John,
Your statement that millimetres (for personal heights) have the
weakest argument is contradicted by your own admission of needing to
waffle between centimetres and metres.
On Mar 12 , at 9:01 AM, John M. Steele wrote:
I waffle on whether meters or centimeters is the better choice, but
I think millimeters has the weakest argument.
Refraining from using the centimetre helps you stop waffling. If your
choice is solely between metres and millimetres you can choose metres
(which you apparently prefer over centimetres). Thus, for you, it
eliminates your "problem" of having to choose (the waffling).
That's part of the the argument in favor of using only the prefixes
that are multiples of 1000. It usually eliminates the need to make
choices between one unit size and another, since the 1000 ratio makes
it rather clear which one is more convenient.
When choices need to be made, because of the use of two units whose
sizes are not far enough part, some people will choose one and other
people will choose the other. This leads to the unfortunate situation
where they misunderstand each other because of of the use of two
different units simultaneously. SI makes it possible to do this more
easily than when the two units are a metric unit and an Olde English
unit, but it still a nuisance to need to do it at all.
There's nothing strange or difficult about using millimetres to
measure personal height as apposed to measuring it in centimetres,
other than the fact that it is an unfamiliar practice "because we have
always done it that way".
Bill Hooper
1810 mm tall (or 1.81 m, if you prefer)
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
==========================
SImplification Begins With SI.
==========================
