With all due respect to both sides of this debate.

There is no reason why aviation and maritime practice should not adopt the internationaly agreed and unambiguous metric system defined in SI.

Any concessions to units of measurement such as the foot, fathom gallon etc is a recipe for disaster at some point in time.

I cannot understand why people who are otherwise sensitive to human safety can blind themselves to the obvious fact that mixing measures is illogical, maintains an obvious fault liability and courts disaster however infrequent.

Neither shipping nor aviation use kilometres for distance, and no-one outside the old USSR uses metres for altitude. So, who's trying to mix measurements?

Kind of ironic if true, BMWA, as Russia, under Peter the Great, adopted the English foot as their standard.. and yet they are the only nation now NOT using the foot.

The units used in aviation and marine navigation are subject to international agreement but some things such as fuel tank capacity varies.

The reason for the foot in altitude and the nautical mile for distance is largely due to Anglo/American dominance.

The use of metric throughout both those industries would be a much cleaner solution to the whole business of transportation both on land sea and air.

Re: Safety May 29 2004, 9:04 AM


Neither shipping nor aviation use kilometres for distance, and no-one outside the old USSR uses metres for altitude. So, who's trying to mix measurements?

metre:
European airforce pilots use metres as distance measurements, and so do Americans seconded to NATO.

America forced the world to fly in cumbersome measurements after 1945, including Britain. (Chicago Convention 1944). That's what I call measurement imperialism if ever there was one. Imperialists complain forever about compulsory metrication, but keep their mouths shut when the champion of democratic freedom forces the whole world to dance to its off key tunes.

Metre, the Chicago Convention relating to aviation was signed by participating governments no differently than the Metre conventions back in the 1800s.

Remember the state of the world in 1945. Continental Europe was in ruins. There was no metric aviation left, UK and US planes among the few left operating. So it is illogical to expect them to convert to a system that did not exist.

If the present use of feet in aviation is a legacy of a 1945 convention then it isn't hard to see why imperial/US measures dominate.

It was a time when the defeated nations, Germany, Italy and Japan were at a very low ebb. It was also a time when other European countries were beholden to the allies for winning the war. The cold war with Russia had also begun.

We shouldn't be surprised then that the European voice was somewhat subdued.

The metric system was well known to the US and the UK even then so it isn't true to say that the system didn't exist.

But all that's in the past. The modern world faces very different challenges. It's time for another more balanced convention.

Japan, of course, still used its old Shakkan-ho system til the sixties.

BWMA
Metre, the Chicago Convention relating to aviation was signed by participating governments no differently than the Metre conventions back in the 1800s.

Remember the state of the world in 1945. Continental Europe was in ruins. There was no metric aviation left, UK and US planes among the few left operating. So it is illogical to expect them to convert to a system that did not exist.

metre:
Most of the founding nations were non-entities in aviation, like Siam (Thailand, Honduras and so on.
Britain was one of the nations coerced into signing, otherwise it would not have received the US loan it so desperatly needed.
I doubt that any nation was cajoled into signing the treaty of the metre. If so by whom, France?
This is too involved a subject to deal with here, but if you are interested go to the US congress library, it should be available there.

<<
The use of metric throughout both those industries would be a much cleaner solution to the whole business of transportation both on land sea and air.
>>
Solution to what? Don't you need a problem in order for there to be a solution?

The French DID use the kilometre for shipping. But then they got rid of the 10 hour day and it just became silly because nothing worked, especially without the 400 Grad circle.

See 'The abandoned portion of the Metric System' in The Metric Fallacy, 1904.

I have checked through the text of the Chicago Convention and nowhere do I see a reference to Imperial, Customary of metric measures. What I do see is a section on the setting up of the International Air Transport Organisation and granting to them the right to set technical standards.

The text of the CHicago COnvetnion can be found at http://avisupser.dgrsolutions.com/airlaws/chicago1944_e.html

I forgot to sign the last posting

"America forced the world to fly in cumbersome measurements after 1945, including Britain"

That's right - because Britain famously always used metric for flying before 1945 didn't they?

(I cannot believe this same drivel is being drivelled)

S.Cruple, I myself have made points like that many times before. The metric supporters oftne try to shoot it down, though, claiming that the second is not a sexagesimal unit, but 9blahblahblah ticks of a caesium clock, and so thus avoid the issue. Of course, the 400 grad circle was promptly abandoned, and everywhere still uses the sensible sexagesimal system of time and angular measurement... a system which has no relation to metric, but what a relation to English!!

Could you give me the ISBN of that book you are referring to, please, and the author and publisher if possible. Ta :)

S.Cruple wrote
<<
See 'The abandoned portion of the Metric System' in The Metric Fallacy, 1904.
>>



Bryan Parry wrote
<<
Could you give me the ISBN of that book you are referring to, please, and the author and publisher if possible. Ta :)
>>



Bryan - ISBN's only came in in the 1960's (or thereabouts), so I doubt that a book written in 1904 had an ISBN.

thanks Martin :)

The Metric Fallacy, is available in electronic format, but not paper format.
Please let me know if you want a copy

I request a copy :)

Re: Safety June 1 2004, 12:55 PM


I have checked through the text of the Chicago Convention and nowhere do I see a reference to Imperial, Customary of metric measures. What I do see is a section on the setting up of the International Air Transport Organisation and granting to them the right to set technical standards.

The text of the CHicago COnvetnion can be found at http://avisupser.dgrsolutions.com/airlaws/chicago1944_e.html

metre:
Anonymous whoever you are, go back again and get the proper rules from ICAO. It will cost you money.

It should be buried in this section, but to access it you need to go to ICAO, International Civil Aviation Organisation. You will have to pay for that information.

BTW the preamble to the ICAO convention says tall all measurements in aviation shall be metric in due course. After 60 years the world is still waiting. That was a sop for metric nations to sign. Some time back the French proposed to change the foot to exactly 300mm and call it cital. The Yankee answer in different words, up yours!

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES
Article 37
Adoption of international standards and procedures
Each contracting State undertakes to collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures, and organization in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation.
To this end the International Civil Aviation Organization shall adopt and amend from time to time, as may be necessary, international standards and recommended practices and procedures dealing with:
(a) Communications systems and air navigation aids, including ground
marking;
(b) Characteristics of airports and landing areas;
(c) Rules of the air and air traffic control practices;
(d) Licensing of operating and mechanical personnel;
(e) Airworthiness of aircraft;
(f) Registration and identification of aircraft;
(g) Collection and exchange of meteorological information;
(h) Log books;
(i) Aeronautical maps and charts;
(j) Customs and immigration procedures;
(k) Aircraft in distress and investigation of accidents;
and such other matters concerned with the safety, regularity, and efficiency of air navigation as may from time to time appear appropriate.

I'm not entirely sure what the point of that post was!

But there again.....

[snigger] could you imagine the "foot" being redesignated as 30cm (that's the same as 300mm, eric) for aviation.

At what point shall we ground all our aeroplanes to make the change?

Or shall we do a "mix and match" job and hope for the best!!

Metre, it looks like you suggested that the foot be redefined as 30 cm. What I don't understand is that you are advocating the metric system for the sake of worldwide consistency, and then you are proposing to introduce a new foot with the same name as the old one but a slightly different length. This is likely to result in much more confusion than the present situatin of 2 systems. Why the inconsistency?

Re: Safety June 9 2004, 11:02 PM


Metre, it looks like you suggested that the foot be redefined as 30 cm. What I don't understand is that you are advocating the metric system for the sake of worldwide consistency, and then you are proposing to introduce a new foot with the same name as the old one but a slightly different length. This is likely to result in much more confusion than the present situatin of 2 systems. Why the inconsistency?


metre:
You must have been in a real hurry reading my post. I advocate no such thing!

That's why I said "it looks like." You didn't say it, but you mentioned that someone else advocated it, and you did so in a positive tone. I wasn't sure, that's why I said "look like" rather than "you advocate..."

Re: Safety June 10 2004, 7:29 AM

Bud:
That's why I said "it looks like." You didn't say it, but you mentioned that someone else advocated it, and you did so in a positive tone. I wasn't sure, that's why I said "look like" rather than "you advocate..."

metre:
It would have been the first albeit cumbersome step to metrication.

So are you proposing that we metricate by redefining American units to metric? That seems like the most ridiculous way to do it. No country has done it like that.

Bud wrote

<<
So are you proposing that we metricate by redefining American units to metric? That seems like the most ridiculous way to do it. No country has done it like that.
>>

On the contrary - France in 1811, Netherlands 1820 and many others. Why else is 500g often called a "pond", pfund", "livre" etc?

Sweden has a 10 km mile.

There is plenty of historical precedence for redefining existing units for the purposes of rationalisation.

e.g the modern 12 in foot is not the same as the original one which I understand was about 9.5 in. Originally it was the actual length of someones foot.

The mile has undergone changes since Roman times. Originally it was 2000 paces of a Roman soldier, now redefined as exactly 1760 yd.

The revisions have been carried out generally to establish whole number factors between units, e.g to make it so the yard is exactly 3 feet.

So nothing really sacred about them.

A 30 cm foot would certainly make it easier to convert between metric and Imperial, 1 in = 2.5 cm, 4 in = 10 cm, 1 yd = 90 cm etc.

<<
A 30 cm foot would certainly make it easier to convert between metric and Imperial, 1 in = 2.5 cm, 4 in = 10 cm, 1 yd = 90 cm etc.
>>

Napoleon's "pied metrique" (metric foot) was 1/3 m.

Martin, the German and French pounds were EXCEPTIONALLY large, and almost 500 grams apiece, anyway.. the German pound was over 500 grammes!!

And.... surely the fact that they are referred to as "livre" and "pond", and have no been replaced by "demi-kilo" or whatever just goes to show that it IS an absurd way to metricate.

I don't see how 2.5 cms = 1 in is simpler than 2.54cms = 1 in? Surely, in order for this to work, you would need to have loads of standards created in 0.3 metre system, non? So, how is that simpler? Unless of course you mean that people should generally take 3/10 metre to mean "foot"; in which case, when people can't use English standards, they already do this, and just treat it as 12 inches.

Your proposals are absurd.

<<
I don't see how 2.5 cms = 1 in is simpler than 2.54cms = 1 in? Surely, in order for this to work, you would need to have loads of standards created in 0.3 metre system, non? So, how is that simpler? Unless of course you mean that people should generally take 3/10 metre to mean "foot"; in which case, when people can't use English standards, they already do this, and just treat it as 12 inches.

Your proposals are absurd.
>>

Fair enough Bryan.

We are driven back to the uncompromsing position of arguing for a complete eradication of those awkward, non-sensicle, incompatible units that have no place in the modern world.

Bryan Parry wrote

<<
Martin, the German and French pounds were EXCEPTIONALLY large, and almost 500 grams apiece, anyway.. the German pound was over 500 grammes!!
>>

The "German" pound was never over 500g. In fact, prior to the founding of the Zollverein (Customs Union) in teh early 19th Century, each state in Germany had its own pound. Here are a few from http://www.fonline.de/rs-ebs/geschichte/groessen/mas10.htm:

Baden:
1 Pfund = 32 Loth = 128 Quint = 500 Gramm

Braunschweig
1 Pfund = 0,8352 bayer. Pfund = 467,7 Gramm

Frankfurt
1 schweres Pfund (Handelspfund) = 0,9024 bayer. Pfund = 505,34 Gramm [505,347 g (bis 1837); 505,128 g (1837-1858)]
1 leichtes Pfund (Krämerpfund) = 0,8356 bayer. Pfund = 467,94 Gramm [467,711 g (bis 1837); 467,712 g 1837-1858)]
1 Zentner = 100 schwere Pfund = 108 leichte Pfund
[schweres = heavy; leichtes = light]

I could go on.

I hope you aren't trotting out the same "million and one pounds" arguement again.

Re: Safety June 11 2004, 7:47 AM

Bud:
So are you proposing that we metricate by redefining American units to metric? That seems like the most ridiculous way to do it. No country has done it like that.

metre:
No, this would be the worst solution, but still better than US feet that cannot be integrated into metric. Right now, thanks to Uncle Sam, aviation is settled with a hodgepodge of imperial and metric units. Eventually it will be all metric.

<<
On the contrary - France in 1811, Netherlands 1820 and many others. Why else is 500g often called a "pond", pfund", "livre" etc?
>>

Note that the years you list above are all pre-industrial. Back then, for most practical purposes these small differences wouldn't have mattered much. But as society progresses, measurements need to be more and more precise. Can you imagine if doctors had to suddenly record patients' weights in units of 500 grams, and label it "lbs."? There would be endless confusion.

<<
No, this would be the worst solution, but still better than US feet that cannot be integrated into metric.
>>
So basically metre is saying that since introducing metric isn't enough to erradicate the imperial system, the next best alternative is to introduce confusion into the imperial system so that it stops working and people are forced to switch to metric.

I'd like to see how he plans to ground all aeroplanes so as to make the switch.

Perhaps he plans to do this in 42 yrs time when all the oil has run out?

BTW- Does anyone know how many planes are in the air at any one time? (roughly)

Re: Safety June 14 2004, 6:48 AM


<<
On the contrary - France in 1811, Netherlands 1820 and many others. Why else is 500g often called a "pond", pfund", "livre" etc?
>>
Bud:
Note that the years you list above are all pre-industrial. Back then, for most practical purposes these small differences wouldn't have mattered much. But as society progresses, measurements need to be more and more precise. Can you imagine if doctors had to suddenly record patients' weights in units of 500 grams, and label it "lbs."? There would be endless confusion.

metre:
What an inadvertently glowing testimony to the metric system. You sure hit the nail on the head with your observation. Now develope it further and you will see why imperial is an obsolete system.

Re: Safety June 14 2004, 6:49 AM


metre:
<<
No, this would be the worst solution, but still better than US feet that cannot be integrated into metric.
>>

metre:
So basically metre is saying that since introducing metric isn't enough to erradicate the imperial system, the next best alternative is to introduce confusion into the imperial system so that it stops working and people are forced to switch to metric.

metre:
I am amused by your statement that metric needs my help to conquer America. Just to remind you the world decided to go metric without my input. As for the rest, not worth bothering.

<<
Just to remind you the world decided to go metric without my input.
>>

You've reverted back to the might makes right concept that you yourself were criticizing a while ago.

....which is basically pure trollery.

(new word)


BTW- anyone know my the answer to my question about air-borne vehicles?

Or shall we talk about how to read rulers?

If you looked up the average number of flights per year and estimated the average length of a flight, you could figure it out.

Re: Safety June 15 2004, 7:26 AM


<<
Just to remind you the world decided to go metric without my input.
>>

You've reverted back to the might makes right concept that you yourself were criticizing a while ago.


metre:
Now, where in that sentence do you read anything of that kind? I simply stated that the world decided to go metric and as far as I know that's the truth.

And why are you stating that? Obviously because you are trying to convince me that this is the right thing to do. And if you are saying that since so many countries did it, it is the right thing to do, then you are using the might-makes-right argument.

Re: Safety June 16 2004, 7:49 AM


And why are you stating that? Obviously because you are trying to convince me that this is the right thing to do. And if you are saying that since so many countries did it, it is the right thing to do, then you are using the might-makes-right argument.


metre:
I stated the reality, that's all. I am not responsible for what you read into it.
I have given up long ago trying to convince you, or anyone else for that matter. All I am trying to do is expose imperialists flawed arguments, no more no less. Judging by their responses, and you are to a point an exception, most find that approach abhorrent and start to distance themselves from their pet subject.

No one is trying to convince anyone on these forums. These are discussion forums, not argument forums.

<<
most find that approach abhorrent and start to distance themselves from their pet subject.
>>
Such as who?

Re: Safety June 17 2004, 5:56 AM

Bud:
No one is trying to convince anyone on these forums. These are discussion forums, not argument forums.

metre:
You could have fooled me. So why are you not adopting the metric system then?

metre:
most find that approach abhorrent and start to distance themselves from their pet subject.
>>
Bud:
Such as who?

metre:
Almost all imperialists. From, no we don't use those units anymore, no we do not teach inch rulers, no we dont believe anything on the Internet to, we have only one measurement system in the US, to this is boring. That seems to be the easiest way out of tight arguments for most of them.

Which imperialists have you had contact with outside these forums?

Re: Safety June 17 2004, 10:05 AM


Bud:
Which imperialists have you had contact with outside these forums?

metre:
I am not quite sure what you mean with this question?

<<<All I am trying to do is expose imperialists flawed arguments, no more no less>>>

How successful have you been with this? Over what period?

How many "converts"?

How many people realised by "imperialist" you meant preference for the imperial system, rather than some "empire" style of question?

...

...

here's a hanky

<<
Bud:
Which imperialists have you had contact with outside these forums?

metre:
I am not quite sure what you mean with this question?
>>

I wanted to know where else you have had experience dealing with people supporting the imperial system, because you said that other imperialists, unlike the ones on this forum, generally agree with your arguments.

Re: Safety June 18 2004, 6:57 PM


<<
Bud:
Which imperialists have you had contact with outside these forums?

metre:
I am not quite sure what you mean with this question?
>>

I wanted to know where else you have had experience dealing with people supporting the imperial system, because you said that other imperialists, unlike the ones on this forum, generally agree with your arguments.

metre:
Please show me where I said that. This debate is about as fruitful as arguing about religion. The only evidence that metric is far superior to imperial is its steady advance even in America. That and nothing else counts.

What an appallingly lame excuse!

Tip for eric - go for a walk in an open crowded place anywhere in the UK.
Listen!
See how effective the GOVERNMENT has been in making us speak and think in metric.

Poor sod.

(he won't answer any questions about how successful he has been on his "crusades" by the way)

<<
Tip for eric - go for a walk in an open crowded place anywhere in the UK.
Listen!
See how effective the GOVERNMENT has been in making us speak and think in metric.

Poor sod.

(he won't answer any questions about how successful he has been on his "crusades" by the way)
>>

The Government has made no attempt to encourage anyone to think metric except in school. This half hearted regime was doomed to failure because it wasn't backed up by a total conversion in all other regulated areas in a short enough time.

The result has been that kids are taught metric at school but, for example, as soon as they learn to drive or go for a walk in a park or go for a bike ride or play golf or watch telly or listen to the radio, they have to learn non-metric. Older people (including many teachers) resolutely stick to traditional measures expecting young people in their formative years to fall in line by not conversing with them in metric.

The hypocritical politicians who have made a huge fuss about educational standards over the last two decades, blaming it all on teachers, have totally ignored the fact that learning doesn't stop at the school gate or even the classroom door!

The result of all this has been that we now have a generation of people growing up in a world where they think that metric is for academic purposes and only, and many mature people, even when they do know metric (through their profession or work) are inhibited from speaking metric because of a feeling of social awkwardness.

This is in complete contrast ot the South African and Australain approach where the sale of any measuring device calibrated in Imperial units was banned and newspapers were told how to report units of measure. I know that it sounded totalitarian, but the governments in question had the full support of the opposition parties (at any rate that was the case in South Africa). In the case of South Africa (wher I can speak from experience), the opposition parties regularly opposed many of the Apartheid policies of the government, but where reform was in action, the Government could rely on the support of the opposition parties.

It is of course ironic that Ian Smith's Rhodesian Government and the Zambian Government (both implacibly opposed to each other) followed similar metrication policies at the same time as the South Africans were persuing theirs.

Re: Safety June 21 2004, 6:35 PM


<<
Tip for eric - go for a walk in an open crowded place anywhere in the UK.
Listen!
See how effective the GOVERNMENT has been in making us speak and think in metric.

Poor sod.

(he won't answer any questions about how successful he has been on his "crusades" by the way)
>>

The Government has made no attempt to encourage anyone to think metric except in school. This half hearted regime was doomed to failure because it wasn't backed up by a total conversion in all other regulated areas in a short enough time.

The result has been that kids are taught metric at school but, for example, as soon as they learn to drive or go for a walk in a park or go for a bike ride or play golf or watch telly or listen to the radio, they have to learn non-metric. Older people (including many teachers) resolutely stick to traditional measures expecting young people in their formative years to fall in line by not conversing with them in metric.

The hypocritical politicians who have made a huge fuss about educational standards over the last two decades, blaming it all on teachers, have totally ignored the fact that learning doesn't stop at the school gate or even the classroom door!

The result of all this has been that we now have a generation of people growing up in a world where they think that metric is for academic purposes and only, and many mature people, even when they do know metric (through their profession or work) are inhibited from speaking metric because of a feeling of social awkwardness.

metre:
Thanks Stan.
Pity the children, who are used as pawns by
politicians, whose only purpose seems to be to save their electoral hides.
And imperialists can be proud of their Luddite part in this ongoing saga.

<<<The result has been that kids are taught metric at school but, for example, as soon as they learn to drive or go for a walk in a park or go for a bike ride or play golf or watch telly or listen to the radio, they have to learn non-metric>>>

This might have been a good argument, Stan, apart from the fact that the curriculum states and teaches kids imperial units "in common usage today". In the 80's when I was at school there was no such provision for this and thus paradoxically I wasn't taught imperial yet those younger than me were/are being taught imperial.

I had to go to special night classes when I was 20 that specialised in teaching inch rulers. The course lasted 5 weeks but included free witch burning lessons and a half day "the world is flat" seminar.


<<<This is in complete contrast ot the South African and Australain approach where the sale of any measuring device calibrated in Imperial units was banned and newspapers were told how to report units of measure>>>>

Martin, besides the fact that everyday, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh I can now firmly state that I thank Him also that I was not raised in South Africa.

(P.S. I've seen australian reporting using "feet" - does this mean that they've declared imperial a "class C" measurement and released those prisoners in posession of a prohibited ruler?)

<<
(P.S. I've seen australian reporting using "feet" - does this mean that they've declared imperial a "class C" measurement and released those prisoners in posession of a prohibited ruler?)
>>

Although I am not sure what is on the South African (or Australian)statute book now, I believe that the South African approach was to turn a blind eye once metrication had been declared "completed". By that time all measuring devices that were less than 10 years old were metric only and the population was generally used to working in metric. Moreover, the shops had also got used to the idea of only stocking metric based measuring devices and since tehre was no mass demand for Imperial devices, they never re-emerged.

You should ask yourself why that would never work here.

<<
This debate is about as fruitful as arguing about religion. The only evidence that metric is far superior to imperial is its steady advance even in America. That and nothing else counts.
>>

Like I said earlier, the steady advance is due to compulsion. Metric would be dead in many countries if it wasn't for the government requiring people to use it. It wouldn't be very hard for the government to force people to use any system it chose, and people would have to do it because it would be required by law. Would you then point to the "steady advance" of that system and say that it is superior?
You can only say that metric is superior because it is being adopted if it is being adopetd voluntarily.

Re: Safety June 24 2004, 12:39 AM


<<
This debate is about as fruitful as arguing about religion. The only evidence that metric is far superior to imperial is its steady advance even in America. That and nothing else counts.
>>
metre:
Like I said earlier, the steady advance is due to compulsion.
Metric would be dead in many countries if it wasn't for the government requiring people to use it. It wouldn't be very hard for the government to force people to use any system it chose, and people would have to do it because it would be required by law. Would you then point to the "steady advance" of that system and say that it is superior?
You can only say that metric is superior because it is being adopted if it is being adopetd voluntarily.

metre:
Do you ever read what I write? No country will ever achieve certain things without compulsion. Metrication is one of them.
You really live in a dream world. What a peculiar notion, you have obviously no idea how satisfied metric countries are with their superior system. To repeat myself again and again, nowhere in this metric world will you find a website clamouring for change, except in Britain and America. Every European, or anyone else for that matter, is
free to argue for change. You seem to labour under the misconception that only America is a democracy. Again as I said to you once, Americans are plaged by many more petty laws than Europeans ever are.
What has compulsion to do with merit? Some tax laws are better than others, but all are compulsory!

Not that anyone would really ascribe Buds passage below to me, but I made the mistake in another post to put my name to it . Sorry.

Bud:
You can only say that metric is superior because it is being adopted if it is being adopetd voluntarily

metre:
Balderdash! Maybe what follows gives you an idea how it works. When Shell alone decided to go metric in America and sold petrol in litres customers deserted it in droves.
Now, if you can give me one valid reason why petrol sold in litres is inferior to petrol sold in gallons your argument makes sense. Otherwise just accept the fact that metric is superior.

In response to your last post, in that particular case petrol sold in litres would be inferior to petrol sold in gallons, because most petrol in the US was sold in gallons, and everyone was used to gallons. It would therefore be more difficult and confusing for people to buy in litres. There is no fundamental difference, but you can see the effective difference if you take into account the situation and the surroundings.

metre:
Balderdash! Maybe what follows gives you an idea how it works. When Shell alone decided to go metric in America and sold petrol in litres customers deserted it in droves.
Now, if you can give me one valid reason why petrol sold in litres is inferior to petrol sold in gallons your argument makes sense. Otherwise just accept the fact that metric is superior.
Bud:
In response to your last post, in that particular case petrol sold in litres would be inferior to petrol sold in gallons, because most petrol in the US was sold in gallons, and everyone was used to gallons. It would therefore be more difficult and confusing for people to buy in litres. There is no fundamental difference, but you can see the effective difference if you take into account the situation and the surroundings.

metre:
It's hard to say either YES or NO , but you certainly can't combine them!
What utter drivel and you know it! You simply haven't the bottle to admit that metric is superior. Let me spell it out for you again to confront you with your laughable idiocy that

PETROL IS OF BETTER QUALITY IF SOLD IN GALLONS.
To go on and then say there is no fundamental difference smacks of cowardice!
You know the argument is about compulsion and the superiority of the nmetric system. My question of selling petrol in liters addressed compulsion and metric superiority while yours spouted nothing but nonsense. Benignly said, it highlights a dismal lack of reasoning power on your part and puts you to shame. To be taken seriously you have to do a lot better than that.

Your last post is basically bashing saying one of two things.
1. You read my post and didn't want to face what I said.
2. You read my post and couldn't think of a response.
3. You didn't read my post.

Whichever one it is, you responded by dropping down from intelligent discussion to mindless verbal bashing. The only reasons you would do that are those listed above.

That's eric for ya!

Re: Safety June 25 2004, 9:56 AM


Your last post is basically bashing saying one of two things.
1. You read my post and didn't want to face what I said.
2. You read my post and couldn't think of a response.
3. You didn't read my post.

Whichever one it is, you responded by dropping down from intelligent discussion to mindless verbal bashing. The only reasons you would do that are those listed above.

metre:
Now we have to add childishness as well. You still maintain that petrol sold in litres is inferior. Answer that qusestion unequivocally and forget trying to wriggle out of your own mess.

I said that petrol sold in litres is inferior IF everyone else is selling it in gallons (as happened to Shell.)
Stop twisting my words.

Bud:
You can only say that metric is superior because it is being adopted if it is being adopetd voluntarily

metre:
Balderdash! Maybe what follows gives you an idea how it works. When Shell alone decided to go metric in America and sold petrol in litres customers deserted it in droves.
Now, if you can give me one valid reason why petrol sold in litres is inferior to petrol sold in gallons your argument makes sense. Otherwise just accept the fact that metric is superior.
Bud:
I said that petrol sold in litres is inferior IF everyone else is selling it in gallons (as happened to Shell.)
Stop twisting my words.

metre:
Above is your and my original argument.
Nobody needs to twist your answers, you do that remarkably well yourself. More than that, you keep on sprouting nonsense by repeating over and over that petrol is inferior sold in litres. I know what you mean to say, but that is not the point in our discussion. You have to address the core of my question otherwise you are stuck with having to repeat that stupid answer foever. You surely can do better than that?

He honestly believes he's on top of the argument - like he's "winning".

I'm sure he's convinced himself of this, recognising the "triumphant" sound to his vocabulary.

It's hilarious.

Re: Safety June 29 2004, 8:27 AM


Bud:
I said that petrol sold in litres is inferior IF everyone else is selling it in gallons (as happened to Shell.)
Stop twisting my words.

metre:
It's not a nice sight to see somebody with his tail firmly between his legs running away from an argument.

Metre, I already answered your question. I stated my position in very simple language. If you don't want to accept my answer, or do not comprehend my answer, or refuse to look at my answer, or refuse to think about my answer, then that is your problem, not mine.

Re: Safety July 2 2004, 7:10 AM

Bud:
Metre, I already answered your question. I stated my position in very simple language. If you don't want to accept my answer, or do not comprehend my answer, or refuse to look at my answer, or refuse to think about my answer, then that is your problem, not mine.

metre:
You have done no such thing. You have statet that petrol sold in litres is inferior to petrol sold in gallons. That answer is blatant nonsense and you know it.

I said something else after that. Go back and read the next clause in my sentence.

Do you often get beaten up eric?

'specially when you go out in public?

Re: Safety July 6 2004, 2:34 AM

metre:
You have done no such thing. You have statet that petrol sold in litres is inferior to petrol sold in gallons. That answer is blatant nonsense and you know it.

Bud:
I said something else after that. Go back and read the next clause in my sentence.

metre:
Never mind what you said. Quality of petrol sold in any quantity does not change. While I am damn aware what you meant with your sentence, it is the way you distort its meaning to get an outcome YOU think refutes what somebody else says. Sorry, you failed miserably.

Thus you "win" again, eh eric?

All these "victories" must leave you with a constant glow.

[makes hand gesture]

Metre says: Your answer is blatant nonsense.
I respond by clarifying my answer.
Metre says: Never mind what you said.

That explains a lot.

You forgot the "hand gesture"

Re: Safety July 21 2004, 8:24 AM


Metre says: Your answer is blatant nonsense.
I respond by clarifying my answer.
Metre says: Never mind what you said.

That explains a lot.

metre:
It sure does. Fancy maintaining that petrol sold in litres is inferior.

(group of people at the BWMA forums): Does the hand gesture