I've always thought the same thing. This whole cm vs mm thing is nonsense. It really doesn't matter.
My skis are 168 cm....I know that's 1680 mm. I know 2.4 km is 2400 meters. Ok....we all get it. That's what makes the metric system so easy.
So--grab a 250 mL (or 25 cL) glass of wine, take a sip and relax.
This has to go down as one of the dumbest threads on this list yet-- centimeter hatred. Now that's rich.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [USMA:50601] cm vs. mm
From: Harry Wyeth <hbwy...@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, June 12, 2011 9:01 pm
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
May I suggest that the issue of mm vs. cm is pretty low on the agenda for moving forward with adoption of the metric system in the US? I know that Aussies usually refer to short measurements in mm, which is fine. But if an American wants to order a piece of plywood cut at the lumber yard as, say, 155 x 80 cm, I would be really pleased (I once overheard a Kiwi--NZ citizen--asking just such a thing). Telling someone that an easy way to know what a cm is by referring to his finger can be useful. Same with the distance of 10 cm or 100 mm with reference to a palm width. I personally find it easier to visualize the size of a cat, for example, as perhaps 40 cm long than 400 mm.
The key to adopting the metric system in the US is just to use it. It doesn't matter if people use it incorrectly at first, or use cm instead of mm, or even use kms instead of km, or KM, or even kph. What we need is leadership from government--this has always been my belief--which could start with, for example, weighing mail in grams and measuring postal packages in mm or cm and on and on. My favorite easy one would be selling milk in liter dairy cartons, as they do in Canada and Australia and probably everywhere else.
The cm vs. mm debates may be technically interesting, but they do not do much toward actually advancing metrication.
HARRY WYETH
