Which publication are we talking about here? Or have I not recieved the previous correspondence?
Mike Payne > On 8 Nov 2021, at 01:09, Hillger,Donald <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Stan for responding. > > I urge everyone who sees this to reply and support a more-logical Celsius > scale. This is one of those things USMA members and USMA listserver > subscribers can do to support the metric cause. They need to hear from > metric supporters to let them know that not everyone is ok with Fahrenheit. > > Don Hillger > USMA President > > From: USMA <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Stanislav Jakuba > Sent: Sunday, 7 November, 2021 09:11 > To: Sushil Kanwar <[email protected]>; Lazar Pevac > <[email protected]>; Eric Guyer <[email protected]>; U.S. Metric > Association <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA 1823] Fahrenheit > > This Sunday paper again promotes Fahrenheit. I wrote the following in > response: > I enjoy reading your columns (Sunday HC). Except this Sunday when you state: > ".... Celsius to stay in the science". > I wonder what it is that "... makes it more sensible in the science?" > > Perhaps you mean the Kelvin scale, because the Celsius scale is certainly > "sensible" to just about everybody in the world outside the US. And you know > that, of course. Everybody is familiar with water. Setting on the > approximation of 0 and 100 scale is apparently more convenient than > alternatives, Fahrenheit included. > > With the best wishes, > _______________________________________________ > 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
