Hi,
The metric system became the International System in 1960, so that old terminology is out of date. Please change all metric system references in LC 44 to International System.
Do you think that calling it "International" rather than "metric" will make it more or less acceptable to an American audience ? The most common argument (and I use the term loosely) in negative feedback to metrication articles is basically down to the fact that it is foreign and un-American rather than a rational appraisal of the merits of the two systems. The term "international" only feeds the paranoia that something is being forced on Americans by a foreign power.
Rather than use an everybody-else-is-using-it-we-should-too argument, I suggest emphasizing the points below, as many people seem to see being different to everyone else as a virtue in itself, irrespective of whether the difference is better or worse.
- Americans were the first to deploy metric currency on a wide basis, even before the term 'metric' came about, so effectively the US was the first to metricate any unit of measure. It's an American idea that has caught on everywhere.
- Converting to metric saves money. Companies like Ford and IBM didn't do it for any other reason but the bottom line. Metricating the government should also save the tax payers money. Wouldn't this be a good idea ?
- Having a metric economy gives foreign companies a competitive edge in the International export market. Shouldn't American companies have the same advantage? How does wanting to keep us at a disadvantage seem patriotic ? It's just basic laziness, and it COSTS.
- The current mess of a system is NOT American (so don't use 'customary' or 'US') - it is a legacy of the colonial past (which why I recommend the term "Colonial System"). The Founding Fathers got rid of the pound (currency), it is time to get rid of the pound (weight) that is (literally) a drag on the economy.
-- Tom Wade tom.w...@tomwade.eu
