But can't we be a bit more realistic and say that x km = y miles and, as
such, y miles = x km?
The fact that the two were brought together to finalise an exact conversion
and make imperial the most accurate its ever been in its history is a plus
for imperial. Not a minus.
The fact that the metre is based upon a phenomenon and that the yard was
compared to the metre to find an exact conversion, that makes the yard based
upon that same phenomenon. OF course all of this is unknown to the vast
majority anyway.
Anyway - you won't find me saying that, for example, a millilitre a simply
1/568th of a pint.
From: "Philip S Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USMA:34480] Re: Long live the good old British pint!
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:36:28 +0100
That's ok then.
If all imperial terms are just metric terms in disguise you no longer need
to try to get us to be metric, erm, "really" metric. Your job is done.
All those miles on the road aren't really miles so what's the issue?
The issue is that it fails to make proper use of that underlying system of
measurement and ignores the advantages it offers. Before metric came along
no one woud have calibrated odometers and map scales in lots of 1 3/5 mile
would they?
Phil Hall
