On 2007 01 26 2:52 PM, "Daniel Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Pat,
>  
> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan07/4820
> <http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan07/4820>
>  
> Get a load of the suggestion put forth in this article?
>  
> Dan



Thanks, Daniel. You sure know how to depress a person!

Cheers,

Pat Naughtin
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216
Geelong, Australia
61 3 5241 2008

Pat Naughtin is manager of http://www.metricationmatters.com an internet
website that primarily focuses on the many issues, methods and processes
that individuals, groups, companies, and nations use when upgrading to the
metric system. You can contact Pat Naughtin at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:31:17 PM
> Subject: [USMA:37870] Re: Drives me crazy!
> 
> Dear Jason, Richard, and All,
> 
> One issue that you may not be conversant with is that it seems to be the
> intent of the National Geographic Society to set the standards for geography
> education all over the world. I quote from their web site:
> 
> A Message From Gilbert M. Grosvenor, Chairman of the Board of the National
> Geographic Society.
> It is my pleasure to present Xpeditions to the teachers, students, and
> families, studying geography worldwide on the Web.
> 
> For further details of their education policy, see:
> http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/standards/
> and
> http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/standards/matrix.html
> 
> On the issue of "greenhouse gasses" instead of "greenhouse gases?"
> You might like to review the article, 'A word about global warming' at
> http://www.metricationmatters.com/articles where it's fifth from the top.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pat Naughtin
> PO Box 305 Belmont 3216
> Geelong, Australia
> 61 3 5241 2008
> 
> Pat Naughtin is manager of http://www.metricationmatters.com
> <http://www.metricationmatters.com/>  an internet website that primarily
> focuses on the many issues, methods and processes that individuals, groups,
> companies, and nations use when upgrading to the metric system. You can
> contact Pat Naughtin at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> On 2007 01 26 2:59 AM, "James Jason Wentworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265>
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265>


Reply via email to