Dear Metre,

It is clear to me that you have carried the Metric Cause in these forums so very far for some considerable time, from what I have read. And it is equally evident to me that you are like most, if not all, metric proponents--a decent, modest, and civil young man of democratic inclinations, in stark contrast to our boastful, abusive, brutishly rude, and dictatorial imperialist opponents.

Let us not forget my introduction to these forums when a certain imperialist party blatantly and gleefully boasted of the British 6-pint milk bottle, and in the process disparaged the Australian 3-litre milk bottle. I mean what kind of man publicly boasts about the comparative size of his locally-produced milk bottle? So you clearly see the kind of people we are up against. Milk-bottle braggarts, and worse!

But do not fear! We have truth, rightness, justice, and all that is good and decent in this world on our side in the cause of the thoroughly rational and progressive metric system. While our adversaries wallow and creep in the dark morass and mire of what is the filthy, reactionary, oppressive, running-dog imperial system.

As for your strained vocabulary, allow me to recommend the current edition of the Chambers Concise, a fully metricated British dictionary, with clear and succinct conversion tables for the poor, benighted, or perverse fools who cannot or will not use the thorougly modern metric system. I say "fools" not as a term of abuse, as our opponents would use it, but as a clinically accurate description of those who refuse to step into the light and be illuminated by the guiding beacon, that shining light, that is the metric system. For fools they be.

And lastly, young Metre, I want you to be assured and reassured that as long as my fingers point downwards on a keyboard, as long as I have strength enough to strike a key, as long as I can continue to use as much overblown language as I can in the smallest possible space, you will have a friend and ally south of the equator in Rip in the holy service of the Metric Cause.

Sorry, Metre. I put your message under the wrong area. It was supposed to in a response to your post, not as new topic. But what the hell, at least you'll be at least a little better known. Rip

I am shunned like a fake note on this board by some guys, so I doubt your mistake won't have any impact. Not to worry, so far I wasn't aware that I couldn't cope with that.

Very good, Metre. Not to worry. And only shunned by those not worth knowing anyway. My keyboard's been acting up, such as the "I" key, hence the double "i" in "Riip." I'd troubleshoot the damned thing if I knew how. (Just shoot the thing would be a better action.) The letters on the screen are out of sync with my keystrokes. I've gone into the keyboard program and fiddled round with the relevant dials and settings trying to correct this problem, all to no avail. And my cursor/pointer continues to blink even though this function's setting is set to "0" in the mouse program, which you would think means "OFF." It's all very vexing. New subject: How are you at answering technical questions on imperial/metric units, and the conversion thereof, used in the specs for designing and manufacturing aeroplanes? I need someone in the aeornautical line to answer a very simple question, and possibly questions.

I prefer you with two eyes - it's less scary

Re: A message for Metre July 4 2005, 9:02 AM

Rip
Very good, Metre. Not to worry. And only shunned by those not worth knowing anyway. My keyboard's been acting up, such as the "I" key, hence the double "i" in "Riip." I'd troubleshoot the damned thing if I knew how. (Just shoot the thing would be a better action.) The letters on the screen are out of sync with my keystrokes. I've gone into the keyboard program and fiddled round with the relevant dials and settings trying to correct this problem, all to no avail. And my cursor/pointer continues to blink even though this function's setting is set to "0" in the mouse program, which you would think means "OFF." It's all very vexing. New subject: How are you at answering technical questions on imperial/metric units, and the conversion thereof, used in the specs for designing and manufacturing aeroplanes? I need someone in the aeornautical line to answer a very simple question, and possibly questions.

metre
You didn't spill tea or coffee on your board? If not, can anyone lend you a board to see whether it, or something else is the problem? To me it looks like some board contacts are not operating correctly. Don't take my word for it, after all, I am only a musician. This brings me to your next question, conversions. Sorry to have to disappoint you. I am totally useless in that field and always have been. Maybe fractions and memorising disjointed units threw me off maths, would stand to reason. This board has some capable mathematicians, maybe they are willing to help. Wish you luck with your board

<<New subject: How are you at answering technical questions on imperial/metric units, and the conversion thereof, used in the specs for designing and manufacturing aeroplanes? I need someone in the aeornautical line to answer a very simple question, and possibly questions.>>

Ask away, and I'll give it go. I am an engineer, but not aeronautical. If it requires specific aeronautical knowledge and I am not qualified, I'll tell you that too, but if it is just conversion, I can probably help.

SteveH: "I prefer you with two eyes - it's less scary"

Rip's reply: A little joke, Steve! That's better. That's the way. You're making progress.

Metre: "You didn't spill tea or coffee on your board? If not, can anyone lend you a board to see whether it, or something else is the problem? To me it looks like some board contacts are not operating correctly. Don't take my word for it, after all, I am only a musician. This brings me to your next question, conversions. Sorry to have to disappoint you. I am totally useless in that field and always have been. Maybe fractions and memorising disjointed units threw me off maths, would stand to reason. This board has some capable mathematicians, maybe they are willing to help. Wish you luck with your board"

Rip's reply: Thanks, Metre. And no, I haven't spilt anything on the board. Borrowing someone's board to run a test is a good idea. I might just do that. I just hope it isn't a software problem. This blinking cursor/pointer worries me, too. It just came on a couple of weeks ago without my or my eight-year-old son's doing anything to the program. It just, like, happened, man. Anyway, I'll sort it out sooner or later, probably later. Not to worry about the conversions, JohnS-MI, has volunteered as an engineer to help. We can't all be mathematicians and applied scientists. Or Musicians. You are not only a musician, Metre. A musician is an artist and a performer and a creator of music, which is a great joy to the Lord and Man. So there is no "only" about being a musician. And being a musician gives your pseudonym, Metre, a certain punning quality. Was this intended? I'll bet it was.

JohnS-MI: "Ask away, and I'll give it go. I am an engineer, but not aeronautical. If it requires specific aeronautical knowledge and I am not qualified, I'll tell you that too, but if it is just conversion, I can probably help."

Rip's reply: Thanks, John. I just want to know that aircraft thrust is measured in imperial/US Customary units as pounds (lb) as a unit of force. Is this correct? Then is the metric equivalent unit kilograms (kg) or newtons (N) for aircraft thrust? For example, would an aircraft with 12,000lb of thrust be measured in kg or N for that aircraft's metric specification? I'm just curious to know.

<<I just want to know that aircraft thrust is measured in imperial/US Customary units as pounds (lb) as a unit of force. Is this correct? Then is the metric equivalent unit kilograms (kg) or newtons (N) for aircraft thrust?>>

The proper SI unit is newtons. If you search Boeing or Airbus sites you will see them listing thrust in pounds and newtons. They usually offer a choice of a few engines (which they buy) and the customer chooses which of the offered engines he prefers, GE, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls, etc. For a given plane, the thrusts are pretty close, as might be expected.

1 lbf = 4.448 222 N is the conversion (lbf is pound-force to avoid any possible confusion with pound-mass, lbm)

JohnS-MI: "The proper SI unit is newtons. If you search Boeing or Airbus sites you will see them listing thrust in pounds and newtons. They usually offer a choice of a few engines (which they buy) and the customer chooses which of the offered engines he prefers, GE, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls, etc. For a given plane, the thrusts are pretty close, as might be expected.

1 lbf = 4.448 222 N is the conversion (lbf is pound-force to avoid any possible confusion with pound-mass, lbm)"

Rip's reply: Excellent, John, and very prompt. Many thanks for the assembled information here. This answers all my questions. I will visit the Boeing and Airbus sites. And I'll take note of and remember that pound-force/lbf is distinct from pound-mass/lbm. Got that everybody? There'll be questions at the end. Very good.

<<Rip's reply: A little joke, Steve! That's better. That's the way. You're making progress.>>

Woah hold on! I didn't ask to see the 3rd eye!


BTW - I've decided today that I am a musician - I'm going to be the drummer in a band that's made from my relatives. Trouble is - they're all in America for the moment with someone called Uncle Sam.

SteveH: "Woah hold on! I didn't ask to see the 3rd eye!"


Reply: Dear oh dear, Steve. Now you're just being crude. You've regressed just when you were making a little progress. I don't know what we can do with you. We've done our best. God knows we've tried. You definitely must keep up with the therapy and the medication. After this little performance we may have to double or even treble the milligram dosage. The therapy and medication may actually take effect one day. Hope springs eternal. We're all still deeply concerned about your condition. He makes a little a progress and then wham! he comes out with this. Dear God, what more can we do! We're worried half to death!

ROTFL!

Pink is a talented singer

What does ROTFL stand for? It isn't one of those nasty, obscene abbreviations is it? If it is, I'm claiming ignorance of the fact. I can't be held responsible for repeating something I didn't know was offensive. I'm just trying to learn the new language. I've only been going on line for less than 4 months, and I can't be expected to have learnt all the lingo in that time. Especially as the people with whom I normally converse are halfway sane and only use standard English. So don't blame me. I'm blameless, I tell you. Absolutely blameless!

ROTFL - Roll on the floor laughing
LOL - Laugh out loud
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation

(Not sure why I dropped that last one in there)

... and one that Steve does not use:

IMHO - In my humbe opinion

ROTFL - Roll on the floor laughing (This is a new one to me.)
LOL - Laugh out loud (I knew this one.)
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation (This one, too.)
IMHO - In my humble opinion (This one will probably never be used by anyone on these boards.)

Very good. Got that. I don't know why you put in the BBC either. Anyway, now I see the relevance to the Pink statement. Pink, from what I can tell, is a little tattooed blonde flooz, is she not? I didn't know she is a singer. But according to SteveH, as a singer she makes him ROTFL. So perhaps I haven't missed much from not hearing any of her recorded music. I hope I'm getting the hang of this new abbreviated style of writing. But then, maybe not.

I was being cryptic - there is reference to a certain eye in one of her charted songs.

I've got her album btw ('by the way') - its v.g. (...)

Martin - stop that cheek! I have used IMHO. And that's NOT IMHO.

<<<I've got her album btw ('by the way') - its v.g>>>

so your taste in music is as bad as your taste in measurements ;-)

Re: A message for Metre July 4 2005, 5:58 PM
Rip's reply:
Thanks, Metre. And no, I haven't spilt anything on the board.


metre
I am not denigrating music, far be it from me. As to the punning quality, pure coincidence, pure coincidence, I am not that clever. Glad you got an answer to your query. That’s the marvel about the Internet, there is always somebody willing to help.
My advice, be careful with that net language, otherwise they have you in no time writing in text message style.

Good thinking, Metre. I will follow your advice, as sound as always. And I am glad you are here to answer this question about the little Pink performer. Is she any good as a singer, or is she just a mediocre performer? How does she perform? And how does she sing? Is she a better performer in the flesh than a singer? And who does she regularly perform for? SteveH is no guide on this as he appears to ambivalent about her? Any comments?

<<so your taste in music is as bad as your taste in measurements >>

My choice of music is varied and very wide.
"Rock Chick" is one of the choices.

Re: A message for Metre July 5 2005, 2:57 PM
Rip
And I am glad you are here to answer this question about the little Pink performer.

metre
Sorry to disappoint you, never heard, never saw that lady, and if I did, I wouldn’t have known who she is.
Put it this way, that guy is certainly a better guide in trivia than measuring units.

I see, Metre. I have seen pictures of her in a back issue of a colour magazine while waiting in a doctor's surgery. All I could tell about her was she was a tarty bleach blonde with a few tattoos. I didn't know she was supposed to be singer. But then tarty bleach blondes with tattoos have been the vogue in popular music for a long time.

Yes, he is right on the ball when it comes to trivia on tarty bleach blondes in popular music and not so good on weights and measures. What do you make of his referring to the old adage that a leopard can't change its spots, especially in regard to metric proponents on these boards? His reference seems to have some kind of political implication. He is making some kind of subtextual message, I think.

Herein lies the problem when you share a board with OAPs

Rip to SteveH: Are you an OAP, Steve? Well, no wonder you're fascinated with tarty bleach-blonde girl singers. All is explained.

Re: A message for Metre July 6 2005, 6:45 AM
Rip
I see, Metre.
His reference seems to have some kind of political implication. He is making some kind of subtextual message, I think.
metre
He certainly is and has every right to do so. Whatever that message is, is of no real concern to me.

Rest assured I don't like Elton John's stuff. I'll leave that to the resident love-in members to remenisce over.

Lets find out our ages - no need for detail - yo can quote 50's, 60's 70's etc (and not have to worry that one is talking about today's temerature).

Metre: "metre
He certainly is and has every right to do so. Whatever that message is, is of no real concern to me."

Rip: I see. No, of course, his silly cryptic messages are not a matter for your concern. I understand.

Ask if he allows himself to respond to me now, with his new spots....

Metre: Can you give us a current practical example of the two systems snafu in Britain today? Something like buying a half kilo of some loose food item, such as oranges, and the displayed price is in pounds while the cash register/scales gives price of the item per kilogram. Is that the sort of thing the average Briton has to contend with on a daily basis?

Rip

SteveH: "Ask if he allows himself to respond to me now, with his new spots...."

Rip to SteveH: Cut it out, Steve. This garbage is wearing thin. You're going too far and beginning to upset people, me for one. Don't ask me to ask questions on your behalf to any third party on this board while intending them to see your message for themselves. Very childishly rude. And I'm not your messenger. If this is the way you are going to go on then you deserve to be ignored.

But he's sitting right next to you!

Erm

Could you pass the jam?

No, dopey. Get it yourself. I'm going.

Do you want the 250 g jar or the 500 g jar?

No the (for your bizzare purposes) 454 gramme one.

And stop measuring everything - your country speaks imperial! Get over it!

LOL!

No we don't. We have our own units, that just happen to have the same name as yours. But,we do speak some metric too. Millimetres and litres are the most common units of metric used and they are spoken quite frequently.

We don't exist in a non-metric vacuum. Why would you think we do?

Ha! Oversensitivity to the word "imperial" there!

Face it - we used to own you too!


;-)

<<your country speaks imperial! Get over it!>>

Strictly speaking, we don't. We use US Customary. Some units are identical, some are different.

Length: Inch, foot, mile agree (except US surevey foot and mile used in surveying, 2 ppm different.) Our nautical miles differ by one meter, 1852 vs 1853 m.

Weight: Ounce and pound agree. We don't use stones. Hundredweight and ton differ. "How many pounds in a hundredweight? Gosh, how many gallons in two gallons." Except in the UK, that's wrong. Couldn't you have made up a new name for 112 lb?

Volume: All multiples and submultiples of gallon and bushel for wet and dry measure differ. Cubic yards, feet, and inches are common.

Temperature: Fahrenheit (and Rankine) are identical

Units that are combinations of common units (horsepower, BTU, etc) are the same.

Stench: "Face it - we used to own you too"

The operative words are "used to". Stench has a tendency to live in the past.

<<Face it - we used to own you too!


;-)
>>

Apparently, we set a good example for the rest of the Empire.
"Look, you CAN be FREE."

After us, the UK was more willing to negotiate independence amicably, though, so ties remained a little closer. (the Commonwealth)

Stench read this: "The Imperial units are or the Imperial system is a collection of English units, first defined in the Weights and Measures Act of 1824, later refined (until 1959) and reduced. The units were introduced in the United Kingdom and its colonies, including Commonwealth countries, but excluding the then already independent United States."

So the United States, as an independent republic, could not have been included in the Imperial-system statute of 1824. So there system is not the "imperial" system. Their system is derived from English units, but it is not the Imperial system of units as laid down in the statute of 1824. There are several significant differences. Read John's post and learn something. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a blind and reeking imperialist like Stench.

Question to John: Is the term "US Customary" laid down as an official term by statute in the US? When were US Customary weights and measures systemized and laid down as the official system by statute?

<<So the United States, as an independent republic, could not have been included in the Imperial-system statute of 1824. So there system is not the "imperial" system. Their system is derived from English units, but it is not the Imperial system of units as laid down in the statute of 1824. There are several significant differences. Read John's post and learn something. >>

Although the US was apparently aware of it. We basically used "leftover units" until 1832, when the US formally exercised its authority to uniformly set weights and measures for the country as provided in the Constitution. NIST SP447 gives the only reasonably authoritative account I can find. We apparently knew about the Imperial gallon and bushel, but retained the older Queen Anne wine gallon (231 in^3) and Winchester bushel (2150.42 in^3), both dating from 1707 or earlier, as they were more commonly in use.
Note that gallon and bushel do NOT have an 8:1 ratio, creating different wet and dry volume measures. We did adopt the foot and pound, and reconciled them to the UK values within the limits of measurement of the era.


Had we adopted those units, there might have been regular agreements on standards, creating a much more powerful Imperial trading block and more of a challenge to the metric system. After we chucked our yard and pound standards in 1893, I think the die was cast for us to be "officially metric" even if folks don't use it much. With all consumer goods in dual units, it is hard to say precisely what we are, although most consumers certainly focus on the inch-pound contents definition.

But there must have been some point in time when US Customary units were made the official system by the US Congress.

There are no laws in the US giving non-SI units legal or official status in the US.

However, several laws, starting with the one issued in 1866, do make the metric system both legal and official in the US.

Thus the US is legally and officially a metric country.

Then some US government department must have stipulated their use for domestic commerce and overseas trade. Didn't the US Treasury decide to adopt what became the US Customary units in 1830-something for commerce and trade? I vaguely remember something like that from somewhere.

<<But there must have been some point in time when US Customary units were made the official system by the US Congress.>>

If so, I can't find it. However, Congress, apparently unlike Parliament, does NOT pass highly detailed bills. They pass broad "policy" bills and delegate "rule making authority" within that policy to appropriate Federal agencies. Sometimes they exceed their authority and cause a crapstorm, more typically, they get a little nervous at the end of their leash and seek authority from Congress if they have doubts. (That may have been seen as necessary for the Metric Act of 1866)

So it was really Bureau of Weights and Measures, later, National Bureau of Standards, now NIST that is responsible for publishing the details. But the "Customary" just grew, in fact, there is uncertainty where the term "Customary" originated. It may be in the sense of "usual" or it may be because the Bureau of Weights and Measures was originally part of Customs and mostly concerned with collecting tariffs on imports. Even NIST acknowledges both theories.

Back to your original question, the Bureau of Weights and Measures fixed the yard, pound, gallon and bushel in 1832 under their authority from Congress. Oddly nobody ever said "these are the units for trade", it was just assumed.
No one doubts they are legal, but you can't put your finger on a law that says so, other than BWM publications. Even today, Customary is defined entirely by a NIST publication from 1968 (not absolutely sure on date) in the Federal Register, and units are declared fractions of metric standards.

If you need a current example of how this works, look at what Congress passed for the FPLA (dual labelling act) vs FDA rule making, which gets down to what units, how many digits, numerical rounding rules, font size, etc.

"Back to your original question, the Bureau of Weights and Measures fixed the yard, pound, gallon and bushel in 1832 under their authority from Congress. Oddly nobody ever said "these are the units for trade", it was just assumed."

Was this the time that US Treasury adopted these measures for customs duties, tariffs, and excise?

It's all right John. I've found the relevant information on Google. A brief though comprehensive history of weights and measures in the US is given at

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/usmetric.html

"It is remarkable that Congress never established this traditional system, or any other system, as the mandatory system of weights and measures for the United States. In 1832 Congress directed the Treasury Department to standardize the measures used at US ports. The Department adopted a report describing the traditional system, and Congress allowed this report to stand without taking any formal action. This is the closest the US has ever come to adopting a single system of measurement. Ironically the US missed two opportunities in 1832. Americans could have adopted the metric system, which was then at an uncertain in its history; or thy could have decided to align their measurements with the British Imperial measures established by Parliament in 1824 and thus created a possible alternative to the metric system in international commerce."

"The Metric System in the United States"
Russ Rowlett, Univ. of North Carolina

Russ has just about covered it all in this paragraph.





Rip

And here it is again without the typos:

"Congress gave this plan serious consideration, but because it lacked independent support from other scientists it was easy to criticize. Ultimately, Congress took no action. This left Americans with a version of the traditional English weights and measures, including:

distance measurements identical to those of the 1592 Act of Parliament,
the traditional avoirdupois system of weight measurements,
a system of measurement for dry volumes based on the "Winchester" bushel used in England for wheat and corn since the late Middle Ages, and
a system of measurement for liquid volumes based on the English wine gallon of 1707.

It is remarkable that Congress never established this traditional system, or any other system, as the mandatory system of weights and measures for the United States. In 1832, Congress directed the Treasury Department to standardize the measures used by customs officials at U.S. ports. The Department adopted a report describing the traditional system, and Congress allowed this report to stand without taking any formal action. This is the closest the U.S. has ever come to adopting a single system of measurement. Ironically, the U.S. missed two opportunities in 1832. Americans could have adopted the metric system, which was then at an uncertain point in its history; or they could have decided to align their measurements with the British Imperial measures established by Parliament in 1824 and thus created a possible alternative to the metric system in international commerce."

You bet it is remarkable that Congress never legislated a system of weights and measures for the US. And metric has been on the books since 1866, but not made mandatory. And on it goes.

Rip

<<Was this the time that US Treasury adopted these measures for customs duties, tariffs, and excise?>>

I saw your other note, but that's it exactly. Customs was part of Treasury, and Weights & Measures part of Customs. NIST is now part of Dept. of Commerce.

If you have any interest in more detail on the history of US standards, NIST has a brochure, now out of print, but available online at their website, SP447. (The SP means "Special Publication"). I found it quite interesting. More detailed but quite similar to what you got from USMA site. You can Google on "NIST" and "SP447" to find it.

Oops, that was me.

Also in 1904, there was a bill to make the metric system official for the US (vs allowed). It lost by 1 vote.

What a shame America didn't go metric while it had the chance to do it easily all those years ago. I don't know if this was a factor in 19th-century American thinking, but perhaps the US Customary system was more favoured because it was derived from English weights and measures, and so was seen as more "Anglo-Saxon" and less foreign. Britain until recently was still the largest foreign investor in the US, and had been for the decades through the 19th century. The American railroads were largely financed with British money. And so was a lot of the American beef industry.

Rip

Who's let Rip again?

Re: A message for Metre July 10 2005, 6:53 AM
Rip
What a shame America didn't go metric while it had the chance to do it easily all those years ago. I don't know if this was a factor in 19th-century American thinking, but perhaps the US Customary system was more favoured because it was derived from English weights and measures, and so was seen as more "Anglo-Saxon" and less foreign. Britain until recently was still the largest foreign investor in the US, and had been for the decades through the 19th century. The American railroads were largely financed with British money. And so was a lot of the American beef industry.

metre
Shame indeed! Probably 3 facts worked against metrication and and one still does. British investment as you mention, religion, many decried the system as ungodly because it came together with abolishing the day of rest in a 10 day week and the most important of all, habit.

Sorry about the delay, but you are too diligent a poster to keep up with.

The French calendar reform was EXTREMELY shortlived, even in France (less than a decade if I recall). I doubt it was a factor in either US or UK serious consideration of metric which began in the mid-1800's.

Habit may explain it all for the US, including the 1832 decision to keep the familiar gallon and bushel from 1707, not the new-fangled Imperial gallon and bushel of 1824. Had it been anti-British sentiment (not unexpected after the War of 1812), we probably wouldn't have adopted the yard and pound.

Also, there are a few powerful and influential industries who have to be dragged kicking and screaming to metrication, while other industries have led it. One would think that they can't both be right.

Me, again.

bucket.

now.

How many litres do you need?

I think you might have the wrong end of the stick

Re: A message for Metre July 11 2005, 3:23 PM


The French calendar reform was EXTREMELY shortlived, even in France (less than a decade if I recall). I doubt it was a factor in either US or UK serious consideration of metric which began in the mid-1800's.

Habit may explain it all for the US, including the 1832 decision to keep the familiar gallon and bushel from 1707, not the new-fangled Imperial gallon and bushel of 1824. Had it been anti-British sentiment (not unexpected after the War of 1812), we probably wouldn't have adopted the yard and pound.

Also, there are a few powerful and influential industries who have to be dragged kicking and screaming to metrication, while other industries have led it. One would think that they can't both be right.

metre
My mentioning of religion is based on an article I read that had the US clergy way back actively campaigning against metrication for that reason. Maybe it is just a nice story?
Habit is undeniably the main stumbling block in every country that wants to metricate. As to industies, I am sure exporting ones metricate for efficiency and cost savings. For non-exporting ones there is right now no incentive to do so.

metre
"Shame indeed! Probably 3 facts worked against metrication and and one still does. British investment as you mention, religion, many decried the system as ungodly because it came together with abolishing the day of rest in a 10 day week and the most important of all, habit.

Sorry about the delay, but you are too diligent a poster to keep up with."

Rip's reply: I could well see the fundamentalists decrying metric as ungodly and unchristian, even anti-Christian. They may well see the metric system as un-British/un-American and atheistic. Though how a system of weights and measures could be considered atheistic is beyond me, but I'll bet it's not beyond them. All we need now is for someone to declaim that the metric system is an instrument of the Devil.

And Metre, it's easy to diligently post when one has nothing else to do.