The point of switching systems isn't to be able to "convert from one to the
other and back" Why would you want to do that?...The point is to forget
about that ancient caveman system altogether...
So you never have to think again about how many fluid ounces there are in a
gallon, and how many cubic inches there are in a cubic yard, or how much a
gallon of water weighs. All of these figures come out with stupid,
mind-challenging answers (like 128; 46,656?; And 8lbs?), whereas the metric
equivalents are simple, and require no arithmetic. 1000 ml in a liter, 1
million cc's in a meter squared, 1 liter of water weight 1 kilo. God forbid
we talk about how many acres in a square or a range, and how many feet in a
block. Ugh.

G. Matthew Bulley
Bulley-Hewlett
Corporate Communications Counselors
www.bulley-hewlett.com
Cary, NC USA
888.468.4880 tollfree

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Get your FREE semi-private E-mail account, use your computer at work.

-----Original Message-----
From:   t obrien [SMTP:robot_works@hotmail.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, December 14, 1999 7:49 PM
To:     gmbulley@BULLEY-HEWLETT.COM; vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject:        Re: SI vs. dumb (0 cc's Vanagon content)

>Can anyone tell me, why we didn't switch in 1976 to the simple, clean,
>easy-to-use metric system from the backwards, inches/fluid
>ounces/furlongs/quarts/drams/pints/rods/tablespoons/acres/yards/pounds/
cups
>system?

We did. It was short circuited by the Reagan Revolution. *L*

Just look at highways built in the late 70's. Like the one from going south
out of Tuscon AZ. All the signs were in Metric with miles subtitles.
After two years in Germany in the late 70's, I still convert quite easily
from English to metric and back. Not a problem.

tim
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com