Just a nit, Stan. "Metric tonne" (as opposed to "metric ton") is redundant. A tonne is, by definition, metric.
Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of G. Stanley Doore >Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 04:18 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:25172] Re: Replies to various postings > > >A meaningful way to understand a metric tonne is to visualize one cubic >meter of water which is 1000 litres. > >Stan Doore > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Carl Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:41 AM >Subject: [USMA:25169] Replies to various postings > > >> Mg vs. metric ton: >> I'm with Gene and Gustaf in preferring metric tons to Mg. Jim Elwell, in >> answer to your question, Mg is ridiculous because 1) a person will >probably >> be able to visualize 1000 kg much better than 1000000 g, 2) the >metric ton >> is authorized for use, 3) normally people will have an idea what a metric >> ton is (an analog to the short ton), 4) normally people will >think that Mg >> is the same thing as mg, having never seen the first but having seen the >> second many times. Comprehension will be served by using the metric ton >as >> a unit. Comprehension will be terrible in the vast majority of >circles in >> the U.S. if people use Mg as a unit (or Mm, etc.). Being >incomprehensible >> in metric usage is a good way to reinforce the idea that metric is >> confusing. I understand that Mg is a technically legal way to do things, >> but in practice I am more concerned with actually communicating. Just >using >> metric in the first place sets me apart, so I really don't care what some >> document says somewhere about which is preferred. >> >> FPLA timeline: >> Brian, someone said a few months ago that the proposed legislation needs >to >> work its way through a number of agencies before it is submitted to >> Congress. They said it would probably be considered at the beginning of >> next year, which is (apparently) the start of a session. I don't think >> John's (kilopascal) statement that "nothing has come of it yet" doesn't >> really give the full picture, as the legislation is expected to take some >> time. >> >> euroisation and dollar hegemony: >> I would be a lot more convinced if the author of these postings did not >> routinely oversimplify economic processes, continually predict the >imminent >> destruction of America, compare Bush to Hitler, confuse "than" >and "then", >> ascribe anti-metric motives to just about any good business decision, and >> generally make a nuisance of himself. >> >"euroisation = metrication" MUST be our battle cry. >> NOT. Why would we associate the metric system, which should be as >American >> as apple pie, with Europe, which a lot of us are annoyed with at the >moment? >> America's share of world GDP has been shrinking for decades, lately >because >> of Asia's development, not Europe's development or America's decline. >Let's >> promote metric on its merits, not by hoping the U.S. stumbles. >> >> RE: Some interesting conversations: >> >So Carl, did you discuss with him the idea not >> >to give in and continue to use SI when conversing >> >with people? What good is paying lip service to SI, >> >if the guy tries to appease the ignorant and >> >struggles with FFU? >> Actually, he used metric in a previous conversation, so I didn't think it >> was necessary. Besides, I didn't think it was appropriate to the >> conversation. He, like most people, is mostly interested in >communicating >> well, and especially in his position as a foreigner and >non-native speaker >> of English, he is probably extra-sensitive to making sure that people >> understand what he says. I respect that desire. >> >> I agree with Stephen Gallagher that Canada will have trouble metricating >> until we metricate. Like him, I see Canada's continued use of metric for >> many things as very positive. As I see it, the pendulum swings >both ways, >> and we are in the midst of a swing the wrong way. It'll come >back, but it >> is encouraging to see that things are as good as they are at the moment. >> >> metric in construction: >> According to the recent Baron's article, federal buildings are being >> constructed in metric. >> >> Carl Sorenson >> >>
