What is used on usps.com should be easily understood by people outside of this
forum. I am thinking about my wonderful neighbor Anna, who is 70 now and have
never used metric, haven't traveled abroad. I would not want to upset her. I
doubt she will ever use usps website, but the changes will eventually migrate
to the post office.
"Old" and "New" is simple enough, but sounds "too revolutionary". Maybe for
this particular form, "pound/ounces" and "kilograms/grams" without naming the
systems? then, change the order for this options in a couple of years, or based
on statistic from the page use ("most useful option comes first")
Natalie
________________________________
From: Henschel Mark <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 10:09 AM
Subject: [USMA:53201] Re: Metric / Imperial / "Standard"
Actually Louis Sokol was right when he called the system we use the junk
system. I use inch-pound system, basically because there is no Empire anymore
and also no customs houses.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Natalia Permiakova <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 6:16 pm
Subject: [USMA:53194] Re: Metric / Imperial / "Standard"
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
>
i think "US Customary" is better than "Imperial"
>
so, I like any of the options:
>
US Customary and Metric
>
or
US Customary and Standard (too good to be true to see it today on usps.com, in
reverse order - event better)
or
US Customary and The Rest of The World ( ;-) )
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: John M. Steele <[email protected]>
>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:41 PM
> Subject: [USMA:53186] Re: Metric / Imperial / "Standard"
>
>
Since the US system is unique, it needs a unique name. NIST uses the term,
U.S. Customary, so we ought to use it.
Seems to me that inch-pound is a rather generic term for any system that uses
inches and pounds. It could be applied as a "catch-all" to describe
commonality of US Customary, Imperial, and any related
> versions.
The US version is NOT Imperial as evidenced by the different gallon, bushel,
ton, and the lack of a stone. Imperial is a measurement system of the United
Kingdom, adapted from earlier systems in 1824. It was probably used by most
British Commonwealth countries before they went metric. NONE of the new 1824
definitions were adopted by the United States; it continued using various
> pre-Imperial units.
>
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:57 PM
> Subject: [USMA:53181] Re: Metric / Imperial / "Standard"
>
>
> Concerning Metric Pioneer's recent correspondence, I've always had a problem
> with what to call the U.S. measurements.
>
> Officially, the term "inch-pound" has been used. I don't care for that
> because it does not indicate clearly a measurement system. Moreover, it
> singles out only two measurements, whereas there are many in the "system."
>
> Another common term used is "U.S. Customary" (USC). Is this a good choice?
>
> Now "Imperial" is being recommended by some. Is this a good alternative? I
> suspect that most people would not connect "imperial" with the United States,
> perhaps Canada.
>
> I agree that "standard" is not a good choice at all. The standard should be
> SI metric.
>
> Paul Trusten and you other USMA officers out there, what is the current
> recommendation?
>
> Martin Morrison
> USMA "Metric Today" Columnist
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
