Thanks for the reply Bill. There is no person faster than I am when it comes to appologizing when I am in error or I have offended anyone.
My intention is not to offend but to criticize. The word enemy was used as a comparison. As for how one can metricate without adopting metric standards, hence international, hence ISO standards you will find my opinion in the posting Metric Standards or not? I am in total disagreement therefore that one can keep the ifp standards while switching to metric. And this includes the standards for printing media. However, I agree that one does not have to adopt ISO 216 (or any other) standard and still go metric. But then one has to reinvent the wheel and come up with another hard metric standard, which I find stupid to say the least, as long as there is no clear need for a different international standard for printing media. And if this was the case then that standard should be submitted for approval to ISO and become the new ISO standard for printing media. What many people in this association don't seem to grasp is that ISO 216 is hard metric in every respect and that since it is the standard for printing media used by more than 90% of the world, it should be the standard of choice for USMA. And YES Bill one HAS to use ISO 216 in order to use the metric system as much as one has to adopt the metric threads, the metric pipe sizes, bearing sizes, the metric electric motor sizes and so on. Without these standards there is no metric system!!! All this because, as you say, all units could be inches furlongs or cubits and then, the paper will still be called 11x17 the bolts still 1/2" and the motors still 1/3 HP no matter how some bureaucrats decide to measure them, and the best example for this statement is the Canadian situation. And if we go this route, Bill, we will forever be in today's situation where after 85 years of such USMA policy nothing has been achieved other than some shy and illiterate metric statements in paranthesis on prepackaged goods, which are viewed by all Americans as being for the Spanish speaking people and not for true Americans. Finally, it appears to me that some old ways and ideas are so much burned into some members' minds that they find no-matter-what reason to shut the door on any new idea or well-meant criticism. As a teacher you will have to agree with me that when one reaches this point the hope is lost. And hope is something USMA cannot afford to loose. Adrian. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Barbara and/or Bill Hooper Sent: Wednesday, 24 April, 2002 09:58 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:19614] Re: Answer from MT editors There are two glaring error of fact in Adrian's message (quoted here): on 4/24/2002 5:10 PM, Adrian Jadic at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I wrote a small explanation letter asking them to publish it in response to > the eroneous Editor's note but instead I got the cold shoulder similar to > what we get from all enemies of the metric system. (1) The editorial in Metric Today is not erroneous. One can adopt the metric system for all one's measuring and still not use A4 paper sizes (or B or C series sizes). And one can use A4 paper and not adopt metric for anything else you do. This is no different than the situation regarding measuring fuel consumption by volume used per unit distance traveled versus distance traveled per unit volume used. it is also no differnt that the use of the 24 hour clock rather than the am/pm version. Both of these things are used one way more by metric users and the other way more by non-SI users. But that doesn't make these things metric or non-metric. Neither the volume per unit distance method nor the 24 hour clock are particulalry metric and neither is A4 paper. Yes, I myself prefer the A series of paper sizes (and B and C). They are better, more rational sizes. (More particularly, they are more a rational SHAPE.) But they could have been made using inches or furlongs or cubits. The fact that they are specified in metric (and even based on A0 having an area of 1 square metre) does NOT mean that one MUST use them if one wants to "use the metric system". It is in that sense that one can say that A4 is not metric. And it is in that sense that Metric Today was not erroneous. (2) The editor of Metric Today is not an enemy of the metric system. Valerie Antoine is and has for years been one of the most ardent and effective proponents of the metric system in the US. It is insulting as well as being extraordinarily inaccurate to paint her as "an enemy" of the metric system. I'm sorry Adrian did not get the prompt reply he is demanding, but I sympathize with the Editor's plight of having so much work to do that it becomes an impossible task to respond personally to every letter. If we paid her enough so that she could hire a big staff, maybe she could accomplish that. Is she overworked? Quite likely. Is she an enemy of metric? Preposterous! An apology is required. Regards, Bill Hooper college physics teacher (retired), USA (Florida) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Do It Easy, Do It Metric! +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
