Yes I have. Jerry
________________________________ From: Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 11:56:28 AM Subject: [USMA:44156] RE: Caribbean You haven't been to the caribbean then? ________________________________ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:45:36 -0700 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [USMA:44145] RE: Caribbean To: [email protected]; [email protected] One point that needs to be addressed here is what is meant by mixed. Mixed doesn't mean much unless we can state how much of each item is represented in the mixture. I'm sure no matter where you go in the world, you will find a mixture of metric and pre-metric. But upon closer examination the mixture would be 90 % metric and 10 % pre-metric. The pre-metric is most likely almost hidden from view and one has to look very deep to find it. I'm sure Pat can tell us that the pint is still spoken in pubs in Australia, but no one would use it to mean a specific amount and thus the term has become generic. Also consider Europe (and possibly elsewhere) where the pound is just a another name for 500 g. The same is obviously true of all pre-metric units. The names survive, but there is no real substance behind the names. Jerry ________________________________ From: Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 10:02:08 AM Subject: [USMA:44145] RE: Caribbean The Caribbean I have seen is mixed or less metric than even the UK. This applies to St Lucia, Grenada, Bahamas, Barbados (although their road signs, if you can find them, are metric), Antigua and Montserrat. Places I have been to or regularly go to. Unfortunately sometimes assumptions are made where the best basis for fact is literally going to these places (hence John P Schweisthal [Jerry] never having visited the UK for example).. Also there is a common mistake to only include "the big ones" when talking commonwealth - from experience the smaller players are more interesting (and house the most friendliest people on earth too!)* Steve * Disclaimer -this is not to say that people in the big Commonwealth nations are not friendly etc - although this one wants to leave one of them for a smaller one!! ________________________________ From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] Subject: [USMA:44141] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:49:53 +0000 Can I just intersperse some comments in these statements? Some are based on my own experience, but some are also based on outside observation during the time I lived in Canada. If anything I say is incorrect, corrections welcome! I confess that some Google research would have been advisable, but I am away this weekend, so am getting this off before we leave. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeremiah MacGregor To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:55 AM Subject: [USMA:44139] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors I believe that the UK got as far as it did for reasons that don't apply to the US. 1.) They are close to Europe and do a lot of business with Europe and needed to be on the same page. It would not be feasible for the UK to have a different measurement system then their trading partners nor for the population not to be able to function on the job that produces the goods that will be exported. Basically true, but I seem to remember that, in 1965 when the decision was officially made to go metric, there was a general consensus that metrication was the way the world was going (or was already there), and that this was not just a Europe thing. Britain has always been a world-wide trading nation, and in the 1950s and '60s, coined the slogan "Export or die". Going metric was part of the awareness that the country depended on world-wide trade in order to pay off its war debts. 2.) The British Commonwealth is practically fully metric and that too would have an effect on what measurements the UK uses. Australia was probably the first Commonwealth country to go metric, but the UK's decision in 1965 preceded many other Commonwealth countries, including Canada, South Africa (which was part of the Commonwealth), other African nations (e.g. Kenya), the whole of the Caribbean, what is now Malaysia, and many other places too numerous to mention. 3.) The UK is small in comparison to its trading partners compared to the US. True, although this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back in 1965, the UK had quite a prominent position in terms of world trade. 4.) The US is mostly isolated from the rest of the world. Yes, very true unfortunately! Something that President Obama is aware of? ("The world has changed, and we must change with it.") 5.) US trade is virtually one way. The US imports produced goods, but does not export. As long as the US can survive being the "ultimate consumer" and can continue to run high trade deficits then there is no reason for the US to metricate. I once read that 90 to 95% of all US-based economic activity (i.e. production of goods and services, but excluding imports and other off-shore activities) remains inside its borders, which is far higher than anywhere else on earth. That was some years ago, and I would imagine that it is no better today. But, this system is highly strained. In the news recently, China has openly defied the US by questioning the role of the dollar in international trade and calling for a basket of currencies for the world to use instead of the dollar. Sooner then Washington and Wall Street realize, China will get its wish. The outcome will mean the US can no longer operate as the ultimate consumer and will be forced to run a more balanced economy. To do so, it will have to produce in order to trade for what others produce and in order for its goods to be accepted, it will have to show a willingness to cooperate and adopt the metric system. If memory serves correctly (and increasingly it doesn't as I get older!), the US was once quite open to producing for the world, and improving its world image. In 1971, I lived in Boston, MA, working alongside a local architecture practice on a major project (Tufts New England Medical Center), and remember all the roadsigns in the city, which were of European style (e.g. No Entry signs as a red disc with a horizontal white stripe, then unknown in the US; speed limit signs consisting of a white circle with a red band around the edge; etc). In talking to my architect colleague, he explained that America was very concerned with its image in the world, and this was part of that process (and being trialled in Boston). Also to be part of that process was conversion to the metric system (he was one of its promoters), and I guess what he said was borne out when the Metrication Board was established in 1975. It will be a very simple choice. Either adopt the metric system or be shut out. What choice will America make? The key is to get the American in the street to realise that such a choice has to be made. I would wager that most Americans still believe that the US doen't need to metricate, and that the rest of the world will just have to adapt to America's use of customary units. At what point will the (rude) awakening occur? - John F-L Jerry ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: U.S.. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:24:17 PM Subject: RE: [USMA:44135] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors All that being said, I'd be THRILLED if we in the US were as far along as the UK regarding metrication. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [USMA:44135] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors From: Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]> Date: Fri, March 27, 2009 8:20 pm To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Martin, Even though you are not American, there should be no reason you shouldn't contribute. We can learn a lot from you. We can learn from the British experience as to what does not work and to the Australian experience as to what works. I'm sure you have been a valuable asset in providing ideas for metrication in the US. However, there are those from the outside that do not belong. This forum does not need to hear the tired opinions of those who will use this forum against those who believe in metrication. Those opposed will come here appearing as angels of light but are in reality demons of darkness. This is a forum that promotes metrication and I'm sure you agree that to give voice to those that do is counter productive and in no way promotes metrication. I hope though that when you say you won't hold back, that you mean it enough to strike hard at those who will use this forum to spread their anti-metricisms even in a subtle form. Jerry ________________________________ Beyond Hotmail — see what else you can do with Windows Live. Find out more! ________________________________ Windows Live just got better. Find out more!
