Dear Bill, Paul, Marion and All, My remarks are at the bottom of three posts.
> On 2004 Jun 7 , at 10:27 AM, Paul Trusten, R.Ph. wrote: >> ... metrication (should) be applied rationally, without interfering >> with certain customs that have little to do with trade. > on 2004-06-09 03.28, Bill Hooper at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If "applied rationally" and "without interfering with certain customs" > means we should allow every little minor sector of society continue to > is a special set of non-SI measuring units, then I would have to > disagree. That's how Ye Olde English system got to be the mess it is. > > I will agree that the word "allow" in my statement above can be applied > many ways. No, I do not think we should send in the measurement police > to arrest people if the use "hands" to measure horses or "pounds" to > measure horse meat in private conversation. But I do believe that all > sectors of society should be encouraged to use SI for all their > measurement processes, and they surely should be required to provide > information in SI in all legal documents and proceedings. > > I certainly do not think it is wise to give in to those who would use > "custom" or "tradition" or "familiarity" or "convenience" (which is > usually just a euphemism for familiarity) as an excuse to continue > using and promoting old fashioned special units. At the very least, > that practice should be officially frowned upon and officially > discouraged. It is not "applying metrication rationally" to do anything > less. > on 2004-06-09 05.04, m. f. moon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And with 12" wheels and 200 mm brakes. Great. > Marion Moon After 34 years of the metrication process in Australia, most industries have metricated successfully (~ 88�% e.g. building, engineering); some are still struggling but they are still striving to achieve metrication (~ 7�% e.g. textiles, clothing) and the remaining ~ 5�% are still firmly committed to keeping their old measurement mindsets. The industries and activities that seem to be having the most trouble with metrication in Australia include: . tyre makers fitters and users . horse buyers, sellers, handlers and riders . shoe makers, sellers and buyers . fishing rod makers and users . computer screen makers, sellers, and buyers . word processor makers, sellers and users . makers of sticky labels Several thoughts come to mind about these groups. 1 They are only having trouble with length metrication. For example, tyre makers buy and sell raw materials in kilograms and they develop their compound formulas in grams and litres; horse persons buy their grain in kilograms and provide water to their horses in litres; and computer people make their entire product in metric units and then describe the screens and floppy disks in computer inches. In each of these cases the problems arose as they tied to convert from traditional units to centimetres. 2 Where the divisions between prefix choices were in 1000s (1000�g = 1�kg, 1000�mL = 1�L) none of these groups had any problems and converted immediately usually within the 1970s. They all use grams, kilograms, and tonnes and they all use millilitres, litres and cubic metres. 2 After an initial failure trying to use centimetres, the industries and activities in the above list simply reverted to inches, hands, barley corns (sizes numbers), feet, computer inches, and inches with fractions (x2), respectively. They then, individually and separately, developed a rationale for their seemingly anti-metric behaviour that included the words (as Bill puts it): 'custom', 'tradition', familiarity', or 'convenience' to support their failure to adopt simple metric length measures. 3 Individuals within these groups (not recognising that they are already substantially metric) then develop and flaunt their limited knowledge of old measures � this is often to enhance their status as an anti-metrric person within their group. As an example, horse persons use the 'hand' as their justification to chat about furlongs, and miles without having any comprehension of either of these units. Remember that when they buy a tonne of hay they expect to get 1000 kilograms not 1000 pounds. 3 Many of these groups produce products that affect many of us in our daily activities and this can give a false impression that metrication has made less progress than it actually has. This is an important point if you believe that a great deal of the metrication process is about altering individual mindsets and group mores, and that the numerical technical stuff is relatively easy.. 4 These groups now act as festering sores on the body metric in that they provide continuous on-going examples that justify, for others outside their group, why it is not necessary to consider a change to metric by saying, 'but they didn't have to', as they point to one or other of these groups as an example. Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
