Ezra, I just read a definitive statement on Australia's unit practices. I think it is worth posting in full. I'll post it in the next day or two. It shows great flexibility and common sense.
I am going to visit Australia from 17 to 30 March. I plan on writing an article for "Metric Today" describing the metric aspect of my visit. While I am there, I shall be watching for answers to your specific question about popular metric usage. Paul Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > 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?" > > > -- Paul Trusten, R.Ph. Public Relations Director U.S. Metric Association, Inc. Phone (432)528-7724 www.metric.org 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.grandecom.net/~trusten
