[AT] Metric vs. "English" measurements (was Re: Spam> Re: Spam> bearing cross-reference

Mike Sloane mikesloane at verizon.net
Wed Jan 6 08:55:11 PST 2010


Virtually the rest of the planet, including Canada, managed to make the 
change and survived. And a "two by four" will always be just that - 
after all, it has been decades since a two by four was actually 2" by 
4". And such phrases as "missed by a mile" won't disappear overnight. 
The US military still manages to function quite well in a metric world, 
as does the airline industry, NASA, etc. We no longer use furlongs, 
pecks, rods, leagues, stone, cubits, or any number of other antique 
measurements in our daily lives, and we swapped megacycles for MHz 
without so much as a blip. Anybody who has had to add up a row of 
fractional measurements can tell you how much happier they would be 
adding up a row of decimal measurements. :-) While I think it would take 
some effort on peoples' part, it can be done.

Mike

charliehill wrote:
> Yeah Al, but if you could (given the stuff we have) put down the english 
> system all together and go straight to metric you'd find it easier.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Al Jones" <farmallsupera at earthlink.net>
> To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [AT] Spam> Re: Spam> bearing cross-reference
> 
> 
>> The metric system is the work of the devil!  Theoretically it's easier but 
>> when you've learned feet, inches, yards, pounds, and ounces your whole 
>> life, it's misery trying to convert.  The english units work just fine and 
>> I intend to stay with 'em.
>>
>> Al



More information about the AT mailing list