True, it's not even close; that's why I said "ish." But, well, I don't really know where I'm going with this. I'll just stick with meters. Luckily they're the same everywhere.
--- On Sun, 1/11/09, Bill Potts <[email protected]> wrote: From: Bill Potts <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:42304] Re: the metric system, bureaucracy, and, uh, sodomy? To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 4:37 AM David: In the UK, a pole was expressed in terms of yards -- 5.5 to be exact (i.e., as you said, 16.5 feet). A cricket pitch is exactly 4 poles in length (22 yards). In the 1940s, the back of our exercise books in elementary school provided information on several Imperial units. For pole, it said, "1 rod, pole or perch = 5½ yards." 16.5 feet isn't approximately 10 feet. It's not even close (proportionally). Bill Bill Potts WFP Consulting Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 19:51 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:42301] Re: the metric system, bureaucracy, and, uh, sodomy? Actually, a pole is close to 10 feet (ish). I received a book for Christmas called "Measure for Measure." It includes thousands of different measurements and ways to convert them, usually into metric. The authors are definitely pro-metric and include a lengthy section on the metric system in the beginning. Anyway, it lists all the measurements, and the pole is in there. It says a pole is about 16.500 033 international feet, and 16.5 US survey feet. So close to 10. Not sure exactly where the saying came from, though. This is such a great little book. Just for fun: 1 poisson (France) is 0.116 liters 1 khub (Laos) is 20 centimeters 1 metical (Tunisia) is 3.936 grams 1 metze (Hungary) is 53.3 liters This just highlights the measurement problem even more. It's not just the English system that is all over the place, it's every other system ever created. But it's still interesting for historical purposes. --- On Sun, 1/11/09, Bill Potts <[email protected]> wrote: From: Bill Potts <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:42300] Re: the metric system, bureaucracy, and, uh, sodomy? To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 3:37 AM Oh, I knew a pole was not ten feet. However, my mind just went off on a tangent. Brain fart. Bill Bill Potts WFP Consulting Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:14 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:42294] Re: the metric system, bureaucracy, and, uh, sodomy? I forgot about the pole as a unit of measure. But I think they were referring to the "10-foot pole" saying, since 10 feet is 3.048 meters. I was just joking about soft metrication. Had that been some kind of product or good, they would round it down to a nice 3 meters. --- On Sat, 1/10/09, Bill Potts <[email protected]> wrote: From: Bill Potts <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:42290] Re: the metric system, bureaucracy, and, uh, sodomy? To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 6:53 PM As a unit of measure, the pole would disappear completely (although I think it probably already has). "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" should remain, unaltered, as the metaphor it always was, along with "seven-league boots" and non-metaphorical names like inch worm. Idiots like Hannity can't see beyond conversion tables and don't (or won't) understand that, in any case, there's no point it trying to convert rough estimates using absolute precision. My suggestion that he (and others like him) won't understand it is because he's simply a blow-hard alarmist who will say anything, however stupid, to make (or believe he's making) his point. Bill Bill Potts WFP Consulting Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 10:18 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:42288] Re: the metric system, bureaucracy, and, uh, sodomy? Yeah, I saw that. That's such a shame, because they're really grasping at straws. The metric system is fine in day-to-day life. People think meters are too big? Every person in every other country would think feet are too small. And if metrication were done correctly the pole would be rounded down to 3 meters. ;) People always tell me that we shouldn't transition because people don't want it, but I say that people don't know what they want. If people were educated about the metric system, and I mean everyone and not just students, then the stigma would go away. --- On Sat, 1/10/09, Victor Jockin <[email protected]> wrote: From: Victor Jockin <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:42287] Re: the metric system, bureaucracy, and, uh, sodomy? To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 6:07 PM Here's another amusing one that I found on the Hannity forum that Paul mentioned a while back. Maybe some of you saw it: Every country that uses metrics is either Socialist, Fascist or Communist. I don't want to give up our Republican form of government just so some engineers don't have to use a calculator. Metricfied expressions like: "I wouldn't touch that with a 3.048 meter pole" doesn't make sense and seems dumb to say. What about membership in the "1760 Meter High Club"? It sounds stupid! Say NO to metrics! There's a pretty strong positive relationship between support for metrication and educational attainment. Also, social conservatives are generally fearful of instability or change. Those two attributes -- low intelligence, and a belief the world is full of scary people who must be stopped -- produces some hilarious prose. Now if only there were fewer such people out there. From: Paul Trusten Sent: 01/10/2009 9:30 AM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:42286] the metric system, bureaucracy, and, uh, sodomy? What we'll be confronting as U.S. metrication approaches--extracted from a corner of Facebook: WHY PEOPLE HATE IT There is a good reason why people only adopt the metric system when they are forced to by unjust, bureaucratic governments: Because it is inferior, for day-to-day use. Systems which naturally evolved for the convenience of the user are almost always better than systems set up by ivory tower academics, and this is a perfect example of that. Virginia D. Templeton wrote at 3:34pm on January 6th, 2009 The metric system is of the Devil. It was, after all, created by a cabal of God-hating French sodomites to make their genitalia sound bigger when bragging to potential same-sex "lovers" with the hope of picking them up for a night of wicked, debauched, feces-smeared buggery in the back room of some rat-infested "fromagerie." God hates it. I just thought I'd offer this up, because there are a lot of people in the U.S. who missed, or preferred to miss, the entire 1970s U.S. metrication movement, and will find 21st-century metrication just as objectionable, with the old religious and armchair-mathematics objections resurfacing. Unfortunately, "metric system" is a phrase that is still used either as a threat or as a joke among Americans. We shall need strong leadership to take us to our goal. Paul Trusten, R.Ph. Public Relations Director U.S. Metric Association, Inc. www.metric.org 3609 Caldera Blvd. Apt. 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 US +1(432)528-7724 [email protected]
