Here¹s a mnemonic: ³Loose horses lose horseshoes.²
From: James Jason Wentworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:59:50 -0900 To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:37862] Re: Drives me crazy! Since they (National Geographic) used the word "loose" in that context, they also don't know how to use proper English grammar. One loses (not "looses") a customer, but one can loose (meaning to release) a barrage. I wonder if they also print such beauties as "greenhouse gasses" instead of "greenhouse gases?" -- Jason > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Richard M <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:24 AM > > Subject: [USMA:37858] Re: Drives me crazy! > > > I just received a response back from National Geographic about a letter I > sent them about a month ago. I wrote telling them that I expect a magazine > of their caliber to use the SI system, or at the very least to at least put > SI when the original measurement was SI and to relegate 'customary' to a > secondary position. I told them if they switch to SI (or at least use > primary metric and relegate non-metric to secondary) I will immediately sign > back up to receive there publication. > > The response I received, to sum it up in once sentence, was "Thank you for > writing to us about SI; we are sorry to loose you as a customer". > > I don't agree with the statement that National Geographic is 'dumbing down' > units. That would imply that they are changing from a hard to understand > system to a much easier system for the common person, so easy that even a > 'dummy' can understand it. Instead National Geographic is often times > 'complicating up' the numbers to harder to understand, and often less > accurate due to the conversion, non-metric units. > > Richard > > > > > On 1/25/07, Harry Wyeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Another drives-me-nuts product of the National Geographic! >> >> >> >> HARRY WYETH >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Harry Wyeth <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:18 AM >> >> Subject: Nonsense "traditional" measurements >> >> >> >> Dear Editors; >> >> >> >> No one, but no one, in the English speaking world measures height in yards. >> But on page 142 of the January issue we read about the Arctic travelers >> encountering "six yard(s) high" ice blockages. In an article about an >> expedition from Russia by Norwegian and South African venturers, would it be >> too difficult to tell it the way they experienced it--with metric >> measurements? They surely didn't relate to any media that the ice floes >> were "six yards" high! >> >> >> >> The height was 6 m. The open lead referred to was 400 m wide. The 375 >> pound sleds were 170 kg. And at the end, they discovered that they were >> 1000 m or one km from the North Pole (not 1000 yards!), for heaven's sake. >> >> >> >> By dumbing down worldwide metric standard measurements, your editors are >> insulting Americans' intelligence. >> >> >> >> HARRY WYETH >
