Hello, dear Jim, thanks for pitching in on this discussion. More below. On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:24:48 Jim Elwell wrote: ... >What Carl says is absolutely correct -- most Americans will not understand >the difference between "mg" and "Mg." > >For that matter, all the time I see products from (supposedly) metric >countries that show "ML" where they mean "mL." If those who live in metric >countries and (supposedly) have used metric for years cannot get the >distinction, expecting Americans new to the metric system to understand it >is crazy. > First, a minor point. I'm not disputing the first paragraph (actually I think I never did!...), granted. But, it's also not entirely accurate to say that metric users would NOT, generally, 'get the distinction' between ML and mL! I'm convinced that it would actually be exactly the opposite! Metric users would try to compare/understand/rationalize the values stated and would come to the conclusion ultimately eventually that "oh... yeah, I guess they made a typo here, not to worry!...".
>People will continue to use the tonne because it is shorter and easier to >remember than "megagram," just like liter is shorter and easier to remember >than "cubic decimeter." > Reason why I claimed I'd have no qualms with *tolerating* such nicknames, at least until we're able to educate the public better (or get it to feel more comfortable around) on the more "correct" term. >We have a tough enough battle in metrication without trying to change human >nature while we are at it. >... No qualms here, actually, my friend. Take care, Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
