Stephen Humphreys wrote: "Can I suggest that since a yard is roughly a pace - that you pace out the distance to find out (approximately) how far it really is?"
Well, I could try but 3 feet at a time is QUITE a pace :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:01 PM Subject: [USMA:35118] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion. > Can I suggest that since a yard is roughly a pace - that you pace out the > distance to find out (approximately) how far it really is? Then you can > find out which sign was truer - the metric one or the imperial one. > > > >From: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > >Subject: [USMA:35110] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion. > >Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:33:12 -0000 > > > >Daniel wrote: > > > >"Who changed the sign on the road where you live? Was it changed > >recently?" > > > >As I wrote in the post referring to this, the sign in question, on a > >country road NEAR to where I live, was changed about 3 years ago. > > > >It was changed by city of Sunderland council in response to complaints from > >Neil Herron, ex-Metric Martyr. > > > >Herron was correct, of course. The sign, reading 0.5km was illegal and > >replaced by the council for one reading 300 yards!!! An apparent > >discrepancy of around 250 yards! > > > >Incidentally, as far as I know, the replacement of the 0.5km sign had > >nothing to do with ARM. > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > >Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:35 PM > >Subject: [USMA:35040] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion. > > > > > > > If what you are saying is true, then that is actually great. Let ARM > >change > > > al the signs to wrong numbers. It will actually have the effect of > > > distorting a person's perception of imperial units. The more damage to > > > imperial, the better. > > > > > > Interesting thought. ARM claims to have changed thousands of signs to > > > imperial. Most of those signs were done in metric because the people > > > putting them up used existing survey markers as guides. If the sign > >said > > > 500 m ahead, it meant that the sign was placed at a survey marker that > >was > > > 500 m from another survey marker. Unless ARM physically uproots the > >sign > > > and moves it to a location that would be true to the yard distance they > > > place on it, then the sign if left in the original location is wrong > >when > > > the yards are shown. > > > > > > If the distances ARM puts on the sign are not true and exact equivalents > >of > > > the metric numbers they replaced, then they in fact are guilty of > >vandalism. > > > Who changed the sign on the road where you live? Was it changed > >recently? > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Friday, 2005-10-28 11:18 > > > Subject: [USMA:35030] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion. > > > > > > > > > > This post is a little wayward but along the same lines as what we are > > > > discussing here. > > > > > > > > About three years ago, an illegal sign on a country road near to where > >I > > > > live that read a distance of 0.5km was replaced by a legal one which > >read > > > > 300 yards!?! > > > > > > > > Now, either the original signpost was woefully wrong or the entire > >village > > > > that the sign was giving directions to has moved forward by up to 250 > > > > yards! > > > > > > > > There are around 550 yards to 500 metres, are there not? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Steve. > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Stephen Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 3:34 PM > > > > Subject: [USMA:35019] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion. > > > > > > > > > > > >> You know that I will disagree with you because I prefer dual measures > >- > > > >> but > > > >> you miss out my key point. > > > >> I was talking about the US. and that *at least* move to dual notation > > > >> *then* > > > >> campaing to get the imperial bit abolished. > > > >> > > > >> as i said I cannot agree with that point of view but I can make an > > > >> observation. > > > >> > > > >> It's interesting that I would like to see Americans see metric as > >well as > > > >> imperial, whereas you want me to be unable to see imperial alongside > > > >> metric. > > > >> I've never got my head around that. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >From: "Philip S Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > > >> >Subject: [USMA:35018] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion. > > > >> >Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:34:22 +0100 > > > >> > > > > >> >But it is because of dual measures that this sort of muddle arises > >in > > > >> >the > > > >> >first place. > > > >> > > > > >> >There is no virtue in campaigning to keep it that way. > > > >> > > > > >> >Phil Hall > > > >> > > > > >> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Humphreys" > > > >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 10:01 AM > > > >> >Subject: [USMA:35017] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >>Make your mind up Daniel. You've been going on about the UK being > > > >> >>totally > > > >> >>metric and the BBC being the same but recently that's all changed > >(a > > > >> >>few > > > >> >>times actually). > > > >> >> > > > >> >>Also, it's worth pointing out that Daniel believes that the BBC > >vets > > > >> >>people phoning in on live radio debates to make sure that the > >caller > > > >> >>speaks in imperial only and not metric. I won't enclose a link to > >the > > > >> >>page that says this unless anyone wants to take this offline. > > > >> >> > > > >> >>The simple fact is - without conspiracy - the info was most > >probably > > > >> >>originally in metric. It was then converted to imperial - then, on > > > >> >>this > > > >> >>"history news" item, the imperial figures were used and the BBC > > > >> >>"bi-lingualled" it back again. At the end of the day the accuracy > >is > > > >> >>such > > > >> >>that I suspect it matters very little either way. I would > >suggest > > > >> >>that > > > >> >>a move forward here (for metric) would be to suggest that US news > > > >> >>sources > > > >> >>use both notations rather than just convert to imperial all the > >time. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >>>From: "Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> >>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> >>>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > > >> >>>Subject: [USMA:35013] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion. > > > >> >>>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:16:35 -0400 > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>>300,000 miles (483,000 km) > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>>185 miles (298 km) > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> 60 miles (96.5 km) > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>>What you are saying is that the use of imperial caused a > >corruption in > > > >> >>>the metric values from 480 000, or possibly 500 000 to 483 000, > >from > > > >> >>>300 > > > >> >>>km to 298 km, and from 100 km to 96.5 km. I > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>>This was obviously done on purpose to give the impression that the > > > >> >>>Russians, and everyone else for that matter thought in imperial, > >thus > > > >> >>>the > > > >> >>>use of rounded imperial numbers, and metric was just added to show > >how > > > >> >>>it > > > >> >>>produces silly, un-rounded numbers. Thus if anyone ever tries to > >tell > > > >> >>>us > > > >> >>>that going metric would make numbers simpler, then all we need do > >is > > > >> >>>show > > > >> >>>them something like this to prove it is imperial that is simpler > >and > > > >> >>>metric is difficult. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>>The BBC needs to re-edit the article, remove the corrupted units, > >and > > > >> >>>replace the metric values with the original. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>>Dan > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> From: Remek Kocz > > > >> >>> To: U.S. Metric Association > > > >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, 2005-10-26 17:27 > > > >> >>> Subject: [USMA:35012] The pitfalls of double conversion. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> The BBC website has a neat feature where they post news items > >from > > > >> >>>decades past. Today, the article > > > >> >>> on the Soviet probe seding back the first pictures of the dark > >side > > > >> >>> of > > > >> >>>the moon. The article cites > > > >> >>> imperial dimensions followed by metric ones in parentheses. > >From > > > >> >>> the > > > >> >>>metric equivalents given, it's pretty clear that BBC just > > > >> >>> converted the measurements from the original news story to > >metric > > > >> >>>without realizing that they were metric in the first place, > > > >> >>> the data coming from metric Soviets and all. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> I'm enclosing the link, just to show how inetesting the results > >can > > > >> >>> be > > > >> >>>when a double conversion takes place. From metric to > > > >> >>> imperial and then back to metric again. It's like that game > >kids > > > >> >>> play > > > >> >>>in school where a phrase is whispered from child to child, to see > > > >> >>> how the phrase will change by the time it reaches the last > >child. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> > > >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/26/newsid_4045000/4045913.stm > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> > > >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. > > > >> >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > > >> >>> Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/149 - Release Date: > > > >> >>>2005-10-25 > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > > > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/150 - Release Date: > >2005-10-27 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
