I did not mean to imply that you don't know the difference, if that is how you
took it. But we, the US, use US units and trade in the Caribbean with people
who still use Imperial units. Due to subtle changes (eg, the inch definition
in terms of SI), some of those units are not exactly what they were back in the
Colonial period either. The US gallon is still 231 in³ (the old Queen Anne wine
gallon), but the inch isn't what it used to be. We need to be clear that they
are US units, currently defined and maintained by a US agency, NIST.
I agree that US Customary is "Some Old British Nonsense" but actually calling
them that adds to the potential for confusion with our trading partners and we
intend to keep calling them Customary.
Just as it is incorrect to call them "Freedom Units" (as some Americans do) it
is silly and confusing to call the WOMBAT, obsolete British units, or any other
silly name. At least, that's my view.
On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 6:43:35 AM EDT, Tom Wade
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2019-10-29 22:03, John Steele wrote:
Sorry, Tom, but I have to disagree.
Customary is NOT Imperial, there are several differences. ... I know they
are different. As I said,
Call it "British Colonial Measure" (to distinguish it from the British Imperial
system, that was a reform of 1824).
I don't recommend calling it "British Imperial" as this would be factually
inaccurate. I suggested "British Colonial" because it is different from
"British Imperial" but calling up images of the Colonial period, and
emphasising it is NOT an American system. Calling it "Customary" is OK too,
but I'd recommend not calling it "US" anything, as there are too many people
whose misguided patriotism will be triggered.
Tom Wade
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
USMA mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma
_______________________________________________
USMA mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma
