You haven't been to the caribbean then?
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:45:36 -0700
From: jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com
Subject: Re: [USMA:44145] RE: Caribbean
To: barkatf...@hotmail.com; usma@colostate.edu
One point that needs to be addressed here is what is meant by mixed. Mixed
doesn't mean much unless we can state how much of each item is represented in
the mixture.
I'm sure no matter where you go in the world, you will find a mixture of metric
and pre-metric. But upon closer examination the mixture would be 90 % metric
and 10 % pre-metric. The pre-metric is most likely almost hidden from view and
one has to look very deep to find it.
I'm sure Pat can tell us that the pint is still spoken in pubs in Australia,
but no one would use it to mean a specific amount and thus the term has become
generic. Also consider Europe (and possibly elsewhere) where the pound is just
a another name for 500 g. The same is obviously true of all
pre-metric units. The names survive, but there is no real substance behind
the names.
Jerry
From: Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 10:02:08 AM
Subject: [USMA:44145] RE: Caribbean
The Caribbean I have seen is mixed or less metric than even the UK.
This applies to St Lucia, Grenada, Bahamas, Barbados (although their road
signs, if you can find
them, are metric), Antigua and Montserrat. Places I have been to or regularly
go to.
Unfortunately sometimes assumptions are made where the best basis for fact is
literally going to these places (hence John P Schweisthal [Jerry] never having
visited the UK for example)..
Also there is a common mistake to only include "the big ones" when talking
commonwealth - from experience the smaller players are more interesting (and
house the most friendliest people on earth too!)*
Steve
* Disclaimer -this is not to say that people in the big Commonwealth nations
are not friendly etc - although this one wants to leave one of them for a
smaller one!!
From: j...@frewston.plus.com
To: usma@colostate.edu
CC: usma@colostate.edu
Subject: [USMA:44141] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009
08:49:53 +0000
Can I just intersperse some comments in these statements? Some are
based on my own experience, but some are also based on outside observation
during the time I lived in Canada. If anything I say is incorrect,
corrections welcome! I confess that some Google research would have been
advisable, but I am away this weekend, so am getting this off before we leave.
----- Original Message ----- From: Jeremiah MacGregor To: U.S.
Metric Association Cc: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Saturday, March 28,
2009 3:55 AM Subject: [USMA:44139] RE: Stephen and other off-topic
contributors
I believe that the UK got as far as it did for reasons that don't apply
to the US. 1.) They are close to Europe and do a lot of business with
Europe and needed to be on the same page. It would not be feasible for the
UK to have a different measurement system then their
trading partners nor for the population not to be able to function on the
job that produces the goods that will be exported. Basically true, but
I seem to remember that, in 1965 when the decision was officially made to go
metric, there was a general consensus that metrication was the way the world
was going (or was already there), and that this was not just a Europe thing.
Britain has always been a world-wide trading nation, and in the 1950s and
'60s, coined the slogan "Export or die". Going metric was part of the
awareness that the country depended on world-wide trade in order to pay off
its war debts. 2.) The British Commonwealth is practically fully
metric and that too would have an effect on what measurements the UK uses.
Australia was probably the first Commonwealth country to go
metric, but the UK's decision in 1965 preceded many other Commonwealth
countries, including Canada, South Africa (which was part of the
Commonwealth), other African nations (e.g. Kenya), the whole of the Caribbean,
what is now Malaysia, and many other places too numerous to mention.
3.) The UK is small in comparison to its trading partners compared to the
US. True, although this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back in
1965, the UK had quite a prominent position in terms of world trade.
4.) The US is mostly isolated from the rest of the world. Yes, very
true unfortunately! Something that President Obama is aware of? ("The
world has changed, and we must change with it.") 5.) US trade is
virtually one
way. The US imports produced goods, but does not export. As long as the
US can survive being the "ultimate consumer" and can continue to run high
trade deficits then there is no reason for the US to metricate. I once
read that 90 to 95% of all US-based economic activity (i.e. production of
goods and services, but excluding imports and other off-shore activities)
remains inside its borders, which is far higher than anywhere else on earth.
That was some years ago, and I would imagine that it is no better today.
But, this system is highly strained. In the news recently, China has
openly defied the US by questioning the role of the dollar in international
trade and calling for a basket of currencies for the world to use instead of
the dollar. Sooner then Washington and Wall Street realize, China will get
its wish.
The outcome will mean the US can no longer operate as the ultimate
consumer and will be forced to run a more balanced economy. To do so, it
will have to produce in order to trade for what others produce and in order
for its goods to be accepted, it will have to show a willingness to cooperate
and adopt the metric system. If memory serves correctly (and
increasingly it doesn't as I get older!), the US was once quite open to
producing for the world, and improving its world image. In 1971, I lived in
Boston, MA, working alongside a local architecture practice on a major
project (Tufts New England Medical Center), and remember all the roadsigns
in the city, which were of European style (e.g. No Entry signs as a red disc
with a horizontal white stripe, then unknown in the US; speed limit signs
consisting of a
white circle with a red band around the edge; etc). In talking to my
architect colleague, he explained that America was very concerned with its
image in the world, and this was part of that process (and being trialled in
Boston). Also to be part of that process was conversion to the metric
system (he was one of its promoters), and I guess what he said was borne out
when the Metrication Board was established in 1975. It will be a very
simple choice. Either adopt the metric system or be shut out. What choice
will America make? The key is to get the American in the street to
realise that such a choice has to be made. I would wager that most
Americans still believe that the US doen't need to metricate, and that the
rest of the world will just have to adapt to America's use of customary
units. At what point will the (rude)
awakening occur? - John F-L Jerry
From: "br...@bjwhite.net" <br...@bjwhite.net>
To: jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com
Cc: U.S.. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:24:17 PM
Subject: RE: [USMA:44135] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors
All that being said, I'd be THRILLED if we in
the US were as far along as the UK regarding metrication.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [USMA:44135] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors
From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com>
Date: Fri, March 27, 2009 8:20 pm
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Martin, Even though you are not American, there should be
no reason you shouldn't contribute. We can learn a lot from you. We can
learn from the British experience as to what does not work and to the
Australian experience as to what works. I'm sure you have been a valuable
asset in providing ideas for metrication
in the US. However, there are those from the outside that do not
belong. This forum does not need to hear the tired opinions of those who
will use this forum against those who believe in metrication. Those
opposed will come here appearing as angels of light but are in reality
demons of darkness. This is a forum that promotes metrication and
I'm sure you agree that to give voice to those that do is counter
productive and in no way promotes metrication. I hope though that when
you say you won't hold back, that you mean it enough to strike hard at
those who will use this forum to spread their anti-metricisms even in a
subtle form. Jerry
Beyond Hotmail — see what else you can do with Windows Live. Find out more!
_________________________________________________________________
All your Twitter and other social updates in one place
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/
