[USMA:37957] Re: mm vs. cm

[ezra . steinberg]

I'm wondering if our Australian folks can tell us what people Down Under prefer 
to use when talking about the height cleared by a high jumper or the length of 
skis.

Ezra

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Harry Wyeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I cast my vote for continued use of cm.  mm is useful, of course, depending 
> on 
> the size involved.  It's easy to say that a sliver in your finger is 3 mm 
> long, 
> but much more convenient to say your skis are 180 cm in length or that the 
> down 
> tube on your bike is 46 cm or that the high jumper cleared 195 cm.  My height 
> is 
> 176 cm, or "one seventy six".  People understand the differences between mm 
> and 
> cm, and I don't really think there is danger of confusion.  Using cm a lot 
> will 
> not delay whatever progress we may make in metrication in this country.
> 
> HARRY WYETH

--- Begin Message ---

I cast my vote for continued use of cm.  mm is useful, of course, depending on the size involved.  It's easy to say that a sliver in your finger is 3 mm long, but much more convenient to say your skis are 180 cm in length or that the down tube on your bike is 46 cm or that the high jumper cleared 195 cm.  My height is 176 cm, or "one seventy six".  People understand the differences between mm and cm, and I don't really think there is danger of confusion.  Using cm a lot will not delay whatever progress we may make in metrication in this country.   HARRY WYETH

--- End Message ---