What follows must sound awefully familiar to Tony Bennett and cohorts. Sadly for them all, it was only so much hot air as the latest poll in Australia shows. Still, you might be able to use that article in your campaign, it saves you writing the same nonsense all over again.


We're halfway to lunacy
(The Bulletin, 25/1/75)
THE NATION, says the Metric Conversion Board. is now more than half metric in thought, word and deed. We are past the point of no return. And a pig's wishbone to that. sirs.
The nation is blundering wretchedly with the metric system. We are not even an eighth - I beg your pardon: 0·125 of the way there. And it would be a great saving and a relief if we stopped at this point and forgot. or tried to forget, all about it. The metric system, in Australia is a bloody disaster. .

Who do you know - take your time about it -- who actually uses metrics? Who speaks comfortably, or even uncomfortably, of metres and litres and hectares? Sports broadcasters. yes. The horse-fanciers are probably closer to the point of no return than any other section of the community. True, a mile and a quarter still sounds unreal as 2,000 m. A jockey riding at 51·5 kg seems nothing short of adipose. And the 200 m mark will never replace the furlong pole. But racing is a world of busy and objective businessmen who'd weigh jockeys in Cypriot okes and punt in ticals and akkers rather than waste time by arguing the toss.

On the other hand cricket will never be a metric sport. It is simply embarrassing to hear Alan MeGilvray and Lindsay Hassett writhingly describe, say, Tony Greig. crouching "about three metres from the edge ofthe wicket" --- or a ball zipping by --- "hardly a centimetre from the off slump".

And where conversion depends on the public en masse nothing good is happening at all. Just about everybody in industry is trying to use the metric system and just about everybody is hating it. Flour miller, and stockfeed packers, who converted as early as December 1972, still say that metrics are --- "a bloody nuisance" and a "hindrance" to business. The chain stores' descriptions range from "an expensive waste of time" to "you wouldn't believe it." It'd suit retailers and it'd suit the public if we went back to Imperial measures right now.

It seems only fair to keep the metre-fanciers on their toes. to let them know that they're getting away with nothing.

Who, for instance, started all this rot? We may never know. The Metric Conversion Board certainly doesn't know who started it. "There was," says a spokesman, "a Senate Select Committee and it recommended metrics to the Gorton Government."

Yes, yes, yes. But who or what got the Senate Select Committee going in the first place? Well, the Weights and Measures Act established a National Standards Commission to 'advise the Minister with respect to weights and measures'." That was in 1949. but it wasn't until 1967 that the Senate Select Committee got busy with its inquiry into "the practicability of the early adoption by Australia of the metric system of weights and measures." It brooded for 18 months, then gave metrics a unanimous okay in a report upon which the Government, in its turn, brooded for two years before adopting.

But we're still no nearer to an answer. WHO wanted metrics? WHOSE idea was this "early adoption?" Who stood to gain so much that he could put the nation to the staggering expense - an expense too great for the United States - of changing a yard to a metre? The MCB claims that "exporters and importers stand to gain".

Which exporters? Which importers?

The fact that Europe is big in metrics is neither here nor there. Uniformity in international trade might be nice but it's by no means essential. Were it so we'd all be speaking Esperanto, because the problems of weights and measures are simply picayune in comparison with problems of language.
The more one looks at the situation the more likely it seems that the original damage was done by some bureaucrat: for the bureaucrat is probably the only man who stands to win with metrics all the way.

As long as there is a three-foot building alignment to be changed to a one-metre alignment; as long as there is some ordinance to be re-written, using litres instead of gallons, there will have to be a pants-polisher to rewrite it. And - angels and ministers of grace defend us'. - we haven't yet started trying with pascals, joules and newtons.

And what, after all, are we adopting? We are adopting a system created in the late 18th century for no better reason than the discovery, by some nameless Frenchman, that he had five fingers on each hand and could thus count up to 10 It's worth noting that his forbear, an ancient Gaul, used a system of measurement based on the figure 20 almost certainly because he wore no boots and could thus count higher.

I for one am ready to say firmly that things would have been a lot better for us all had the Gauls stayed barefoot.

Some points of note:

Some American Indian tribes used to count the spaces between fingers, not their fingers (base 8). Some merchants counted the segments of their fingers (base 12).

Just because most Aussies might not accept metric or whatever, does not mean a thing- people accept what they are used to.

What is your point?

<<What is your point?>>

That's exactly what I was thinking.

All I could imagine is that eric had had too many whiskys and decided to lift and paste unadulterated crap.

I think the sun has got to him.

Re: Gloating July 22 2004, 12:25 PM
metre:
What follows must sound awefully familiar to Tony Bennett and cohorts. Sadly for them all, it was only so much hot air as the latest poll in Australia shows. Still, you might be able to use that article in your campaign, it saves you writing the same nonsense all over again.



Bryan:
Some points of note:

Some American Indian tribes used to count the spaces between fingers, not their fingers (base 8). Some merchants counted the segments of their fingers (base 12).
metre:
Some indians pulled peoples heart out on a daily basis to make surte the sun rises next morning.
Just because most Aussies might not accept metric or whatever, does not mean a thing- people accept what they are used to.

What is your point?

metre:
Oh dear, you got that one wrong as the latest straw poll conclusively proves. If anyone would pay for a nation wide opinion poll today, the overwhelming majority, including imperially raised people, would prefer metric.
As to the point, if you can't get it re-read my introduction, maybe you latch on to it.

Iam not an ungrateful person and wish therefore to thank this board's dim-wit heartily for his astute observation that the article I pasted is unadulturated crap. Since truth and comprehension are not his forte, I was all the more surprised that he actually understood and said what I wanted to convey. Once more heartfelt thanks for you unexpected help.

Metre, I will say one thing and use an example:


Ask all people to-day who were in work when pounds, shillings and pence were abolished and pounds and pees (I mean pence) came in, which system they prefer.

Now, after thirty-odd years of decimal currency it is likely that many would switch (from liking LSD to prefering LP).

Also, how many people today would honestly admit to preferrign LSD? They would be laughed away, as people who have no conception or understanding of the system, mock it (much like the maligned groat "I bet you want Groats back too eh?").

Now, also consider the way the question is phrased. It could be "Would you rather continue using Pounds and Pence or switch back to LSD?". In this case, even ardent lovers of LSD w3ould say stay LP (most likely).




so, in other words, I think your 'proofs' are a little weak and irrelevant. We know that if a generation of complete Government metric occurs most will prefer metric for a variety of reasons. However, anyone living in the real world would be able to tell that DESPITE the incredible metric compulsion, imperial measures are still rather popular.


Another question I suggest we ask people:

Q: Which system is fundamentally better? Metric or Imperial?

and

Q: Which system do you like more- Imperial or metric?

and

Q: Which system do you cvhoose to use more of- Imperial or metric?





See how those three questions will yeild completely different results?

re (metre): Extract from "The Bulletin", 25/1/75...
'THE NATION, says the Metric Conversion Board. is now more than half metric in thought, word and deed. We are past the point of no return'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPLY: LOL! Just as now with the UKMA report, statements from the pro-metric brigade were, and are, a rich source of hilarity.

Their false 'half way there, folks' claim was made 29 years, 5 months and 29 days ago! And yet a telepoll of 2,340 people last week suggested that 93% were opposed to further metrication

10,881 days ago July 23 2004, 4:26 PM


re (metre): Extract from "The Bulletin", 25/1/75...
Australian anti metric opinion 30 odd years ago:
'THE NATION, says the Metric Conversion Board, is now more than half metric in thought, word and deed. We are past the point of no return'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TB:
REPLY: LOL! Just as now with the UKMA report, statements from the pro-metric brigade were, and are, a rich source of hilarity.

Their false 'half way there, folks' claim was made 29 years, 5 months and 29 days ago! And yet a telepoll of 2,340 people last week suggested that 93% were opposed to further metrication

metre:
What is the problem with you guys? The opinion piece I posted was written by an Australian anti metric zealot over 30 years ago. My intention was to show you imperial lot how far off the mark these guys are. Australia, with the exception of a few old fogeys, is happily metric now and young people don't yearn nor talk about yesteryears measurement anachronism.

Re: Gloating July 23 2004, 12:42 PM

Bryan:
Metre, I will say one thing and use an example:
Ask all people to-day who were in work when pounds, shillings and pence were abolished and pounds and pees (I mean pence) came in, which system they prefer.

Now, after thirty-odd years of decimal currency it is likely that many would switch (from liking LSD to prefering LP).
Also, how many people today would honestly admit to preferrign LSD? They would be laughed away, as people who have no conception or understanding of the system, mock it (much like the maligned groat "I bet you want Groats back too eh?").
Now, also consider the way the question is phrased. It could be "Would you rather continue using Pounds and Pence or switch back to LSD?". In this case, even ardent lovers of LSD w3ould say stay LP (most likely).
so, in other words, I think your 'proofs' are a little weak and irrelevant. We know that if a generation of complete Government metric occurs most will prefer metric for a variety of reasons. However, anyone living in the real world would be able to tell that DESPITE the incredible metric compulsion, imperial measures are still rather popular.

Another question I suggest we ask people:
Q: Which system is fundamentally better? Metric or Imperial?
and
Q: Which system do you like more- Imperial or metric?
and
Q: Which system do you cvhoose to use more of- Imperial or metric?
See how those three questions will yeild completely different results?

metre:
The problem with surveys regarding measurements can only yield one answer, we like what have. For the vast majority merits of systems do not come into play. Habit rarely gives way to reason.

<<Australia, with the exception of a few old fogeys, is happily metric now>>

Same old lie!

Hey can you imagine it? All those OAP surfers being revived on the beach!?

Thanks for reading my post and responding to it via "name-calling" btw. Do you "name call" your grandchldren in the same way?

Still - if it helps you win the argument.....

(oops, forgot the quotes!)

We're halfway to lunacy
(The Bulletin, 25/1/75)


That old Australian, but very relevant anti metric opinion piece should act like a mirror. Imperialists can see today how utterly irrelevant their dearly beloved imperial ideas will be in 30 years.

<<That old Australian, but very relevant anti metric opinion piece should act like a mirror. Imperialists can see today how utterly irrelevant their dearly beloved imperial ideas will be in 30 years. >>>

Wind back the UK 30yrs
"We're going metric".

Poor old man, waiting for each generation to "go metric"