Mr. Chamberlain philosophises:

"Their intellectual superiority, therefore, lies in being more sapient, more mentally stimulating. Anyone can test this for himself next time he is stuck on a maths problem. Swittch to Imperial or pre-decimal units: it has the effect of refreshing one’s attention on the problem and gathering food for thought. You’ll stand a much better chance of hitting the answer."

Now let’s look at a more pertinent view.

Only Arabic numerals, place value, a zero and decimal notation allowed arithmetic to forge ahead. These advances freed the brain of unnecessary and mundane work and allowed it to concentrate on more important problems facing mankind.
These are thoughts of the eminent mathematician Alfred North Whitehead, British philosopher and mathematician 1861-1947

Did he talk about obsolete units?
By the way, I didn’t know that measurement systems are ”sapient”?

I am not in agreement that switching to Imperial Units helps one to concentrate on the problem.

Some years ago a neighbour and I were discussing current affairs over the garden fence (a Norweigian oil rig that capsized) and in order to visualise how large it was, we agreed that we had to visualise the size of a sphere of water with a mass of 2000 ton[ne]s. My reasoning went:

volume of 2000 tonnes of water = 2000m^3.
Volume of a sphere is (4/3)*pi*r^3.
If we work in units of 10m, then we have to solve the equation (4/3)*pi*r^3=2.
Setting pi = 3, the equation reduces to r^3 = 0.5
Thus r is a little less than 1, (say about 0.8), making the radius of the sphere 8m and its diameter 16m.

When I announced the answer to my friend, he was still busy trying to evaluate 2000*2240/62.5 in order to establish how many cubic feet there were in the sphere of water.

Gosh some people live exciting lives, don't they?

Mind blowing

Metre, even though I’m on your side here, I wish you’d be quiet about certain things. You’re not helping things with your uninformed posts. Having said that, I’d like to say that your ‘numerals’ example’s a great argument; you should stick to posts like that. You’d do better to avoid talking about word definitions, they’re clearly not your strong suit.

Martin, you gave an excellent measurement-related illustration of metre’s example. I agree with you. Niles and Mr. Chamberlain like to argue that customary units are more desirable because they provoke more thought. I’d agree with that in certain circumstances – education for example. However, for science and engineering, I’d say that metric is preferable exactly because it doesn’t require as much thought. It frees up brainpower for other problem-solving processes (as metre astutely said).

Hmm, 1 ton = 2000lb, 1 cft = 1000oz water. Complicated stuff there, mate.

No, no, Thomas. He is doing just fine. Eric, do you even know what ‘sapient’ means?

Another thing, Thomas. You know as well as I do that an engineer taught in customary units will have no trouble applying them to such a problem. Eric is another story altogether.

Bryan Parry: "Hmm, 1 ton = 2000lb, 1 cft = 1000oz water. Complicated stuff there, mate."

Say what you want, but you can't possibly deny that metric is far easier for this kind of calculations.

I think metric was DESIGNED for this kind of calculation, wasn't it? In any case, I am merely saying that English is not necessarily as complicated as was made out.

<<<customary units are more desirable because they provoke more thought. I’d agree with that in certain circumstances – education for example. However, for science and engineering, I’d say that metric is preferable exactly because it doesn’t require as much thought. It frees up brainpower for other problem-solving processes (as metre astutely said). >>

Blimey - I agree with Thomas!

To suggest that something is more worthy because you have needlessly made the task more complicated for yourself is just plain daft.

Re: Homo sapiens? February 27 2004, 11:14 PM

Metre, even though I’m on your side here, I wish you’d be quiet about certain things. You’re not helping things with your uninformed posts. Having said that, I’d like to say that your ‘numerals’ example’s a great argument; you should stick to posts like that. You’d do better to avoid talking about word definitions, they’re clearly not your strong suit.


You are entitled to your opinion if you can prove your point. If not, refrain from talking through your neck. Cheers

Re: Homo sapiens? February 27 2004, 11:46 PM

No, no, Thomas. He is doing just fine. Eric, do you even know what ‘sapient’ means?

Another thing, Thomas. You know as well as I do that an engineer taught in customary units will have no trouble applying them to such a problem. Eric is another story altogether.

Oh dear, oh dear, you are still chewing on pontificate and now you put your USC foot in again. It pays to think before writing, not your forte is it?

Re: Homo sapiens? February 29 2004, 8:20 PM

To suggest that something is more worthy because you have needlessly made the task more complicated for yourself is just plain daft.

Succinctly put engineer!

however, in the real world......


(lets see if you actually understand what I'm suggesting here! Clue: Go for a walk somewhere very public.... and "listen")

I have been relatively polite to Eric in the past. That will not be the case this week. The No Name-Calling Week Coalition has declared 01-05 March to be ‘No Name-Calling Week.’ So, in my standard method of political protest regarding such awareness days, or weeks, I am going to be name-calling and insulting this week. Rest easy, Eric, I do this out of respect for your rights. I have noted in past posts that you love to name-call & insult and apparently think that it is an acceptable discussion technique. Far be it for me to question the wisdom of your choices, I am merely concerned that you have such choices. It wouldn’t do to have the thought police come and arrest you when you’ve only just begun your rebuttal, would it?

Now, where was I… Oh yes, Eric (metre) said:
“Oh dear, oh dear, you are still chewing on pontificate and now you put your USC foot in again. It pays to think before writing, not your forte is it?”

There you go with that ‘pontificate’ word again. That’s a mighty big word for such a small intellect. Be careful, son, you could put an eye out with that thing.

By they way, Eric, since I am taking pity on idiots this week, allow me to be bluntly honest. You should reread your own posts very carefully. Then compare them to posts written by other people. Then consider this question: Who told you that you were qualified to think and what on earth gives you the idea that you are capable of identifying someone else’s thinking, or lack thereof? If you are employed, which would be a miracle, I pity your poor employer.

* * *

Don’t worry, ladies and gentlemen… ordinarily, I would tell you to leave this sort of thing to the professionals, but this one’s safe… his arguments are so impotent that being attacked by him is somewhat akin to being savaged by a dead sheep.

=======================================================
This insulting/name-calling spree was brought to you in political protest against the No Name-Calling Week Coalition and of No Name-Calling week.

01-05 March, No Name-Calling Week March 1 2004, 9:13 PM

I have been relatively polite to Eric in the past. That will not be the case this week. The No Name-Calling Week Coalition has declared 01-05 March to be ‘No Name-Calling Week.’ So, in my standard method of political protest regarding such awareness days, ld it?

Now, where was I… Oh yes, Eric (metre) said:
“Oh dear, oh dear, you are still chewing on pontificate and now you put your USC foot in again. It pays to think before writing, not your forte is it?”

There you go with that ‘pontificate’ word again. That’s a mighty big word for such a small intellect. Be careful, son, you could put an eye out with that thing.

By they way, Eric, since I am taking pity on idiots this week, allow me to be bluntly honest. You should reread your own posts very carefully. Then compare them to posts written by other people. Then consider this question: Who told you that you were qualified to think and what on earth gives you the idea that you are capable of identifying someone else’s thinking, or lack thereof? If you are employed, which would be a miracle, I pity your poor employer.

Oh boy, oh boy that must have hurt. I try to be gentler with you next time.

<<
However, for science and engineering, I’d say that metric is preferable exactly because it doesn’t require as much thought. It frees up brainpower for other problem-solving processes (as metre astutely said).
>>
The amount of brain power it would free up would be almost zero (assuming that you are working in the units that you are used to). Like I have said before, engineering calculations can get so complicated that units of measurement, if they were simplified, would make virtually no difference to the complexity of work needed.

Indeed, and rods, yards, drams and bushels I would generally say are not used in engineering, so it is not liek the gobbledegook you get on some website that claim English engineers must struggle with rod-tons, drams per sq in and so on.

Who here started reading Eric's repost of Nile's post but then gave up due to the natural tendancy of the human to avoid deja vu?

Looks like Bryan, Bud and myself so far.

Seriously, that is actually what I did.

Me too. Horrible, isn't it?

One wonders whether there is a lesson to be learned in this?


Hmmmm


Probably not.

Eric (metre) said:
“Oh boy, oh boy that must have hurt. I try to be gentler with you next time.”

My dear fellow; nothing of the sort!! :) What makes you think that you posses sufficient reasoning to make determinations about anything I say? It only makes you look like more of an idiot than you looked before. Here’s some advice: better to stay silent and allow others to think you are a fool than to speak (in this case write) and remove all doubt.

No, the reason for insulting you was made abundantly clear in the previous post (which you can’t seem to read but post quite freely). Although, that isn’t the whole reason – Insulting you is great fun! :) Besides, I thought I’d come down to your level and speak in words you can understand for a change.

You were right in only one point you have made in this thread. I concede that, even though I disagreed with Thomas for the sake of argument. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Oh, sorry Eric, you’re one short for this thread, which means that you have less brainpower than a stopped clock. Here’s some advice: quit posting, practice some simple thoughts like ‘fire bad, food good,’ then move on to something more challenging. Come back when you feel you are competent to form a thought.

And what’s up with you in the ‘USC Idiocy’ post? You type as if a moron has taken control of your keyboard… oh, wait, you are a moron… what was I thinking?

No, seriously, since I am playing around this week, I’ll give credit where credit is due; that example you gave about the numbers was really good. Do more of that and we can get some two-sided discussion for a change.

=======================================================
This insulting/name-calling spree was brought to you in political protest against the No Name-Calling Week Coalition and of No Name-Calling week.

Niles

01-05 March, No Name-Calling Week protest continued... March 3 2004, 12:36 AM

Eric (metre) said:
“Oh boy, oh boy that must have hurt. I try to be gentler with you next time.”

My dear fellow; nothing of the sort!! :) What makes you think that you posses sufficient reasoning to make determinations about anything I say? It only makes you look like more of an idiot than you looked before. Here’s some advice: better to stay silent and allow others to think you are a fool than to speak (in this case write) and remove all doubt.

No, the reason for insulting you was made abundantly clear in the previous post (which you can’t seem to read but post quite freely). Although, that isn’t the whole reason – Insulting you is great fun! :) Besides, I thought I’d come down to your level and speak in words you can understand for a change.

You were right in only one point you have made in this thread. I concede that, even though I disagreed with Thomas for the sake of argument. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Oh, sorry Eric, you’re one short for this thread, which means that you have less brainpower than a stopped clock. Here’s some advice: quit posting, practice some simple thoughts like ‘fire bad, food good,’ then move on to something more challenging. Come back when you feel you are competent to form a thought.

And what’s up with you in the ‘USC Idiocy’ post? You type as if a moron has taken control of your keyboard… oh, wait, you are a moron… what was I thinking?

No, seriously, since I am playing around this week, I’ll give credit where credit is due; that example you gave about the numbers was really good. Do more of that and we can get some two-sided discussion for a change.

=======================================================
This insulting/name-calling spree was brought to you in political protest against the No Name-Calling Week Coalition and of No Name-Calling week.

It obviously hurt you even more than I thought, sorry I didn't mean to devastate you.

Homo sapiens?
February 27 2004 at 5:40 AM metre


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chamberlain philosophises:

"Their intellectual superiority, therefore, lies in being more sapient, more mentally stimulating. Anyone can test this for himself next time he is stuck on a maths problem. Swittch to Imperial or pre-decimal units: it has the effect of refreshing one’s attention on the problem and gathering food for thought. You’ll stand a much better chance of hitting the answer."

Now let’s look at a more pertinent view.

Only Arabic numerals, place value, a zero and decimal notation allowed arithmetic to forge ahead. These advances freed the brain of unnecessary and mundane work and allowed it to concentrate on more important problems facing mankind.
These are thoughts of the eminent mathematician Alfred North Whitehead, British philosopher and mathematician 1861-1947

Did he talk about obsolete units?
By the way, I didn’t know that measurement systems are ”sapient”?


Great, the intellectual foot soldiers on this board have formed an mutual admiration club. Well that's one way to get recognition. Better join them Niles, before you are left out in the cold.

Who here started reading Eric's repost of Nile's post but then gave up due to the natural tendancy of the human to avoid deja vu?

Looks like everyone.

I like this idea of "no - insult week" and deliberately ignoring it because it's the nanny state interfering again.

Allows me to remind people of what a nasty hypocritical sub-worm-educated feeble neo-racist lying little old man Eric is.
At least with the anonymity of a bulletin board he won't have to worry about a government lead "no - punching people week"!

What a ***t

Re: Homo sapiens? March 2 2004, 4:28 AM

<<
However, for science and engineering, I’d say that metric is preferable exactly because it doesn’t require as much thought. It frees up brainpower for other problem-solving processes (as metre astutely said).
>>
Bud:
The amount of brain power it would free up would be almost zero (assuming that you are working in the units that you are used to). Like I have said before, engineering calculations can get so complicated that units of measurement, if they were simplified, would make virtually no difference to the complexity of work needed.

You do not want, or can't face reality, do you?
As Linda's example shows, this is the grim reality many people have to face daily in their jobs. Be it carpenters sheet metal workers, clerks and numerous others, most ordinary people haven't got much mathematical acumen.
The overwhelming consensus is that imperial is cumbersome and metric is not. I shall post more examples like Linda's just to show you how average people struggle with that cumbersome system.

<<
As Linda's example shows, this is the grim reality many people have to face daily in their jobs.
>>
Then why aren't THEY lobbying for metrication? Why was metrication, actively promoted by the US government and big companies in the 70s, abandoned because of lack of support from the people? If all your examples are true, you would expect the population to at least support the policy.


<<
The overwhelming consensus is that imperial is cumbersome and metric is not.
>>
Please cite evidence. Not imaginary evidence, not testimonials from "Linda" or your "relatives in the US" but scientifically collected statistical data.


<<
I shall post more examples like Linda's just to show you how average people struggle with that cumbersome system.
>>
Great. Keep the entertainment coming.

IF You want to raise your game, metre-call-me-Roger-Irrelevant-eric, you're really going to have to get the hang of this 'A' not being 'B' lark. Thinking by brain anyone who has one can see Alfred Whitehead's words apply to the COUNTING system, to the difference between Roman and Arabic numerals. Looking by eye will soon tell you that the blindingly obvious, plain English of my post referred to the meanings and connotations of Imperial NOMENCLATURE and other familiar, cultural associations. It's as easy as observing that the point about one's freedom to use a horse and cart was raised by the Forum chap, not by me so ( right thought he was) that's nothing to do with my point, either.

Notice, however, that you haven't fooled anyone with your analogy of traditional systems to a horse and cart. I hope you're not telling me this is all there is to you? Slope out of what you can't answer, and shelter your ego behind the old pseudo-intellectual trick of pretending to miss the point?

Or is it really my day today, and you seriously thought that's what I meant? In which case you have, again, only proved what the problem is. - Talking like the mental patient in the joke who saw only sex in the Rorschach inkblots, by automatically assuming I was talking about something twee, rustic or olde worlde. What a classic symptom of the crippled imagination of a pseudo-rationalist!

Bummer for you is, me ol' shiner, my real point applies just as well to buggy-shaped scientific units of measurement like light-years, gravity ( G's) and pressure in atmospheres as it does to Imperial ones. You don't have to go out of your way to do what I'm talking about. It's what happens anyway when you use either. It is the respect in which Imperial and the natural units I mention are closer to language and metric closer to algebra. The natural phenomena on which these scientific units are based and named for - light, years, the atmosphere, our gravity - do exactly the same job that the cultural and semantic connotations of feet, stone and acres do: keep the user within sight of the big picture. Keep the user facing the cockpit window of human experience, so as to militate against the risk of relying on abstract dead reckoning alone. Just like night bomber crews did early in WW2, dropping their loads in open fields ( whether you're trying to drive a horse and cart through them at the time, metre-hyperactive-nark-eric, it won't make any difference to me).

So before you try to change the subject here, too, I shall labour the importance of this. It's all because - give or take Descartes's "cogito ergo sum" - the human mind in a vacuum can prove or disprove nothing. To have a valid basis for anything worth discussing, we must interact with material reality. The scientific method of repeatable, controlled experiment is the greatest refinement of this to date; but trial and error, empiricism and probable reasoning from good old experience are rougher but readier versions of this: the interactive basis of human knowledge.

In its turn, our rational faculty finds its validity in efficiency. Crash test that between your ears a few times and you'll soon see that a thing can only be known to be rational insofar as it is proven to be efficient. And efficiency is relative to human purposes. Ergo it is a contradiction in terms for something to be 'more rational' than it needs to be and I could say, already, that that is where metric falls down: sticking out for its clumsy abstractions at any price. So like trying to trade freely under Communism, people resort to Black Metric by ad libbing surrogate feet ( bernicles) and surrogate pints ( half-litres, middies) because they were as efficient as they needed to be, all along.

So Imperial and natural scientific units keep rationality rational by taking human experience as their yardsticks: light, years, the atmosphere and gravity as they just happen to be experienced by a self-consciously intelligent life form that just happened to evolve on the third planet from an unremarkable star. Ditto inches, pounds and hogsheads, as they just happened to have survived the trial and error of generations, the nest best thing to natural selection.

This allows their familiar associations to work like clutch plates between mind and matter, making sure that what should happen, does happen. Not for we rationalists the pretences of spooky, transcendent significance that nobody really knows for sure, here. None of the pretensions of the Higher Nonsense of French Existentialism that would have you believe - and as their cat's paw, you possibly do believe - that only the abstract is truly real and it is material reality, the stuff you bang your head on, that is illusory.

So whilst I didn't really mean you should step out into the sensual world like the Zippedy Do Da sequence from Song of the South I could say that, in your case, you could do worse. The lesson for you is that life's not what you thought it was. There's certainly more to it than being a stooge of French cultural imperialism and gallocentric arrogance and a nark of pseudo-rationalism of which, you cannot deny, your metric system is the bastard offspring. It's why you can only 'prove' the metric system is more efficient by assuming it already is, because there is no human problem for which metric, alone, is a solution and why only by accident - the similar length of the yard and the metre and the name candela for its unit of luminosity - does it relate responsibly to the world of experience.

That's why I suggested that test-it-yourself exercise in my first post. Otherwise, once you dupes of cod-rationalism get into your syllogism, you only snap out of it by some lucky accident. You're blind to the logical so you can only be cured by the psychological.

Since you seem shy of that test, I'll make it easier or you. Next time you're stuck on a maths problem in metric, simply fool around with some made-up English names for the metric units: call your metres 'leap-yards', your kilos 'taterweights', your litres 'long pints' or something. Won't matter for the nonce. You'll soon lighten up, as the Americans say. Because cheap points don't really score higher than good ones metre-adolescent-mentality-eric: they prove only how culturally retarded you are. Pretending to miss the point shows anything but your lame or inferior intellect. If you seriously think that's raising your game, boy! do you need therapy.

Re: Homo sapiens? March 4 2004, 7:19 AM

<<
As Linda's example shows, this is the grim reality many people have to face daily in their jobs.
>>
Then why aren't THEY lobbying for metrication? Why was metrication, actively promoted by the US government and big companies in the 70s, abandoned because of lack of support from the people? If all your examples are true, you would expect the population to at least support the policy.

I am not raking cold ashes again.
<<
The overwhelming consensus is that imperial is cumbersome and metric is not.
>>
Please cite evidence. Not imaginary evidence, not testimonials from "Linda" or your "relatives in the US" but scientifically collected statistical data.

Open your eyes, the world is metric, and you still need statistical evidence? How out of touch can you be with reality?

<<
I shall post more examples like Linda's just to show you how average people struggle with that cumbersome system.
>>
Great. Keep the entertainment coming.

One should never gloat about people's problems.

Your prodigious effort is long on words and short on substance.
I had 3 choices to meet your challenge, ignore it, refute it sentence by sentence and lay bare some of the inanities you come up with, or summarise the whole confused lot into something comprehensible.

First to Alfred Whitehead. You can interpret him whichever way you like, his main contention is that mathematics is only a tool to an end and so are measurements. Neither has any other purpose.

Therefore, the meanings and connotations you read into imperial nomenclature and units are figments of your very patriotic imagination. You walk on solid ground when you say they are language bound.
Aside that, your problem seems to be the rationality of the metric system and its French origin.
Nothing humans do, rational or otherwise, is done without some emotional input as your post amply testifies. Pure rationality exists only in pure mathematics on this planet.
You would do well to do a Rorschach test and I am sure every blot you are tested on portrays imperial symbols on a Union Jack background.
Whatever pseudo-rationalist are, I leave you to decide.

Beats me what imperial, or for that matter metric units, contribute to the big picture? Are you telling me that only imperial users see the big picture and the rest of humanity is mentally impoverished b/c they do not use cumbersome units? My, my, you do have an overactive nationalistic gland.

Empiricism, how do you think the metric system came about? You are not suggesting that it came down from heaven, are you?

Nark and French ideas? Do I detect a paranoic streak?

Whatever follows is pure gobbledygook, like “our rational faculty finds its validity in efficiency”. Efficiency is an off spring of logic and so is the metric system. You constantly repeat yourself saying if you don’t use imperial, you are not fully human! Get off your blinkered imperial horse and look at the real world. The reality is, you and your fellow travellers, are way off the common mental track.

Maybe what follows mirrors your convoluted thought processes.
Take the written English language as it is used in Britain and the States.
We write neighbour, labour and favour, Americans discarded the u, and simplified jewellery into jewelry use zed instead of ess and so on. Now, if somebody troubled him/herself to do a survey in both countries asking people how should those words be spelled, the English, or American way? Brits would overwhelmingly opt for their version while Americans would stick to theirs.
If Britons are told, but look, neighbor is much simpler, is less prone to mistakes and dropping the u does not distort the word's meaning. Would that make any difference? None at all! Answers like. we always spelt it that way, why should we change it, and with you, even questions of sacred heritage come in. While everyone sees the “rationality “of the simplification nobody is overly bothered about it except a few misguided patriots like you, who mount barricades to defend the sacred heritage of the letter U. As so often in human affairs logic comes very distant second to emotion.

Now if you asked Americans and say, look, the English spelling is original and therefore the correct one many would say that might well be so, but it complicates spelling needlessly. Americans are as adamant as Brits to stick with their version. Mind you, Yanks do have the advantage over Brits in this argument. Theirs is the simplified version. Need I go on, or do you get the drift by now? If you can muster one LOCIGAL reason, and one cannot stress that point enough with imperialists, why keeping the u is necessary, you have won your very confused and unnecessarily belligerent argument.

Come to think of it that example is actually very close to the core problem of why it is so difficult to replace imperial with metric measurements.

While we are at it, one other constantly disputed fact by some even dimmer lights on this board! If Britain decided to simplify spelling and drop the u, most people would carry on out of sheer HABIT to spell it the familiar way. Some individuals like you would deliberately shun that improvement based purely on misguided patriotism. To say it nicely, such my friend is the HUMAN CONDITON.

<<
I am not raking cold ashes again.
>>
Translation: I have nothing to say.



<<
Open your eyes, the world is metric, and you still need statistical evidence? How out of touch can you be with reality?
>>
I never said that. I was asking for evidence that people have major problems with imperial.



<<
One should never gloat about people's problems.
>>
One should never imagine that other people have problems that they do not.

The Real Me March 5 2004, 1:11 AM

IF You want to raise your game, metre-call-me-Roger-Irrelevant-eric,

You are contradicting yourself awesomely. What on earth possessed you to waste so much effort and time on "metre-call-me-Roger-Irrelevant-eric,"

Both American and British English are riddled with eccentricities and flaws. In many repects, however, the American simplified spelling, most often resulting from elision, often damages pronounces and obscures roots.

I read a mini-essay by Asimov once, and in one part he says that 'whilst the British spelling of cesium is closer to the latin root, it confuses pronounciation'... Did Asimov have his head up his bum, or something? If you lose the a (Caesium), the first syllable becomes pronounced so as to rhyme with Les. However, in both America and Britain this word so the first syllable rhymes with See. why? Because ae combination almost always is pronounced as "EE".

In short, "color" may be simpler, but it is dumber.

Interesting note. In Britain we spell it "humour", but also "humorous"- I suppose it avoids a clutterings there.

My thanks go to Eric

I no longer require nitol

Re: Homo sapiens? March 8 2004, 8:58 AM

Both American and British English are riddled with eccentricities and flaws. In many repects, however, the American simplified spelling, most often resulting from elision, often damages pronounces and obscures roots.

I read a mini-essay by Asimov once, and in one part he says that 'whilst the British spelling of cesium is closer to the latin root, it confuses pronounciation'... Did Asimov have his head up his bum, or something? If you lose the a (Caesium), the first syllable becomes pronounced so as to rhyme with Les. However, in both America and Britain this word so the first syllable rhymes with See. why? Because ae combination almost always is pronounced as "EE".

In short, "color" may be simpler, but it is dumber.

Interesting note. In Britain we spell it "humour", but also "humorous"- I suppose it avoids a clutterings there.

Every language is riddled with something, but this is not my point. Why is color "dumber"?

You got one good one, humorous. It would make it awkward

metre:
Correction, what's the point running into a brick wall it won't change its texture.


<<
Open your eyes, the world is metric, and you still need statistical evidence? How out of touch can you be with reality?

Bud:
I never said that. I was asking for evidence that people have major problems with imperial.

You need testimonials in an almost completely metric world? You ARE a brickwall standing in the way of progress.

metre:
One should never gloat about people's problems.

Bud:
One should never imagine that other people have problems that they do not.

Your are not only a brick wall, you suffer from the ostrich syndrome as well.

<<
You need testimonials in an almost completely metric world? You ARE a brickwall standing in the way of progress.
>>

There you are. I ask you for evidence that people have problems with imperial. You respond first by saying that the world is almost completely metric, as if this somehow implies that people have problems with imperial. Then you tell me that I am standing in the way of "progress".

N.B. To commit an ericism also covers the inducement of others to talk to brick walls.

<<
You need testimonials in an almost completely metric world? You ARE a brickwall standing in the way of progress.
>>

There you are. I ask you for evidence that people have problems with imperial. You respond first by saying that the world is almost completely metric, as if this somehow implies that people have problems with imperial. Then you tell me that I am standing in the way of "progress".

metre:
This is what I said:
<<
The overwhelming consensus is that imperial is cumbersome and metric is not.
>>
If all nations but one turn their backs on horse and cart except the Amish, does that tell you something?
And please don't repeat your staple but untenable defense that they were forced. I told you many times only 2 countries on earth contemplate changing to metric, but not 1 country wants to revert to imperial.

<<
I told you many times only 2 countries on earth contemplate changing to metric
>>

But at the time they were changing, they wanted to revert to imperial.

<< only 2 countries on earth contemplate changing to metric >>

I think even the "normal" pro-metrics can see that this is one huge pile of bull!

Take a trip to the carribean.

(or next door, to Ireland)

(to name a few)

Re: Homo sapiens? March 10 2004, 4:45 AM

<<
I told you many times only 2 countries on earth contemplate changing to metric
>>

But at the time they were changing, they wanted to revert to imperial.

Can you please provide proof for this statement, thank you.

Visit any commonwealth country and talk to some of the older generation. They will tell you what the sentiment was at the time of conversion.
Also look at BWMA poll results.

Conversion was symbolic of throwing off the shackles of colonialism.

Is that why almost all commonwealth countries have HM Queen Elezabeth II as their head of state?

That argument seems not to add up - it also panders to the "British Empire was an awful thing" brigade. A viewpoint that is usually held by awkward Brits who are anti-anything-british (or "Liberal Democrats" as some people might call them) and very seldom held by Carribeans or, say, today's Indians.

Also a south african colleague put down one of those British "Brit-haters" over lunch the other day.

He (the 'Brit') was prattling along at how horrible the Empire was and that the commonwealth was one big talking shop that replaced it and that the Queen has as much influence as an uncooked sausage when she piped up and said "Do you know how much effort was taken by South Africa to try to get back into that commonwealth?"

The rest of us laughed and said things like "Yeah" (as if we knew what she was talking about - ie we had to make assumptions at that point.

I thought you might like to hear that story Maarten!

SteveH wrote

<<
Is that why almost all commonwealth countries have HM Queen Elezabeth II as their head of state?
>>

"Almost all" is an exageration - "many" might be closer to the truth. Even though Queen Elizabeth II might be Queen of Australia, Australia is a sovereign independent nation where Tony Blair's status is the same as the status enjoyed by for example the Prime Minister of Canada - ie the Prime Minister of another Commonwealth country. The same goes for all the other Commonwealth countries of which Her Majesty is Queen.

Maybe "most" was overstating it a bit

There are 53 member countries of the Commonwealth. These are listed below, with the years in which they joined the Commonwealth. Also listed is their constitutional status: 'realm' indicates a Commonwealth country which retained a monarchical constitution, recognising The Queen as Sovereign; 'monarchy' indicates an indigenous monarchical constitution.



Country Date Status
Antigua and Barbuda 1981 Realm
Australia 1931 Realm
The Bahamas 1973 Realm
Bangladesh 1972 Republic
Barbados 1966 Realm
Belize 1981 Realm
Botswana 1966 Republic
Brunei 1984 Monarchy
Cameroon 1995 Republic
Canada 1931 Realm
Cyprus 1961 Republic
Dominica 1978 Republic
Fiji Islands* 1997
(joined in 1970,
left in 1987,
rejoined in 1997) Republic
The Gambia 1965 Republic
Ghana 1957 Republic
Grenada 1974 Realm
Guyana 1966 Republic
India 1947 Republic
Jamaica 1962 Realm
Kenya 1963 Republic
Kiribati 1979 Republic
Lesotho 1966 Monarchy
Malawi 1964 Republic
Malaysia 1957 Monarchy
The Maldives 1982 Republic
Malta 1964 Republic
Mauritius 1968 Republic
Mozambique 1995 Republic
Namibia 1990 Republic
Nauru 1968 Republic
New Zealand 1931 Realm
Nigeria * 1960 Republic
Pakistan* 1947 Republic
Papua New Guinea 1975 Realm
St. Christopher and Nevis 1983 Realm
St. Lucia 1979 Realm
St. Vincent and the Grenandines 1979 Realm
Samoa 1970 Republic
Seychelles 1976 Republic
Sierra Leone 1961 Republic
Singapore 1965 Republic
Solomon Islands 1978 Realm
South Africa 1931
(withdrew in 1961,
rejoined in 1994) Republic
Sri Lanka 1948 Republic
Swaziland 1968 Monarchy
Tanzania 1961 Republic
Tonga 1970 Monarchy
Trinidad and Tobago 1962 Republic
Tuvalu** 1978 Realm
United Kingdom Monarchy
Uganda 1962 Republic
Vanuatu 1980 Republic
Zambia 1964 Republic

I wonder whether there is a non-commonwealth country with our Queen as H-O-S

Note, btw I could have put "monarchy" against Wales, N.Ireland, Scotland, Gibralter, Isle of Man etc etc etc etc which I could of to inflate my figures!

SteveH wrote

<<
I wonder whether there is a non-commonwealth country with our Queen as H-O-S

Note, btw I could have put "monarchy" against Wales, N.Ireland, Scotland, Gibralter, Isle of Man etc etc etc etc which I could of to inflate my figures!
>>


I beleive that the Irish Free State would have qualified for the first - I do not believe that they were part of the Empire, but the King of England was certainly King of Ireland and during the Second World War, the German Ambasador to Ireland insisted on presenting his credentials to the King of Ireland in person and not to the Viceroy. (He made a trip from Dublin to London to do this).

I believe that technically the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are independent countries who have "sub-contracted" their diplomatic activities to the UK Government. The head of state of Jersey and of Guernsey (which happen to be all that is left of the DUchy of Normandy) is the descendent of the Duke of Normandy who happens to be Her Majesty.

I think that the United States of America are the only country which is not part of the Commonwealth and yet has a British heritage and speaks English. Correct me if I'm wrong?

I've also found it interesting that the US was so early in being able to declare it's independence from the UK. I've often remarked that the British learned a lesson in colonialism after the American Revolution.

We p**sed the Irish off a bit with the black and tans too.

"P.R." wasn't invented in those days!!!

P.S. The Head of State for I.O.M. is HMTQ represented by a governor.
Queen Vicky was once "embarrassed" into passing the death penatly on someone because that's what the rules dictated there. Since then those decisions were delegated to the Governor.

I'm sure the same can be said on other dependants

MattS wrote

<<
I think that the United States of America are the only country which is not part of the Commonwealth and yet has a British heritage and speaks English. Correct me if I'm wrong?
>>

What about the Irish Republic. They certainly have a British Heritage - to the extent that there are more Liverpool and Manchester United followers in Dublin than there are of the Dublin football team.

Some parts of Dublin look identical to London.

In fact there is a preservation order on Georgian buildings.

If a Georgian building is to be dismantled (say, for a new road) it has to be taken down brick by brick and each brick numbered and the building re-made else where.

All using imperial measures!!!

;-)

So that makes two. The Irish Republic and the United States of America. One thing binds these two countries in this respect. It was an intense dislike of the British at the time of their independence. Wasn't that true for the other commonwealth countries though? How is it that they are still related by commonwealth and the Irish and Americans aren't.

More often than not this "hatred" is focused specifically on the English rather the British in general. Hatred of the English is also a major part of the Scottish and Welsh national identities.

To paraphrase the Millwall football chant, "No one likes us. We don't care!"

There is such a closenss between Britain and Ireland, such a union of minds in so many ways, that most people do not think of us as seperate entities; well, no more seperate from the UK than Scotland and England are from each other.


Jersey, Guernsey, the IoM etc do not realy count on the list as they are basically.. crumbs, forgotten the term, but the are basically self-ruling, but under the wing of Britain, if you get me. Like Gibralter.

Re: Homo sapiens? March 11 2004, 4:40 AM

Visit any commonwealth country and talk to some of the older generation. They will tell you what the sentiment was at the time of conversion.
Also look at BWMA poll results.

You never listen. Nobody ever said that everybody was happy changing to metric. What I am asking you for are statistics that everbody wanted to keep imperial measurements.
As to BWMA polls, you might as well ask fast food addicted people whether fast food outlets should be abolished.

[skip]

". Hatred of the English is also a major part of the Scottish and Welsh national identities."

Careful! It's not a hatred in the same was as, say eric vs the people, its a rivalry that would make a rugby game boring if it were missing.

The Brits were not liked by the americans and Irish at the time of independance - that may be true. But other countries see the independance thing as something to "love" Britain for - as we assisted and helped them to do this and still support these countries in many ways today. Barbados is a great example of this - I like to go there during their independance day. People parade down the street in huge colourful costumes and they dress up in blue and yellow or red-white-and-blue. The celebration ecompasses bajans and Brits and the Brits on the island really get involved! (I can tell you!).
The barbados flag has the yellow of the sand with the blue of the sea and sky and in the middle there is a symbol.
This symbol is the spearhead from the trident of Britannia. It is broken to show that they have "broke" from Britannia - but retain a piece of it.

Most of these countries also have the queen's head on their currency. Ironically barbados is not one of them as they broke away from the west indies erm and fixed their rate to the US$.

Ireland-Britain-America is an entirely different picture to the commonwealth and it's historic reason for being.

True, the hatred of the English is mainly confined to sport these days.

However I'd suggest that any Englishman seeing his cottage in Wales burning down or getting an ear-full in the wrong part of Glasgow would say that it hasn't gone completely.

Extreme examples, but a certain low level animosity is still widespread in much of Scotland and Wales.