Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?This thread needs to d...
Elton: This thread needs to die...NOW Be strong - I took it off-list last night. Gregory
Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?This threadneeds to die NOW
This thread needs to die...NOW Elton __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ? etc., etc.,etc.
Hello Jerry and list! This is common knowledge, You can read all about this in the first half of a great book. That would be the Old Testament of the Holy Bible! You might want to pick up a copy if you don't already own one! It is a best seller! Thanks, Tom The proudest member of the IMCA 6168 - Original Message - From: Jerry A. Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:39 PM Subject: Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ? etc., etc.,etc. > Folks, > > Since we seem to have morphed off into anthropology, genealogy, sulking, > skulking, and Rosie > resigning from the list again, and heaven only knows what else to > follow, here's an item of > 'breaking news' that is both relevant and timely to our new 'off-topic' > subject. It's interesting, too. > > The following is the blurb from the newsstory: > > "New research suggests the human race was nearly wiped out 70,000 years > ago, when a crisis reduced > the population to about 2,000 people. The theory has reinvigorated the > debate on whether humans really > did come 'Out of Africa', or whether the species evolved in little > pockets around the globe." > > /Adapted from a report for ABC radio's 'PM' program./ > > http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/s876996.htm > > In order to get back 'on topic', I'm now wondering whether or not the > homo sapiens' close brush with > extinction might have had anything to do with meteorites, asteroids, > meteoroids, comets, meteors, death > stars, and/or alien attacks. That should cover relevancy! > > 'Crawled out of the Odessa crater' Jerry (and may soon crawl back in) > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > >> The most recent data I have seen shows in theory that ALL living > >> modern humans can trace their existence back to no more than 5 > >> individual females and no more that 30 individual males. > > > > > > > > Speculation from the really exotic all the way down to perfectly > > plausible scientific projections are a lot of fun to bat back and > > forth, but for all practical purposes, it seems to me that the > > primitive, boring procedure of tracing actual familial lines and > > figuring out who is demonstrably related to whom is hardly obsolete. > > Sure, we can all come from the same DNA source and we can all be > > related to each other if we try hard enough, through clever wordplay > > or speculative, slightly massaged (perhaps) science, just as > > meteorites COULD very well take forms other than those we currently > > recognize. Maybe there are meteorites that look just like ping-pong > > paddles and are made of brie cheese. But if we're just talking about > > practical, day-to-day genealogy rather than expansive theoretical > > canvasses, surely it's still more useful to base it in empirical > > evidencerather like using meteoritical science to identify > > meteorites, rather than posing lots of cool-sounding but unanswerable > > possibilities. ;-) > > > >Gregory > > > > > > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ? etc., etc.,etc.
Folks, Since we seem to have morphed off into anthropology, genealogy, sulking, skulking, and Rosie resigning from the list again, and heaven only knows what else to follow, here's an item of 'breaking news' that is both relevant and timely to our new 'off-topic' subject. It's interesting, too. The following is the blurb from the newsstory: "New research suggests the human race was nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, when a crisis reduced the population to about 2,000 people. The theory has reinvigorated the debate on whether humans really did come 'Out of Africa', or whether the species evolved in little pockets around the globe." /Adapted from a report for ABC radio's 'PM' program./ http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/s876996.htm In order to get back 'on topic', I'm now wondering whether or not the homo sapiens' close brush with extinction might have had anything to do with meteorites, asteroids, meteoroids, comets, meteors, death stars, and/or alien attacks. That should cover relevancy! 'Crawled out of the Odessa crater' Jerry (and may soon crawl back in) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The most recent data I have seen shows in theory that ALL living modern humans can trace their existence back to no more than 5 individual females and no more that 30 individual males. Speculation from the really exotic all the way down to perfectly plausible scientific projections are a lot of fun to bat back and forth, but for all practical purposes, it seems to me that the primitive, boring procedure of tracing actual familial lines and figuring out who is demonstrably related to whom is hardly obsolete. Sure, we can all come from the same DNA source and we can all be related to each other if we try hard enough, through clever wordplay or speculative, slightly massaged (perhaps) science, just as meteorites COULD very well take forms other than those we currently recognize. Maybe there are meteorites that look just like ping-pong paddles and are made of brie cheese. But if we're just talking about practical, day-to-day genealogy rather than expansive theoretical canvasses, surely it's still more useful to base it in empirical evidencerather like using meteoritical science to identify meteorites, rather than posing lots of cool-sounding but unanswerable possibilities. ;-) Gregory __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
The most recent data I have seen shows in theory that ALL living modern humans can trace their existence back to no more than 5 individual females and no more that 30 individual males. Speculation from the really exotic all the way down to perfectly plausible scientific projections are a lot of fun to bat back and forth, but for all practical purposes, it seems to me that the primitive, boring procedure of tracing actual familial lines and figuring out who is demonstrably related to whom is hardly obsolete. Sure, we can all come from the same DNA source and we can all be related to each other if we try hard enough, through clever wordplay or speculative, slightly massaged (perhaps) science, just as meteorites COULD very well take forms other than those we currently recognize. Maybe there are meteorites that look just like ping-pong paddles and are made of brie cheese. But if we're just talking about practical, day-to-day genealogy rather than expansive theoretical canvasses, surely it's still more useful to base it in empirical evidencerather like using meteoritical science to identify meteorites, rather than posing lots of cool-sounding but unanswerable possibilities. ;-) Gregory
Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
Gregory, You do not strike me as someone that would drink his own bathwateryou are much too discriminating for that...maybe the bathwater of a "select" individualJust kidding. Genealogy and ancestry gives humans a line to trace heritage, kinship and a connection to the past. Maybe it is some deep rooted "need" that came from our earlier times when survival was a lot less guaranteed and having a past showed success of oneself and the ability of ones family to survive and create more successful individuals. The most recent data I have seen shows in theory that ALL living modern humans can trace their existence back to no more than 5 individual females and no more that 30 individual males. The males are all from the tribe in Africa that uses the strange clicks to communicate in their language. In all I believe there are only a few hundred of them alive that possess the unique marker. Genealogy is still cool. My wife is related to William Cody (Buffalo Bill). The Cody Family has almost every individual in their family tree traced and publishes a huge registry. Mark - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 5:09 PM Subject: Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ? they are all related in their basic DNA. So it is possible at a very basic level that they are all related.OK, then if that's the case, isn't it rather pointless for any one person to specify ancestors, since everyone ELSE is related to them, too? Or am I drinking my own bath water? ;-) Gregory
Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
Hi, On average, if you pick any two human individuals, each from any random location on the planet, and test the degree of relatedness of their DNA, you will find they're about 13th cousins. That's with widely assorted human specimens, like comparing an Australian aboriginal with an Irish cop from the Bronx... On the other hand, if you select individuals from a restricted area with a fairly homogeneous population, like Ireland, you will average a relationship ranging from 5th to 7th cousins. (This would be ideal spot to insert a joke about selecting individuals from eastern Kentucky or Arkansas, but I'm not going to do it. Huh-uh, not me.) What this implies is that modern humans are a recent and hence very uniform species. Two mice picked at random would show 10 to 12 times the genetic divergence of randomly selected human beings. And still, you know, all those mice look alike to me Sterling K. Webb -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> they are all related in their basic DNA. So it is possible at >> a very basic level that they are all related. > > OK, then if that's the case, isn't it rather pointless for any > one person to specify ancestors, since everyone ELSE is related > to them, too? Or am I drinking my own bath water? ;-) > >Gregory __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
they are all related in their basic DNA. So it is possible at a very basic level that they are all related. OK, then if that's the case, isn't it rather pointless for any one person to specify ancestors, since everyone ELSE is related to them, too? Or am I drinking my own bath water? ;-) Gregory
Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
With only 5 individual identified Mitochondrial DNA pairs in the human species(thats the kind you get from your mom) they are all related in their basic DNA. So it is possible at a very basic level that they are all related. Mark M. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 2:53 PM Subject: Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ? Please unsubscribe me from this List. Sorry to have offended all.Not sure where the "offended" part comes in here, Rosie. I'm somewhat of a genealogical student of European Royalty, and I was just merely stating that it simply doesn't work, to claim that William the Conqueror, Cleopatra, Princess Di, David, Solomon, Eleanor of Acquitaine, Lady Godiva, the Plantagenets, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Lighthorse Harry Lee, James Monroe, Richard Nixon, Robert E. Lee, Lady Godiva, the Pharaohs, Richard the Lionhearted, Ptolemy, and King Olaf are all related to each other. There's no "offense" taken, it's just that such a claim is sorta the genealogical equivalent of the Frass Meteorite. ;-) If you're just kidding around with it, fine, but please don't ask anyone to actually believe it. Don't go anywhere on MY account. And speaking of meteorites.;-) Gregory
Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You said Lady Godiva twice Gregory :^) Rosie, are you related to BOTH of them? KIDDING..kidding, kidding, kidding - please, no one go all squirelly. Gregory
Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
You said Lady Godiva twice Gregory :^) Well, I guess I had that image in my head more than any of the others. ;-)
Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
You said Lady Godiva twice Gregory :^)--Rob Wesel--We are the music makers...and we are the dreamers of the dreams.Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 2:53 PM Subject: Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ? Please unsubscribe me from this List. Sorry to have offended all.Not sure where the "offended" part comes in here, Rosie. I'm somewhat of a genealogical student of European Royalty, and I was just merely stating that it simply doesn't work, to claim that William the Conqueror, Cleopatra, Princess Di, David, Solomon, Eleanor of Acquitaine, Lady Godiva, the Plantagenets, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Lighthorse Harry Lee, James Monroe, Richard Nixon, Robert E. Lee, Lady Godiva, the Pharaohs, Richard the Lionhearted, Ptolemy, and King Olaf are all related to each other. There's no "offense" taken, it's just that such a claim is sorta the genealogical equivalent of the Frass Meteorite. ;-) If you're just kidding around with it, fine, but please don't ask anyone to actually believe it. Don't go anywhere on MY account. And speaking of meteorites.;-) Gregory
Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
Please unsubscribe me from this List. Sorry to have offended all. Oh, c'mon Rosie. This is hardly the first time for this scenario, so how about if we all just cut to the now-familiar chase: everyone (including me) pleads with you to stay, and you do. Less bandwidth. OK? Gregory
Re: Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
Please unsubscribe me from this List. Sorry to have offended all. Not sure where the "offended" part comes in here, Rosie. I'm somewhat of a genealogical student of European Royalty, and I was just merely stating that it simply doesn't work, to claim that William the Conqueror, Cleopatra, Princess Di, David, Solomon, Eleanor of Acquitaine, Lady Godiva, the Plantagenets, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Lighthorse Harry Lee, James Monroe, Richard Nixon, Robert E. Lee, Lady Godiva, the Pharaohs, Richard the Lionhearted, Ptolemy, and King Olaf are all related to each other. There's no "offense" taken, it's just that such a claim is sorta the genealogical equivalent of the Frass Meteorite. ;-) If you're just kidding around with it, fine, but please don't ask anyone to actually believe it. Don't go anywhere on MY account. And speaking of meteorites.;-) Gregory
Please Unsubcribe... [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
Please unsubscribe me from this List. Sorry to have offended all. Thank you. [EMAIL PROTECTED]LT Colonel Rosemary T Hackney ( Rosie ) > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: 2003/06/10 Tue PM 04:27:40 EDT > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: "Re: [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ? > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > William the Conqueror ( he was a granddaddy up the line ) and so was a > > King named Olaf ( I think he was Danish) ( pretty much Viking I would say )as > > well as some of those Louises and those Plantagenet fellows. Alexander the > > Great and Ptolemy and a couple of pharoahs. Now you know why I am so mixed up.. > > > > Rosie - > > The notion that you are related to all these folks (combined with past > references to Lady Godiva and Princess Di and various others) means that they must > ipso facto be related to each other. It would be hard to avoid some pesky > genealogical problems here, unless you are just making the claims in fun. > >Gregory > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: William the Conqueror ( he was a granddaddy up the line ) and so was a King named Olaf ( I think he was Danish) ( pretty much Viking I would say )as well as some of those Louises and those Plantagenet fellows. Alexander the Great and Ptolemy and a couple of pharoahs. Now you know why I am so mixed up.. Rosie - The notion that you are related to all these folks (combined with past references to Lady Godiva and Princess Di and various others) means that they must ipso facto be related to each other. It would be hard to avoid some pesky genealogical problems here, unless you are just making the claims in fun. Gregory
Re: "Re: [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
Gregory, Would this not (if fact) also directly imply that Rosie and Sir Rob may in fact be "kissin' cousins"? More research would definitely be in order. Steve --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > William the Conqueror ( he was a granddaddy up the line ) and so > was a > > King named Olaf ( I think he was Danish) ( pretty much Viking I > would say )as > > well as some of those Louises and those Plantagenet fellows. > Alexander the > > Great and Ptolemy and a couple of pharoahs. Now you know why I am > so mixed up.. > > > > Rosie - > > The notion that you are related to all these folks (combined with > past > references to Lady Godiva and Princess Di and various others) means > that they must > ipso facto be related to each other. It would be hard to avoid > some pesky > genealogical problems here, unless you are just making the claims > in fun. > >Gregory > = Steve Witt IMCA #9020 http://www.meteoritecollectors.org __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: "Re: [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: William the Conqueror ( he was a granddaddy up the line ) and so was a King named Olaf ( I think he was Danish) ( pretty much Viking I would say )as well as some of those Louises and those Plantagenet fellows. Alexander the Great and Ptolemy and a couple of pharoahs. Now you know why I am so mixed up.. Rosie - The notion that you are related to all these folks (combined with past references to Lady Godiva and Princess Di and various others) means that they must ipso facto be related to each other. It would be hard to avoid some pesky genealogical problems here, unless you are just making the claims in fun. Gregory
Re: "Re: [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
LOL.. now that you mention William the Conqueror ( he was a granddaddy up the line ) and so was a King named Olaf ( I think he was Danish) ( pretty much Viking I would say )as well as some of those Louises and those Plantagenet fellows. Alexander the Great and Ptolemy and a couple of pharoahs. Now you know why I am so mixed up.. But anywho.. I thought avoirdupois meant "pound" or the FPS system as opposed to MKS/cgs (metric ) Rosie ---Original Message--- From: Sterling K. Webb Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 00:31:01 To: rochette Cc: meteorite-list Subject: "Re: [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ? Hi, Pierre, Of course, Early Middle English is not "just a British expression forged to look like French," but French as spoken by the British who were at that time French, at least the moneyed (and language determining) classes, descendants of the French who followed Guillaume de Normandie (whom the British now call William the Conqueror) to England after he defeated Harold Godwinson for the throne, Harold and his army being exhausted from having defeated another Viking invasion (this time from Norway) just three weeks earlier. I say "another" Viking invasion because Guillaume and all his French followers __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
"Re: [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
Hi, Pierre, Of course, Early Middle English is not "just a British expression forged to look like French," but French as spoken by the British who were at that time French, at least the moneyed (and language determining) classes, descendants of the French who followed Guillaume de Normandie (whom the British now call William the Conqueror) to England after he defeated Harold Godwinson for the throne, Harold and his army being exhausted from having defeated another Viking invasion (this time from Norway) just three weeks earlier. I say "another" Viking invasion because Guillaume and all his French followers were actually Vikings themselves, descendants of the Danes and Jutes who took Paris in 845 (or was it 945?) and were bribed off by giving them Normandie. And, of course, the English that these Danish French Vikings conquered were also themselves Danish English Vikings (as well as Jutes and Angles and Saxons, all from the same neighborhood). Hey! And people call the U.S.A. a melting pot! Not confusing enough? At that point, when Guillaume (William) takes over, English is French, identical in every way with the French spoken in France at the time. This would mean that the "remote tribes" of which you speak are therefore remote tribes of Frenchmen. Of course, a millennium of separated linguistic evolution has seriously disturbed this former unity of tongues! English speakers of today are thoroughly baffled by the English of even half a millennium ago, much less a full millennium. To experience a similar bafflement, go to a university library and ask for a copy of the original text of that 10th century masterpiece of French literature, Raoul de Cambrai. Pretty baffling, oui? That neither "aveir de peis" nor "avoir de pois" is correct Modern French is a result of the evolution of the French language over a millennium (at least up to the point when the Academie decided to freeze it into Mandarin-like immobility). And while many languages resist the intrusion of words, terms and expressions from other languages, English is essentially polyglot by nature and delights in collecting and preserving words, antique or not. There are English words whose roots can be traced to their origins in more than 200 other languages. English even has a word of long standing derived from the Sumerian of 7000 years ago, the only existing language to preserve a Sumerian word. (The word is "abyss" from the Sumerian ABZU.) No one knows how it got here... Besides the convenience of the powers of ten, what the metric system brought was uniformity of measures, needed because virtually every major trading city and district in Europe formerly had its own weights and measures that were different from every other district's! "Merchant, this piece of cloth is short by half a foot!" --- "No, My Lord, these are Flemish feet, which, as is well-known, are shorter than London feet by the width of two barleycorns each!" At least, a meter is a meter is a meter everywhere! Sterling K. Webb --- rochette wrote: > Sterling wrote: > >Hi, Tom aka James, > > > > "Avoirdupois" is the fancy French term for common British measures > .. > > Well list I object! > > this is not genuine french, just a british expression forged to look > like french. In the Web page: > http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2000/08/29.html > you read: > > avoirdupois is from Middle English avoir de pois, goods sold by > weight, from Old French aveir de peis, literally, goods of weight, > from aveir, property, goods (from aveir, to have, from Latin habere, > to have, to hold, to possess property) + de, from (from the Latin) + > peis, weight (from Latin pensum, weight). > > Avoirdupois weight is a system of weights based on a pound containing > 16 ounces or 7,000 grains. Compare apothecaries' weight and troy > weight. > > The correct French could be "avoir du poids", which in fact describe > someone suffering obesity or being important in the society! In > french there is no such term "avoirdupois" to describe prescientific > units still in use by remote tribes who have still not taken profit > of the second leg of arithmetic (multiplication, the first being > addition) when making measurements. We just use the local name. By > the way in latin languages thinking and weighing have the same > origin. Interesting, isn't it? > -- > Pierre __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
Sterling wrote: Hi, Tom aka James, "Avoirdupois" is the fancy French term for common British measures .. Well list I object! this is not genuine french, just a british expression forged to look like french. In the Web page: http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2000/08/29.html you read: avoirdupois is from Middle English avoir de pois, goods sold by weight, from Old French aveir de peis, literally, goods of weight, from aveir, property, goods (from aveir, to have, from Latin habere, to have, to hold, to possess property) + de, from (from the Latin) + peis, weight (from Latin pensum, weight). Avoirdupois weight is a system of weights based on a pound containing 16 ounces or 7,000 grains. Compare apothecaries' weight and troy weight. The correct French could be "avoir du poids", which in fact describe someone suffering obesity or being important in the society! In french there is no such term "avoirdupois" to describe prescientific units still in use by remote tribes who have still not taken profit of the second leg of arithmetic (multiplication, the first being addition) when making measurements. We just use the local name. By the way in latin languages thinking and weighing have the same origin. Interesting, isn't it? -- Pierre __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
Hi Tom the use of avoirdupois measure is almost restricted to things other than rock. What is common is the gram. 1 ounce avoir. equals 28.35 grams, 1 ounce troy equals 31.103 grams. What we use is grams and kilograms (and of course, some sellers use pounds to help those who can't quite grasp metric). Now, I understand that the opal dealers use troy ounces in Australia, and that may be a standard outside of North America (or better stated as a convention and not a rule) since, as defined by the gemmological groups, one ounce equals 141 carats for gem weights (this is a standard now, they decided to round it off to an whole number as it used to be 141.75 carats to an ounce) and if you multiply 5 carats to a gram times 28.35 grams to an ounce you get 141.75 carats. So, this standard leaves out troy weights (which are typically used for precious metals) altogether. Thats the history in a nutshell. So, basicly, to make it simple after all that, we don't use either really, just grams and kilograms and the ounces are left out of the picture just so there isn't a problem. Mark - Original Message - From: Tom aka James Knudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: meteorite-list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 10:28 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ? > Hello List, This is meteorite related, it may not seem to be, but take it > from me it is! I am so confused, do we use Avoirdupois or what? I was doing > a conversion and was given a few choices and do not know for sure? Can some > one explain this to me? > Thanks, Tom > The proudest member of the IMCA 6168 > > > > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
Hi, Tom aka James, "Avoirdupois" is the fancy French term for common British measures (like pounds and ounces and gallons and miles and inches, and also less common ones like ells and tuns and drams and rods and chains) which are called common British measures except for the fact that the common British don't use them either or at least they're not supposed to (an English butcher was arrested for selling meat by the pound) as opposed the metric system which all science of whatever kind including meteoritics uses and has used for the last fifty years or so as well as all of the rest of the world uses for everything except when they go into a MacDonald's and don't ask for 5/44ths kilo'er with cheese just like nobody buys a 1/28 ounce micro of their favorite meteorite, so, yes, "we" meaning the USA use "Avoirdupois" in everyday life but not in science, although it is true that Richard Nixon planned to convert the entire USA officially and universally to the metric system, the remains of which intention still survive in the two-liter bottle of soda and the bureaucratic insistance in labelling all food packages in grams but not much else, but it never happened because Nixon failed to measure up in either system. Hey, I sure hope that explains everything... Sterling K. Webb -- Tom aka James Knudson wrote: > Hello List, This is meteorite related, it may not seem to be, but take it > from me it is! I am so confused, do we use Avoirdupois or what? I was doing > a conversion and was given a few choices and do not know for sure? Can some > one explain this to me? > Thanks, Tom > The proudest member of the IMCA 6168 > > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] avoirdupois ?
Hello List, This is meteorite related, it may not seem to be, but take it from me it is! I am so confused, do we use Avoirdupois or what? I was doing a conversion and was given a few choices and do not know for sure? Can some one explain this to me? Thanks, Tom The proudest member of the IMCA 6168 __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
