Stephen Humphreys wrote:

"I would agree with the UKMA in saying that you must be referring to a 
different UK there ;-)"

Yes...it's probably more like 95% ;-).  I assume that's the bit you're 
referring to?



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 6:44 PM
Subject: [USMA:35125] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.


> I would agree with the UKMA in saying that you must be referring to a 
> different UK there ;-)
> 
> 
> >From: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> >Subject: [USMA:35121] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.
> >Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 16:37:29 -0000
> >
> >Stephen Humphreys wrote:
> >
> >"I think you mistook what I was talking about
> >I was referring to the countless products that are either imperial or
> >imperial/metric (additional to metric only).
> >
> >Unless you are saying that I'm just "wrong" and my opinion should change -
> >if so then I apologise."
> >
> >While I don't deny you can find dual-labelled packaged goods, (if you look 
> >hard enough) I would hardly say there were countless examples.
> >
> >   Any that do exist has to have the metric measurement more prominent.  
> >Spirits (as in whisky, brandy, etc) are now all sold in metric measures 
> >only.  DIY items (nails, tools) are not sold exclusively in metric, but 
> >metric is now the dominant measurement in this area.
> >
> >Apart from  some (extremely rare) examples of packaged goods, road signage 
> >and pints of milk and beer, there is little left in the UK that is 
> >exclusively imperial.
> >
> >Even TV's which, although they tend to have screen measurements in inches, 
> >are increasingly being advertised with centimetre measurements.
> >
> >To say that the UK is more than 90% metric would not be an exaggeration.
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Stephen Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:59 AM
> >Subject: [USMA:35117] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.
> >
> >
> > > I think you mistook what I was talking about
> > > I was referring to the countless products that are either imperial or
> > > imperial/metric (additional to metric only).
> > >
> > > Unless you are saying that I'm just "wrong" and my opinion should change 
> >-
> > > if so then I apologise.
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Reply-To: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> > > >Subject: [USMA:35109] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.
> > > >Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:20:14 -0000
> > > >
> > > >Stephen Humphreys wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"The bit about petrol is true.
> > > >  That's about it."
> > > >
> > > >Wrong!  Apart from the ludicrous (and highly misleading) campaign 
> >against
> > > >metric being the main measurement of loose goods, there has been no
> > > >complaint (from the public at least) about metrication.
> > > >
> > > >Petrol, metric spirit measures, packaged goods, DIY products, 
> >carpets....no
> > > >complaints whatsoever from the public about the  metrication of these
> > > >things.
> > > >
> > > >As long as people receive what they ask for, they don't particularly 
> >care.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Stephen Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> > > >Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:02 PM
> > > >Subject: [USMA:35043] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >We have accepted petrol in litres, total metrication of packaged 
> >goods
> > > >and
> > > > > >DIY products being sold in metric measurements without complaint.
> > > > >
> > > > > The bit about petrol is true.
> > > > > That's about it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

Reply via email to