To clarify: what I'm curious about is what most people in Australia in the
absence of a particular directive (like the one to use mm in engineering
drawings or cm in the textile industry) "chose" to use in their daily lives
when describing lengths that often are expressed with cm in other metric
countries.
Ezra
-------------- Original message ----------------------
>
>
> On 2/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Harry Wyeth" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:06:17 +0000
> Subject: [USMA:37956] mm vs. cm
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
--- Begin Message ---
|
Mike,
The comma is the normal decimal separator over the
whole world except for the Anglo-Saxon
nations. The SI manual pointedly uses the comma in the French text
and the dot in the English text as a decimal separator. I in fact prefer
the comma as it is less likely to be missed.
If you have a PC, try playing around with the
international settings and you will be surprised at the variations used for
decimal separators, representation of the date etc around the
globe.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:47
AM
Subject: [USMA:37958] Re: mm vs. cm
I don't care what they use as long as they get rid of the comma and use a
decimal point to denote tenths of a centimeter. I also noticed today that all
of my dress belts for my pants are marked in inches and centimeters which is a
first for me. I don't believe I've ever seen anything clothing related marked
in metric anything :).
Mike
On 2/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
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
---------- Forwarded message
----------
From: "Harry Wyeth" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed,
14 Feb 2007 04:06:17 +0000
Subject: [USMA:37956] mm vs. cm
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
--
"The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
|
--- End Message ---
