Australian male (amateur)commentators covering Olympic sports use feet and inches to denote English speaking people's height. When they mention others, metres are used. They even discard the official Australian peculiarity of using centimetres in favour of European metres. No basketballer is 205 cm tall, but rather 2.05 m.
Women commentatators on the other hand use predominantly centimetres with no mentioning of feet.

Most Europeans I know use centimetres, not metres. I suggest that you take your head out of your books and get in the real world for a minute.

The Benelux and France use metres for a person's height.

According to whom? I have met, and actually spoken to (!!!!!!!!), French, Dutch, Germans, and they almost all use centimetres. Which makes sense- which would I use? Inches or yards? Only a person of inferior intelligence would use the yard.

The ease with which one can flip between metres and centimetres makes it rather academic. Flipping between inches and feet and inches is not quite as easy. This is a good reason to use metric units.

If you cannot convert a person's height from inches to feet and vice versa, rather quickly and in your head, well... what can I say?

Bryan:
Most Europeans I know use centimetres, not metres. I suggest that you take your head out of your books and get in the real world for a minute.

metre:
Let's add a few more to Conrad's list, Russians, Hungarians and nearly all other Eastern Nations, Austria, Germany, and I think Italy. So where do you have your head?

Re: Interesting? August 30 2004, 5:44 PM


Bryan:
According to whom? I have met, and actually spoken to (!!!!!!!!), French, Dutch, Germans, and they almost all use centimetres. Which makes sense- which would I use? Inches or yards? Only a person of inferior intelligence would use the yard.

metre:
Don't get your knickers in a twist. First of all we talk metres and centimetres, not inches and yards.
Looked from a language point of view it makes eminent sense to use metres. Saying centimetres is a mouthful in any language while 1.80 or 2.05 pronounced one eighty and two 0 five runs smooth from any tongue. No need to add metres because everybody knows what you mean in the context of peoples height, or anything else for that matter. Rest assured Australians and all other English speakers find it much easier to say 6/9 than 206 centimetres. Combined that makes more than a mouthful, TWOHUNDREDSIXCENTIMETRES. No wonder they prefer short feet and inches.

Bryan wrote

<<
If you cannot convert a person's height from inches to feet and vice versa, rather quickly and in your head, well... what can I say?
>>

OK, I can do the conversion quickly in my head, but (how do I say it without sounding immodest) I am better than average at doing mental arithmetic - one of the reasons why I esouspe the metric system - it is easier to handle than the Imperial system.

<<metre:
Don't get your knickers in a twist. First of all we talk metres and centimetres, not inches and yards.
>>

No you don't eric. Stop lieing about this (and about this idea that you know how australians speak).

One sign that I saw on the weekend that I think would get martin fuming all the way to his regulation books.

The sign said "Headroom x'xx" (x mtrs xxx millimetres)"

I kid you not!

And it was an "official" sign!

What *was* the minister for transport thinking on the day he made special dispensation for THAT sign!

<<
The ease with which one can flip between metres and centimetres makes it rather academic. Flipping between inches and feet and inches is not quite as easy. This is a good reason to use metric units.
>>

Martin, flipping between inches and feet/inches is quite simple because most people are between 5 and 6 feet tall. All you have to know is that 5x12=60.
Besides, one of the supposed advantages of the metric system is consistency. Where is the consistency if some people use metres and some use centimetres?
Also, it is not nearly as often necessary to convert a height from one unit to another as you may think.

SteveH wrote

<<
The sign said "Headroom x'xx" (x mtrs xxx millimetres)"

I kid you not!

And it was an "official" sign!

What *was* the minister for transport thinking on the day he made special dispensation for THAT sign!
>>

Was the sign in a carpark, on a road or access to a building. Different regulations apply to each.

...on the way in to a service station area on the M4, in Wales.

There is no welsh translation for ' and " by the way ;-)

Bryan said: Most Europeans I know use centimetres, not metres. I suggest that you take your head out of your books and get in the real world for a minute.

Response: I don't pay much attention to Europe, but the Japanese use centimeters -- given the Japanese eye for efficiency, I assumed this was normal.

Niles:
I don't pay much attention to Europe, but the Japanese use centimeters -- given the Japanese eye for efficiency, I assumed this was normal.

metre:
What do people using cumbersome medieval measurement units know about efficiency?

Bud:
Besides, one of the supposed advantages of the metric system is consistency. Where is the consistency if some people use metres and some use centimetres?

metre:
No matter how they say it, one eighty and two 0 five, or in centimetres, only metric illiterates find that inconsistent. For fluent metric people both units are instantly discernable 1.80/2.05, 180/205. As I pointed out the reason most use metres has to do with language.
You always see the tiny splinter in other people's eyes, but never the beam in your own.

re (meter): "What do people using cumbersome medieval measurement units know about efficiency?"

REPLY: They successfully put three men on the moon, unless you are among the 20% or so of the population who believe this was an all-American hoax

I'm hoping by now that most people here are aware that eric is a metric illiterate.

Just making sure?

P.S. My car does about 20mpg - I AGREE that that's not very efficient. Perhaps if I work it out in that odd metric way with 100km or whatever then my car wil become more efficient.

Like the efficiency of calling the height of a door in thousands of millimetres!

Steve said: I'm hoping by now that most people here are aware that eric is a metric illiterate.

Response: I am, and it is an absolute pleasure to deal with his posts.

Eric (metre) said: What do people using cumbersome medieval measurement units know about efficiency?

So centimeters are cumbersome medæval measurements? Fascinating. Or maybe you were questioning a mere American’s ability to recognize efficiency? This may come as a shock to you, but we actually do use metric where it is more efficient to do so. In surveying, and ordinary trade, for example, it is more efficient to stick with American Customary Measures. However, in medicine, we have found metric to be more efficient.

You may benefit from an essay I wrote that can be found here: http://www.dreamwater.org/whittenword/sovrealm/macu.htm

Damnant quod non intellegunt.

Three Men on the Moon September 2 2004, 10:55 AM
metre:
re (meter): "What do people using cumbersome medieval measurement units know about efficiency?"
TB:
REPLY: They successfully put three men on the moon, unless you are among the 20% or so of the population who believe this was an all-American hoax

metre:
With rockets designed by Werner von Braun, in metric, to be sure.

Niles:
So centimeters are cumbersome med涡l measurements? Fascinating. Or maybe you were questioning a mere American’s ability to recognize efficiency? This may come as a shock to you, but we actually do use metric where it is more efficient to do so. In surveying, and ordinary trade, for example, it is more efficient to stick with American Customary Measures. However, in medicine, we have found metric to be more efficient.

metre:
Congratulations, the true words of a metric illiterate, time waster, and innovatively challenged person.

What are you actually trying to tell me? You have to learn to come to the point, not meander continuously over barren territory.
No need to clad your insults into latin either, I have no problem ignoring them in English.

Eric(metre) said: “No need to clad your insults into latin…; You have to learn to come to the point…”

Response: It wasn’t really meant as an insult… but I see your position.

Learn to come to the point? I have found that a point is a useless weapon against an amorphous cloud of vapor.

Haha, nice one.

Until metre/eric/carlyle realizes that he does not live in America, and therefore has no idea about the situation here, this will keep going on.

I don't think he gets out much in the UK too, Bud!

Niles - don't you thinkold-boy eric would be a great patient for a learning psychologist?

Check out these two classics:

<<Congratulations, the true words of a metric illiterate, time waster, and innovatively challenged person>>

Surely this is a reflection of his own weaknesses. Having accidentally "given away" that he is not metric literate on metricsucks (citing that you cannot know both systems). Remarkably his only "weapon" to your own challenge is to accuse you of his weaknesses! Priceless!

Now check this:


<<No need to clad your insults into latin either, I have no problem ignoring them in English. >>

So he's not reading your latin, eh?
Hmm.
He's "not reading" your latin.
I'm actually stupified greater with the fact he recognises it as latin rather than the daftness of not reading the read bit!

What's the likelihood that old boy eric put "Damnant quod non intellegunt" into a google search string? eh?


BTW - you're in regal company here, Niles.
He "doesn't read" my posts either.

Steve said: “Remarkably his only "weapon" to your own challenge is to accuse you of his weaknesses! Priceless! … He "doesn't read" my posts either.”

Response: It is truly a wonder to behold. His admission about not reading what I write certainly goes a long way to explain why his posts are so off kilter.

Re: Interesting? September 3 2004, 4:13 PM


Leonard:
Response: It is truly a wonder to behold. His admission about not reading what I write certainly goes a long way to explain why his posts are so off kilter.

metre:
Quite right, how can one get a grip on "amorphous vapor".

Bud:
Haha, nice one.
Until metre/eric/carlyle realizes that he does not live in America, and therefore has no idea about the situation here, this will keep going on.

metre:
By god, I have expanded into a multi personality. You seem to have lost the plot altogether. Who needs to live in America to know that the metric system is superior.

You do need to live in America to understand the extent of problems caused by having 2 systems side-by-side.

...but allegedly he lives in the UK.

Niles, note how he thinks you are Leonard again?!!

LOL!

From eric who is metre who is kilo!

Once again accusing you of exactly what he is doing!

There are worse things to be accused of being. Leonard's posts appear to be very well thought out, usually.

Although we have not heard from him in ages...

Leonard and me were not infrequently in contact. Basically, whilst he still has an interest in this issue, he is devoting his energies to learning higher physics and the like these days. We had a small chat, in fact, about string theory.

Not that historical scientific question that's been baffling scientists for centuries?

You know?

"How long's a piece of string"





And we laughed etc.

Funny you should mention that. The multidimensional aspects of superstring theory are bringing us closer to a 'theory of everything'. For example, they (people like Michio Kaku) think that forces like gravity in this dimension could be but one effect of a phenomenon that originates in another dimension entirely. Unfortunately, we have no way to measure such things at this time. I wonder – if we were able to map a phenomenon in another dimension, and the only discernable patterns were made up of threes and fours, would the metricators recognize the pattern as such? Or would they label it a completely random event?

re (Niles): "...if we were able to map a phenomenon in another dimension, and the only discernable patterns were made up of threes and fours, would the metricators recognize the pattern as such? Or would they label it a completely random event?"

REPLY: I heard a mathematics discussion programme on Radio 4 the other day.

They were discussing a Prof. somewhere who has apparently calculated the value of 'pie' (Gk letter 'p' as in pie x r squared) to around 7 trillion decimal places (starting with 3.14159, I believe).

According to another Mathematician who has studied these digits in detail, apparently there is good evidence that some numbers come up every 16 digits

Thanks, Tony – that was an interesting (and much appreciated) bit of information. While the metricators may not be able to make heads or tails of it, the hexadecimalists will be thrilled :)

Re: Interesting? September 6 2004, 7:12 AM

Bud:
You do need to live in America to understand the extent of problems caused by having 2 systems side-by-side.

metre:
I have no problem to discern from a distance that teaching and using 2 measurements wastes time, costs money and causes among other even fatal accidents. You seem to be happy with that, I would not be.

Re: Interesting? September 6 2004, 12:57 PM


There are worse things to be accused of being. Leonard's posts appear to be very well thought out, usually.


metre:
You must be a fan of X cole then.
I didn't mean it as a compliment. Sounds like you are patting your own shoulder.

eric said: "You seem to be happy with that, I would not be."

Response: That's fine.

Round about three and one seventh September 7 2004, 1:35 AM

TB:
re (Niles): "...if we were able to map a phenomenon in another dimension, and the only discernable patterns were made up of threes and fours, would the metricators recognize the pattern as such? Or would they label it a completely random event?"

REPLY: I heard a mathematics discussion programme on Radio 4 the other day.

They were discussing a Prof. somewhere who has apparently calculated the value of 'pie' (Gk letter 'p' as in pie x r squared) to around 7 trillion decimal places (starting with 3.14159, I believe).

According to another Mathematician who has studied these digits in detail, apparently there is good evidence that some numbers come up every 16 digits

metre:
You really surprise me? Isn't it common knowledge that the universe is based on imperial? Just a pity that it is slowly, but surely disappearing on this planet.

eric said: "You must be a fan of X cole then."

Response: Feh!

eric said (regarding my response to his Leonard comparison): "I didn't mean it as a compliment. Sounds like you are patting your own shoulder."

Response: I know you didn’t mean it as a compliment. Unfortunately for you, you cannot control how I take it. If my shoulder is patted, it is you who provided the hand. Please remove your hand from my shoulder :)

Par pare refero :)

L/N:
If my shoulder is patted, it is you who provided the hand. Please remove your hand from my shoulder :)

metre:
Now, why on earth would I want to do that? Or is it wishful thinking on your part?

Niles is still scrubbing his shoulder with a variety of bleach and caustic cleaning agents.

It's the only way, apparently.

>>>>>>
While the metricators may not be able to make heads or tails of it, the hexadecimalists will be thrilled :)
<<<<<<


I am to assume that you are a hexadecimalist then, Niles? I am a member of the Dozenal Society of Great Britain myself, altho' I believe that binary bases have much to be said for them (maybe even more for them than base twelve has going for it).


Anyway, yes metre, well done, it is a well known fact than lots of things in nature are based on 2 and 3 and multiples thereof, whereas relatively few things in nature are based on 5 and 10 and their multiples. And before you say, "Very few things, apart from HUMANS that is!!", I would like to remind you that human hands are just as much base 8 or base 12 as they are base 10. In fact, given it is more efficient to use base 12 when counting on your hands, maybe humans are naturally more base-12 than ten.Not to mention the fact that humans have two arms, two legs, two nostrils, two eyes, and two of a lot of other things as well.

http://www.dsgb.orbix.co.uk/begin.htm <--- some interesting stuff to be found here. Don't scoff at the user friendly graphics :p

My God !

I've just seen what you look like!

You're one of those trendy students that never smile aren't you ?

Come on!!

Admit it.

Do you own a "Cure" album?

What are you talking about Steve?

I followed the link to your website!

Damn. Oh well. Actually, The Smiths are more my cup of tea.. so yes, posey student.. ;)

FFS!
I was going to say "The Smiths" but thought that to be too obvious!!

Seriously! I did!

Bloody mind reader, me....

So, what about my picture tipped you off to my being a malibu-drinking, coffee bar-going, maudlin, depressive Smithsonian...? No, I am asking genuinely.


P.S. This board seriously needs a private message feature.

Nah! I just thought you looked gay.

**** ONLY JOKING!!! ****

Bryan asked: “I am to assume that you are a hexadecimalist then, Niles?”

Response: No, no. I am a dozenalist. My best friend is a hexadecimalist. While I see the value of binary systems, I find that dozenal is a more geometrically useful number-base system. Personally, I think that if metricators truly believed some of the things they spout, they would advocate a change to hexadecimal counting and a hexadecimal metric system.

I was planning to post a dozenal page on my web site at http://www.dreamwater.org/whittenword/sovrealm/measure.htm -- however, the server seems to have been taken out by the tropical storm. Hopefully, it’ll be back up in a few days and I can update it.

Re: Interesting? September 7 2004, 5:00 AM

L/N:
eric said: "You seem to be happy with that, I would not be."

Response: That's fine.

metre:
Was my answer directed to a post of yours, or do you automatically answer anything you set eyes on?

Anyway, yes metre, well done, it is a well known fact than lots of things in nature are based on 2 and 3 and multiples thereof, whereas relatively few things in nature are based on 5 and 10 and their multiples. And before you say, "Very few things, apart from HUMANS that is!!", I would like to remind you that human hands are just as much base 8 or base 12 as they are base 10. In fact, given it is more efficient to use base 12 when counting on your hands, maybe humans are naturally more base-12 than ten.Not to mention the fact that humans have two arms, two legs, two nostrils, two eyes, and two of a lot of other things as well.

metre:
That's the problem with mankind, our minds can believe anything.

First off, it's a public forum. Second, it wasn't an answer -- it was a comment.

Eric's posts are the only circumstance where the use of the term "Whatever" can be justified, it appears.

>>>>>>
metre:
That's the problem with mankind, our minds can believe anything.
<<<<<<


Is that even a post mean to be taken seriously? I dunno- made me laugh anyway.

Re: Interesting? September 8 2004, 6:09 AM


Niles:
First off, it's a public forum. Second, it wasn't an answer -- it was a comment.

metre:
Yes, but do me the courtesy to quote what I said, not only a meaningless part of it.

Re: Interesting? September 8 2004, 1:49 PM


>>>>>>
metre:
That's the problem with mankind, our minds can believe anything.
<<<<<<

Bryan:
Is that even a post mean to be taken seriously? I dunno- made me laugh anyway.

metre:
You are the absolute proof of that statement. Anyone considering imperial units as worthwile keeping must also believe in the immaculate conception.

eric(metre) said: "Yes, but do me the courtesy to quote what I said, not only a meaningless part of it."

Response: The selection I quoted had meaning; taking it out of context doesn't change the meaning relative to my comment.

<<Anyone considering imperial units as worthwile keeping must also believe in the immaculate conception>>

I didn't realise you are a devout catholic, eric?

re (metre): "You are the absolute proof of that statement. Anyone considering imperial units as worthwile keeping must also believe in the immaculate conception".

REPLY: Well, not me. There's no warrant for that doctrine in the Bible; Mary's parents are named in the Bible. The doctrine of immaculate conception is a Papal invention. By the way, the E.U. flag is based on a misinterpretation by the Papacy of Revelation 12 vv. 1-2, where the 'woman' is surrounded by 12 stars. Roman Catholics say that the 'woman' in these two verses is Mary. Well, she is not.

Go into most R.C. churches on the continent and you will sse a statue - often more than one - of the Virgin Mary surrounded by a halo of 12 stars (always 12). That's why the E.U. flag has 12 stars and will always have 12 stars

In the metric/decimal Bible, Jesus will have ten disciples, there will be ten tribes of Israel, Noah will measure by half-meters, and God will rest on the fifth or tenth day. :)

Re: Interesting? September 9 2004, 5:57 AM

Niles:
eric(metre) said: "Yes, but do me the courtesy to quote what I said, not only a meaningless part of it."

Response: The selection I quoted had meaning; taking it out of context doesn't change the meaning relative to my comment.


metre:
Beg your pardon, please do me the courtesy and quote me in full if you decide to comment on it. Thank you

TB:
Go into most R.C. churches on the continent and you will sse a statue - often more than one - of the Virgin Mary surrounded by a halo of 12 stars (always 12). That's why the E.U. flag has 12 stars and will always have 12 stars

metre:
Anything at all is possible in the minds of men and women.

Re: Interesting? September 9 2004, 7:56 PM


Niles:
In the metric/decimal Bible, Jesus will have ten disciples, there will be ten tribes of Israel, Noah will measure by half-meters, and God will rest on the fifth or tenth day. :)

metre:
Whatever turns you on.

Three posts - none with any value (apart from the desire to insult)

I was going to mention that...

Shall we all just cut out the middle man and simply call each other names?

The one with the loudest voice wins....

Interesting? September 10 2004, 12:54 PM

SH:
Three posts - none with any value (apart from the desire to insult)

Re: Three posts September 10 2004, 1:26 PM

Niles:
I was going to mention that...

metre:
If it wouldn't be predictable, I would have said, eery that convergence of imperial minds?

metre:
If it wouldn't be predictable, I would have said, eery that convergence of imperial minds?

Why? Were you thinking the same thing?

Re: Interesting? September 13 2004, 2:49 PM


metre:
If it wouldn't be predictable, I would have said, eery that convergence of imperial minds?

Why? Were you thinking the same thing?

metre:
You seem to share that imperialistic shortcoming, none of you seems to understand plain English.

What are you arguing about, eric?