I'd love to agree, but as a subscriber to Time magazine, I've noticed a
steady decrease in the metric content of the magazine, with the most recent
issues being completely devoid of any parenthetical metric that I was
accustomed to.  Scientific articles, ironically enough, have usually been
non-metric, which to say the least is pathetic.


On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Kilopascal <[email protected]> wrote:

> **
> Remek,
>
> I read the article, and even though it mocked the idea of the petitions
> and mentioned some of the petitions, it mentioned nothing about the
> petition to metricate.
>
> I would find it hard to believe that Time magazine would mock any push to
> metricate as it reports articles of scientific nature using metric units,
> at least as far as I know it still does.  It did so in the recent past.
> That would make time hypocritical.
>
> I'm curious though, has the White House been officially presented with the
> metric petition?  What has been their response?  If it hasn't, will it ever
> be?
>
> There are now just under 38 000.  Maybe if it could get 100 000, it might
> get someone's attention.
>
>
>
>  [USMA:52308] Metric Petition mentioned in this week's Time 
> magazine.<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22%5BUSMA%3A52308%5D+Metric+Petition+mentioned+in+this+week%27s+Time+magazine.%22>
>
> Remek 
> Kocz<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=from:%22Remek+Kocz%22>
>  Sun,
> 03 Feb 2013 14:32:21 
> -0800<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=date:20130203>
>
> This news falls most likely into the "bad news" category, but our metric
> system petition to the White House made the Time magazine.  I'm looking at
> the print edition right now and it is listed in a ticker at the foot of the
> page among other petitions, most of which fall shy of being ridiculous.  I
> have not yet read the accompanying article, but below is the link to the
> online version, which does not include to ticker.
>
> http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/31/we-the-people/?iid=sl-main-belt
>
>

Reply via email to