Since some posters are over the moon to see their beloved medieval units still sold in some shops, let them see what it costs them to feed their habits.

Increased production costs from continuing to work in dual systems of measuring:

A Report to the CBI in 1980 estimated the extra cost of continuing to work in dual systems of measuring was around £5 000 million every year. (In 1980, £5 000 million was roughly half the cost of the entire National Health Service). For companies on which the survey was based, increased production costs were equal to 9% of the companies gross profit and 14% of their net profit. With these increased costs over the twenty-odd years since, each time a supermarket adds a dual-label to a quantity of apples or bananas, this increases the overall cost of food for British consumers, faced with retailers' continuing indecisions over metrication.

Source: www-UKMetrication.com

<<<Source: www-UKMetrication.com>>>

Well that clinches it then! I'm converted!

re (metre): "Since some posters are over the moon to see their beloved medieval units..."

REPLY: Pre-medieval, actually, indeed pre-Roman, or one could just say 'customary' or 'traditional'. A bit like our language, for that matter, which is also medieval, pre-medieval and pre-Roman

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

re (metre): "Increased production costs from continuing to work in dual systems of measuring:

A Report to the CBI in 1980 estimated the extra cost of continuing to work in dual systems of measuring was around £5 000 million every year. (In 1980, £5 000 million was roughly half the cost of the entire National Health Service). For companies on which the survey was based, increased production costs were equal to 9% of the companies gross profit and 14% of their net profit. With these increased costs over the twenty-odd years since, each time a supermarket adds a dual-label to a quantity of apples or bananas, this increases the overall cost of food for British consumers, faced with retailers' continuing..."

REPLY: All very interesting. Makes you wonder why they ever got started on dual labelling in the first place, doesn't it? Come to think of it, given these enormous costs, what is the point of *any* dual labelling on road traffic signs?

We asked the CBI Library for a copy of the report but they did not have it. They passed us to the Technical section but they did not have it. They said all previous reports went to Warwick University. We tried there; they did not have it. Did it ever really exist?

It cost only fractions of a pence to add words like 1 lb or 2 pints to a label, judging from how much switching to metric is costing Britian, its no wonder that dual labeling is costly too. It's likely been botched too.

Just what costs were added in to the cost of dual labeling? Dual imperial/metric machinery? The amount consumers have been ripped off?
And whay can't the BWMA moderator find this article?

Dual Cost June 28 2004, 6:09 PM

TB:
re (metre): "Since some posters are over the moon to see their beloved medieval units..."

REPLY: Pre-medieval, actually, indeed pre-Roman, or one could just say 'customary' or 'traditional'. A bit like our language, for that matter, which is also medieval, pre-medieval and pre-Roman

metre:
Thank you very much Tony. Actually they go back to stone age time, hence their present description as FFUs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re (metre): "Increased production costs from continuing to work in dual systems of measuring:

A Report to the CBI in 1980 estimated the extra cost of continuing to work in dual systems of measuring was around £5 000 million every year. (In 1980, £5 000 million was roughly half the cost of the entire National Health Service). For companies on which the survey was based, increased production costs were equal to 9% of the companies gross profit and 14% of their net profit. With these increased costs over the twenty-odd years since, each time a supermarket adds a dual-label to a quantity of apples or bananas, this increases the overall cost of food for British consumers, faced with retailers' continuing..."

REPLY: All very interesting. Makes you wonder why they ever got started on dual labelling in the first place, doesn't it? Come to think of it, given these enormous costs, what is the point of *any* dual labelling on road traffic signs?

metre:
Politicians skin saving approach to metrication costs Britain heaps of money. Properly executed that waste would have stopped long ago.
I am sure if you dig up some New Zealand, or Australian statistics analysing the cost savings achieved since metrication, you would find dual labelling costs trivial.

Neither Australia nor New Zealand had dual road signs.

Re: Untitled June 28 2004, 7:36 PM


BWMA:
We asked the CBI Library for a copy of the report but they did not have it. They passed us to the Technical section but they did not have it. They said all previous reports went to Warwick University. We tried there; they did not have it. Did it ever really exist?

metre:
It is highly unlikely that UK metrication puts a forged document on a website purporting it is from the Confederation of British Industry.
Did you get in touch with this gentleman:

Jamie Bell
senior policy adviser, Manufacturing and Competitiveness 020 7395 8193

Cost June 29 2004, 12:42 AM

Roth:
It cost only fractions of a pence to add words like 1 lb or 2 pints to a label, judging from how much switching to metric is costing Britian, its no wonder that dual labeling is costly too. It's likely been botched too.

Just what costs were added in to the cost of dual labeling? Dual imperial/metric machinery? The amount consumers have been ripped off?
And whay can't the BWMA moderator find this

metre:
Basically Britain, America and Canada waste tax payers money on an impossible (voluntary) metrication process. Have any of those tax payers been consulted before their money was wasted? Not at all. Yet a minority complains bitterly about mandatory metrication. These people don't know what they are doing. They glady throw money away for nothing, but are adamant not to use a efficient and simple measuring system to save tax payers money.

<<
Basically Britain, America and Canada waste tax payers money on an impossible (voluntary) metrication process. Have any of those tax payers been consulted before their money was wasted? Not at all.
>>
Metre, since you know so much about American politics and you keep criticizing our politicians, why don't you come over to the US and run for Congress? You can run on a swift, mandatory metric conversion platform. I'm sure your relatives here will vote for you. So will all the business people who are sick and tired of the government giving them a choice of units and thus wasting their money.

<<We asked the CBI Library for a copy of the report but they did not have it. They passed us to the Technical section but they did not have it. They said all previous reports went to Warwick University. We tried there; they did not have it. Did it ever really exist?
>>>

Hmmm, I wonder if it's an ericism (lie) again? You know, like 'relatives in the US', 'being a musician', 'Australian opinion polls' and the 'Wilson government's piece on how long it takes to educate a child in imperial'.


<<<eric:
Thank you very much Tony. Actually they go back to stone age time, hence their present description as FFUs>>>

Luverly Jubbly! - Despite being a different thread I managed to prod him into acting like a child again! Classic! You should see what "scared off" euric has been vomiting onto the "metricsucks" website.


<<<I'm sure your relatives here will vote for you>>>>

LOL! Perfect timing!

Re: Untitled June 29 2004, 8:08 AM


<<
Basically Britain, America and Canada waste tax payers money on an impossible (voluntary) metrication process. Have any of those tax payers been consulted before their money was wasted? Not at all.
>>
Metre, since you know so much about American politics and you keep criticizing our politicians, why don't you come over to the US and run for Congress? You can run on a swift, mandatory metric conversion platform. I'm sure your relatives here will vote for you. So will all the business people who are sick and tired of the government giving them a choice of units and thus wasting their money.

metre;
I know the truth hurts, but that is no reason to go troppo.

Re-BWMA: Question authenticity of survey referred to by Federation of British Industries, now Confederation of Industry. Here is an excerpt from the 1980 final report of the metrication board. Since that confederation was instrumental in convincing the government to go metric, it seems highly unlikely that the original survey posted is not authentic. Maybe the following extract
sheds some light on it.
FINAL REPORT OF THE METRICATION BOARD 1980
Extract:
The Board is collaborating with a firm of management consultants in a survey to try to quantify the cost of 1) changing to metric and 2) working in imperial as well as metric. Over 800 firms have taken part in the survey. Preliminary analysis of the replies indicates that over 50% of production is still in imperial; the costs of dual working are nearly 3c.,'11 of the annual value of home sales; and the capital costs of metricating could be recovered in less than two years.

metre: Note
"Nearly 3c.,'11" is as in original, probably mangled?
http://www.dti.gov.uk/CACP/ca/policy/reports/metric4.htm

Here is another interesting statistic coming from the same 1980 final report about peoples attitude to metrication.
Extract:
The August 1979 survey indicated that 95% of adults were aware the country was changing to the metric system and that 84% of those who knew this thought that it was Government policy to go metric. 31% of people who knew about the change were in favour and 46%, opposed. Of those hostile to metrication 27% did not like change; 20% thought there is nothing wrong with the old system; 23% thought the metric system too complicated and 15% believed it would be too difficult for old people. On the other hand 72%, accepted that the metric system would make trade and business easier; and 84%, believed they would be able to cope when they had to. Despite the contrary results shown by Price Commission and Metrication Board investigations, 65%, felt that metrication puts prices up unfairly. (see paragraphs 2. 11 to2 .13).

Note: 1979.


Here's a hint, eric. It's now 2004.
Lots of things have changed since then.

First you accused him of lying about the existence of the report, then when he provides some evidence to back up his statement you try to get round it by moving the goal post.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Here is another extract from the 1980 Final Report. I can hear 'imperialists' bitterly complaining, not another truth session, we are so bored and can't stand any more pain.
My apology it is somewhat extensive, but well worth reading. It should enlighten a few Americans.
METRICATION - SHORT CHRONOLOGY
1790 - Invitation for Britain to join France in establishing an international system of weights and measures. No action taken.

1871 - House of Commons rejects by 5 votes a Bill to make metric system compulsory.

1897 - Weights and Measures Act legalises the metric system for use in trade and commerce.

1900 - 35 countries, including most leading European states, are now metric.

1950 - Hodgson Committee concludes that metric system is better than imperial and that its adoption in the UK is inevitable.

1960 - About 80 countries are now metric.

1963 - British Standards Institution survey reveals majority of industry favours change to metric.

1965 - Federation of British Industries informs Ministers that they favour adoption of the metric system.

1968 - British Standards Institution publishes 'The adoption of the metric system in engineering: basic programme and guide'.

1969 - Metrication Board established.

1970 - Electric Cable Makers Confederation complete change to metric.
- British Aerospace Companies Limited express drawing and documentation in metric.
- London Metal Exchange goes metric.
- Production of flat glass goes metric.
1971 - Paper and board products work to standard metric measurements.
- National Coal Board specifications, buildings and engineering products in metric.
- Engineering industries reach 25% metric production.
- Pharmaceutical trade completes change to metric.
1972 - White Paper on Metrication (Cmnd 4880) reaffirms Government support for completing the broad metrication programme by the end of 1975. Paint industry completes change to metric. Steel industry adopts metric quantities and sizes. Building Regulations go metric.
1973 - British Government emphasises commitment to metric change in House of Commons debate.
- Metrication Board publishes 'Value for Money in Metric: a report on safeguarding consumer interests.
- Commonwealth Conference on Metrication recognises urgent
need for change to metric by all member countries.
- Parliament approves first Orders permitting metric prepuces of
'shopping basket' foods.
1974 - Textile and wool industries trade transactions in metric.
Leading manufacturers of men's and women's wear give dimensions in both centimetres and inches.
Metrication Board publishes 'Metrication in the Retail Trade': a report on programming the change.
Department of Education and Science memorandum acknowledges substantial metric progress made in schools and recommends restricted use of imperial.

1975 - Retailers of fabrics and floor coverings start to sell and price by the metre and square metre.
Post Office metricates tariffs.
National Health Service - metric system introduced into medical and allied practice.
Engineering industries metric production substantially
less than the 75% envisaged in BSI programme.
1976 - Weights and Measures Act empowers Government to phase out imperial units in retail trade.
Bulk sales of petroleum go metric.
Metrication Board publishes report ‘Metrication and Elderly people’ .
Agriculture, horticulture and allied industries essentially metric by year-end.
1977 - Parliament passes Orders setting cut-off dates for sale of sugar, breakfast cereal foods, butter, margarine, white fats, oat products, cocoa and chocolate powders, biscuits, bread, chocolate bars and tea in imperial prepacks.
Price Commission reports no evidence that metrication is cause of price increases.
Metric trading at livestock auction and deadweight markets.
South Africa virtually metric.
1978 - Government withdraws draft Orders which would have given legal effect to the already agreed target dates for completion of metrication in retail sales of weighed out and measured out goods.
Parliament passes Orders setting cut-off dates for pasta, dried vegetables, dried fruits, and flour in imperial prepacks , and permitting prepacking of potatoes and instant coffee in metric quantities.
Solid fuel retailing goes metric.
Cheese wholesaling and packing go metric.
Regulations ceasing to authorise chain, furlong, nautical mile, rood, cubic yard, dram, bushel, cental, inch of water, ton-force, foot - candle and knot come into effect.
Bread goes metric.
Teaching at all levels of education predominantly metric; metric units used in national school-leaving examinations.
Commonwealth Secretariat survey indicates that Australia, Botswana, Cyprus, Fiji, Ghana, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, New Zealand, Papua, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia are in late stages of metrication.
London commodity market completes change to metric.
Carter Administration announces it supports a strong interpretation of the Metric Conversion Act 1975 and will encourage conversion in the USA.
Major changes affecting prepacked foods completed.
Government states it has no plans to introduce further statutory metrication Orders.
Metrication Board reports to Ministers on prospects for completing change in retailing.
Motor Agents Association and Institute of Petroleum announce support for change to sales of petrol by the litre.
Australia and New Zealand virtually metric.
1980 - Metrication of Customs Tariff and Overseas Trade Classification completed.
Metric sizes of milk permitted.
111 countries are now metric, and 42 are in the process of change.
Metrication Board abolished.

Re: Untitled July 1 2004, 1:07 AM

Stan:
First you accused him of lying about the existence of the report, then when he provides some evidence to back up his statement you try to get round it by moving the goal post.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

metre:
That should explain my disregard for all his comments, biased, or occasionally otherwise.

Metre, we are all very well capable of going on the internet (i.e., USMA website) and reading about the metric system. We don't need you to copy and paste their entire site here for us to read. If anything, just post links, so the threads don't get so lengthy and unmanagable.

<<<First you accused him of lying about the existence of the report, then when he provides some evidence to back up his statement you try to get round it by moving the goal post.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.>>>

Posting very old stuff that is totally irrelevent in order try and prove a "current" fact is lieing. Take one of his classic examples, "foot binding". Would it be proper for me to claim that the Chinese carried out the cruel act of footbinding for women without giving relevence to dates? Would it be correct for me to make points about this as a current relevance? This time he has posted some "facts" about somthing outdated. The intent was a lie, but not the downright lies we have seen in the past. The trouble is, if you start lieing (eg claiming to have US relatives in order to appear less "anti-american") then the more you lie (eg quoting an Australian opinion poll that does not exist online) the at some point you get the "cry wolf" situation where you have to treat everything he says (like americans being thick because they are taught how to 'read' and inch ruler over a certain amount of tim) as a lie. Go and see Fahrenheit 9/11 to see how taking bits of information spread over various timescales can create a compelling "documentary" - then see the write-ups about the individual claims that this film puts out.

I hope you can understand where I am coming from, Stan, as you will will know that I have never accused anyone else of lieing - only eric. Debates involving people such as yourself are based either on tangible fact or opinion - an excellent mixture that allows good debate. I note that none of the pro-metric side (even the strongly pro-metric) ever "sides" with eric even though, on this occassion, you come close to it. I hope you find it fair that I had to come back upon your comment like this as I have been contributing to this board for many years now and apart from the occassional loon eric is the only poster here that bases his submissions almost entirely on falsehoods and mis-quotes etc. Debating with you and the other pro-mets can be irritating and fun at the same time ;-) but the rubbish that eric puts here makes me beggar belief that only pro-imps respond and -surprisingly- respond in a way that eric might actually be factual! Back to the 9/11 analogy, I see Mike Moore's embarrsment to the moderate liberal in the same way as I see eric being an embarrasment to the pro-mets (considering his admission that he knows very little about metric).

I hope this clears up my viewpoint and that I was not being hypocritical in pointing out his lies as I have described above.

If you want me to go further then I will, if you want me to (or email me).



eric's comment "That should explain my disregard for all his comments, biased, or occasionally otherwise"

By doing this comment you have indeed "regarded" my post. In fact you read all my posts and have frequently responded to them "through" other posters (the best example is when you refer to me as a dimwit).
The truth is that you avoid responding to me because I will shoot you down if you ever tried. A quick look at the metricmartyr board will prove this. Remember this was in the days you posted under "eric", then went here to post as "metre" and "kilo" on the metricsucks board. One wonders why you attempted to "change your name" eh? You probably need to ask yourself the question who are you trying to fool?

Rememeber my "saying": If you tell the truth you don't have to worry, tell a lie and you will have to remember it forever

Re: Untitled July 1 2004, 8:13 AM

Bud:
Metre, we are all very well capable of going on the internet (i.e., USMA website) and reading about the metric system. We don't need you to copy and paste their entire site here for us to read. If anything, just post links, so the threads don't get so lengthy and unmanagable.

metre:
I know you can go to any web site you like, but do you? My experience with you guys is that you rather sing from old imperial hymn sheets than anything more up to date. The dim wit of this board discards anything a priori that comes from reliable metric sites. You insist that petrol sold in litres is inferior. Bryan considers everything outside voodoo as academic and MattS is amongst all of you, most firmly stuck in the middle ages.
So please forgive me when I confront the lot of you occasionally with realty.

Mate, copying pages from BIASED sources is hardly going to prove a point; in fact we could argue that you are singing from the "metric hymn sheet".

We could all be accused of singing from the Hymn sheet of our choice.

Furthermore it is only natural that we will draw upon sources that are sympathetic our own views. Who, in debate, will look for evidence that proves them wrong?

Before accusing your opponent stop, think and be honest with yourself.

The way to counter or dispute evidence is to show one or more of the following:

(a) Offer other sources that challenge or call into question the evidence of your opponent.

(b) Show a reasoned alternative conclusion to that of your opponent based on the evidence submitted.

Stan, the information you mention in (a) is available on other parts of this BWMA site. We have done (b) many times, however when you have two conclusions from the same evidence, it is very difficult to determine which one is more likely, and each person will believe the one that supports his views, and we are back to where we started.

Re: Untitled July 2 2004, 9:43 AM


Bryan:
Mate, copying pages from BIASED sources is hardly going to prove a point; in fact we could argue that you are singing from the "metric hymn sheet".

metre:
Of course I sing from the metric hymn sheet, and contrary to your out of date tune with good reason.
The answer to bias is very simple. If one can prove that metric is the better system it would be, except for habit, misguided patriotism and bias, the natural option.

Now let me prove it to all of you. If you find one website in established metric countries clamouring for the return to medieval units my proof it shot to pieces. And please spare me the old and worn excuse that people were forced to use it and therefore stick to it without exceptions.

Biased sources July 2 2004, 10:42 PM


We could all be accused of singing from the
Stan:
Hymn sheet of our choice.

Furthermore it is only natural that we will draw upon sources that are sympathetic our own views. Who, in debate, will look for evidence that proves them wrong?

Before accusing your opponent stop, think and be honest with yourself.

The way to counter or dispute evidence is to show one or more of the following:

(a) Offer other sources that challenge or call into question the evidence of your opponent.

(b) Show a reasoned alternative conclusion to that of your opponent based on the evidence submitted.

metre:
So far I have not seen, or heard, one logical argument that supports imperial units vis a vis metric..
I have read and listened to plenty of emotional reasons why people want to hang on to obsolete units and there is little wrong with that. But to be bombarded with utter drivel trying to prove that imperial is as good as metric if not superior, is to insult the intelligence 97% of people living on this planet.

What's a third of a metre?

Forum owner asked

<<
What's a third of a metre?
>>

Ans: pied metrique (Introduced by Napoleon c 1811)

Q: How long, in millimetres, is one pied metrique?
Q: Is the pied metrique a part of the SI?
Q: Is the pied metrique ever actually used?

Bryan Parry asked:

Q: How long, in millimetres, is one pied metrique?
A: Approx 333.33mm. Its formal definition was one third of a metre


Q: Is the pied metrique a part of the SI?
A: No. The pied metrique was only used in France between c1812 and c1840. SI dates from 1960. (Extract from the BIPM website
<<
The 11th General Conference on Weights and Measures (1960) adopted the name Système International d'Unités (International System of Units, international abbreviation SI), for the recommended practical system of units of measurement.
>>


Q: Is the pied metrique ever actually used?
A: It was introduced because the French "Metric Martyrs" insisted on using the old measurements - there were a number of diffrent pied (feet) in pre-Revolutionary France including:
Pied de roi: 324.83 mm
Pied de Lyon : 342.51 mm
Furtter information is available on
http://www.histoire-genealogie.com/themes_detude/institutions/mesures.htm

Thank you for proving conclusively that you are a smart-alec :p

<<<So please forgive me when I confront the lot of you occasionally with realty.>>>

Just think, one of "him" - many of "us".
And "we" are all "wrong". And "he" is talking about reality.
Try and imagine that scenario in your head, everyone!

<<<Of course I sing from the metric hymn sheet>>>

But you don't, eric, as you have admitted in the past. You support it but don't know it to any great degree.

<<<But to be bombarded with utter drivel trying to prove that imperial is as good as metric if not superior, is to insult the intelligence 97% of people living on this planet.
>>>

Can you imagine all those shocked uruguayans appalled at this 'insult'?

Or loads of ordinary French people boycotting British goods due to the appaling insult that an average Brit prefers using imperial?

Best we not air our preferences, incase those in other countries take offence.

The "laugh" goes on!

re: "What's a third of a metre?
Ans: pied metrique (Introduced by Napoleon c 1811)"

and re: "Bryan Parry Re: Untitled July 5 2004, 3:36 PM:
Q: How long, in millimetres, is one pied metrique?
Q: Is the pied metrique a part of the SI?
Q: Is the pied metrique ever actually used?"

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

REPLY: Please refer to my separate thread a long time ago on this bulletin board where I pointed out that a unit of exactly a third of a metre, the BERNICLE, is widely used in the timber trade for measuring timber. It's divided unto 11 units, each of which of course is just over an inch.

The reason timber merchants do this is...well, the metre is too long a unit, and the centimetre is too small...

They still sell the stuff in sq. metres or cu. metres which is the norm these days, but the staff cutting the timber use the bernicle, especially to measure the width of timber. The bernicle's length is 33.33 recurring centimetres

Dumb question.

It's a bit like asking what's a third of a mile,

Everybody knows it's 586.66 recurring yards.

re (Stan): "Everybody knows that a third of a mile is 586.66 recurring yards..."

REPLY: Or to put it accurately, 586 yards and 2 feet, or even more simply than that, 1760 feet. Not so difficult now, is it?

TB:
The reason timber merchants do this is...well, the metre is too long a unit, and the centimetre is too small...

metre:
Tell that inanity to the world's timber users. I am sure they appreciate a joke now and then

Re: Untitled July 3 2004, 7:48 AM


Stan:
Before accusing your opponent stop, think and be honest with yourself.

The way to counter or dispute evidence is to show one or more of the following:

(a) Offer other sources that challenge or call into question the evidence of your opponent.

(b) Show a reasoned alternative conclusion to that of your opponent based on the evidence submitted.

Bud:
Stan, the information you mention in (a) is available on other parts of this BWMA site. We have done (b) many times, however when you have two conclusions from the same evidence, it is very difficult to determine which one is more likely, and each person will believe the one that supports his views, and we are back to where we started.

metre:
Neither a nor b on imperial sites address measurement merits. Their uniformly and sole reason to maintain that imperial is equal if not better is their people's inability (habit) to change.

metre:
<<Basically Britain, America and Canada waste tax payers money on an impossible (voluntary) metrication process. Have any of those tax payers been consulted before their money was wasted? Not at all.>>

Bud:
Metre, since you know so much about American politics and you keep criticizing our politicians, why don't you come over to the US and run for Congress? You can run on a swift, mandatory metric conversion platform. I'm sure your relatives here will vote for you. So will all the business people who are sick and tired of the government giving them a choice of units and thus wasting their money.

metre:
No need to get so worked up.
Go over to the metric sucks site and read about the mess imperial measurements and non existing regulations cause for shoppers. As the situation is now shopkeepers and food manufactureres are the winners. Everything is done for a purpose and if businesses see advantages keeping people ignorant, they will. To wit, metric nutritition values, unit prices and I am sure there are many others.

Absence, then the same old rubbish.

Better get used to it (again).

I -ahem- "look forward" to the "replies for the sake of replying"

<<
Neither a nor b on imperial sites address measurement merits. Their uniformly and sole reason to maintain that imperial is equal if not better is their people's inability (habit) to change.
>>

Knowing you, I find it hard to believe that you have ever bothered to go on an imperial-supporting web site. Based on your above quote, you are either not going on these sites or reading them and overlooking anything you do not agree with.

Re: Untitled July 21 2004, 8:28 AM


metre:
<<
Neither a nor b on imperial sites address measurement merits. Their uniformly and sole reason to maintain that imperial is equal if not better is their people's inability (habit) to change.
>>

Knowing you, I find it hard to believe that you have ever bothered to go on an imperial-supporting web site. Based on your above quote, you are either not going on these sites or reading them and overlooking anything you do not agree with.

metre:
Please enlighten me, show, or refer me to one such site.

Bud:
Knowing you, I find it hard to believe that you have ever bothered to go on an imperial-supporting web site. Based on your above quote, you are either not going on these sites or reading them and overlooking anything you do not agree with.

metre:
Sorry I forgot to add that. You do me an injustice. I do visit imperial sites to get a good laugh, or read fairy tales, after I have looked at matter of fact metric sites. And believe me, every one of those imperial sites is packed with amazing revelations that only Yanks and some Brits know.

^^^^^^^^^^

I find that odd coming from a troll who has admitted in the past to being brought up on imperial and claims it "impossible" to know both systems.

Think about his position