George Street Charleston, SC 29424 843.953.7644 (phone) 843.953.4824 (FAX) Home: 10 Captiva Row Charleston, SC 29407 843.225.0805
