"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QTj45cTB4U

basilisk

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

Don't feed 'em ...

I can't stand to see anyone go hungry

basilisk

I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Robatoy wrote:
....
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.

--

On Sep 8, 8:34*am, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

...

But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.

--

Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
bring comfort, no?

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

Leon wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

2.65 mm

What's half of 5.3 inches?

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

2.65 mm

Can you see an mark 2.65 mm?


What's half of 5.3 inches?

2.65 "

Leon wrote:
"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

2.65 mm

Can you see an mark 2.65 mm?


What's half of 5.3 inches?

2.65 "

So, six of one and half a dozen of the other... :-)

On Sep 8, 9:04*am, "Leon" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message

...

I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

That'd be 0.1043307", Leon. (BTW, I do get your point. )G

dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
...
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.

The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to the
will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre French system
crammed down its throat.

Don't feed 'em ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?


Irrelevant if you've truly converted to metric. Just like learning a
foreign language. When you've truly gotten it, you don't translate in your
head, you *think* in the language in which you're speaking. No different
here. 5.3mm=5.3mm. period.

On Sep 8, 9:37*am, "Swingman" wrote:
Don't feed 'em ...

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Your cynicism is starting to make you look silly.

Robatoy wrote:
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

1. Though a PITA, it is what we are used to.

2. Precision? The metric scales I have seen are marked in millimeters...
1/25.4 inch. It is not uncommon to have an imperial scale marked in 1/32 or
even 1/64.




--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Robatoy wrote:

On Sep 8, 8:34*am, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

...

But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.

--

Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
bring comfort, no?

feet and inches are often far easier to remember than metric measurements as the
numbers get larger , you also have the problem that different trades in different
countries use different protocols , some use metres some centimetres others
millimetres but they dont always identify which , leads to fun and games sometimes .

The other issue is that in the us as well as the uk most homes were built to
imperial standard dimensions so you use 8 by 4 sheets of ply or plasterboard , in
europe most plasterboard sheet material is now metric 1200 by 2400 , 1800 by 900
which creates problems in refit works specs etc

6 feet /72 inches is often easier to remember than 1828mm

But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?


snip

The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.

Larry C

"steve robinson" wrote in message
...
Robatoy wrote:


feet and inches are often far easier to remember than metric measurements
as the
numbers get larger , you also have the problem that different trades in
different
countries use different protocols , some use metres some centimetres
others
millimetres but they dont always identify which , leads to fun and games
sometimes .

In the same situation, I believe that all the metric measurements being
"53??????meter." could easily be confused with "53?????meters. Basically
the units of measure sound too much the same.

Yards, feet, and Inches sound way different than meters, decimeters,
centimeters, and millimeters



The other issue is that in the us as well as the uk most homes were built
to
imperial standard dimensions so you use 8 by 4 sheets of ply or
plasterboard , in
europe most plasterboard sheet material is now metric 1200 by 2400 , 1800
by 900
which creates problems in refit works specs etc

I wonder if that is a valid assumption. Seldom do you pull out a 4x8 of any
thing and replace it as a unit. More often it is patched and cut to fit.


6 feet /72 inches is often easier to remember than 1828mm

But what makes 6' or 72 inches easier to remember than 1800 mm?

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 8, 9:04 am, "Leon" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message

...

I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings
so I can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what
they're the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime
it is hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these
parts are. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is
used as I work in both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with
an archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

That'd be 0.1043307", Leon. (BTW, I do get your point. )G

I used to design business forms. Most typewriters (remember those) and
computer printers were based on the inch systems but used many strange
scales. I ended up having to work with line spacing of 1/8", 1/4", 1/3" and
1/2", character spacing varied from 1/12", 1/10", 1/8", 1/6" and up to
5/32". The biggest problem is that the typesetting equipment all ran on
another scale traditionally used by typesetters and printers, picas and
points. While conversion is not precise, a pica is very close to 1/6" and
there are 12 points to a pica which works out to about 72 points to the
inch.

When you work in all these scales for many years it becomes natural to you
and you can convert back and forth in your head easily. I still have
stainless steel rulers in all these spacings and scales, and often use them
when one of them will work better for me. When it works correctly I will
even use metric.

One of the reasons that the old Imperial system is dying is that different
countries used different standards. I learned many years ago that Imperial
measurements are useless in precision work because England, Canada,
Australia and the US all had different lengths of inches. Granted this was
at the 5th or 6th decimal but it was unuseable. Another example is the
gallon. Do you prefer it to liters? But which gallon? In the printing
business we had to mix photo chemicals for our litho camera film. You would
have to check where the Kodak chemicals were made because if they said add
30 ounces of concentrate to a gallon of water, you needed to know which
ounces and which gallon. A US Gallon contains 128 ounces which is 4 quarts
of 32 ounces each, a Canadian Gallon contains 160 ounces which is 4 quarts
of 40 ounces each. Even the ounces were slightly different. In this regard
metric is much easier.

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:34 am, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

...

But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?
Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.

--

Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
bring comfort, no?

On a personal level, no...

OTOH, enterprises engaged in large-scale and/or routine trade _do_ use
mks routinely. I'm guessing you're dealing essentially w/ individuals
not sizable corporate engineering groups.

I'm a NE by training and 40+ years experience so know mks for
engineering work intimately. Yet, for routine day-to-day living I'm far
more comfortable w/ English units simply because they're still what have
that innate feeling over.

It's no different than your familiarity w/ daily temp's in C and sheet
goods in mm--that was what you grew up with; it's what you unconsciously
think in. OTOH, while you "know" what an inch is, it takes actual
effort to relate that. We're precisely the other way 'round (and I
suspect will continue to be for the foreseeable future as there isn't
the mechanism in the States to coerce the changeover).

--

--

On Sep 8, 10:15*am, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:34*am, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

...

But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.

--

Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
bring comfort, no?

feet and inches are often far easier to remember than metric measurements as the
numbers get larger , you also have the problem that different trades in different
countries use different protocols , some use metres some centimetres others
millimetres but they dont always identify which , leads to fun and games sometimes .

The other issue is that in the us as well as the uk most homes were built to
imperial standard dimensions so you use 8 by 4 sheets of ply or plasterboard , in
europe most plasterboard sheet material is now metric 1200 by 2400 , 1800 by 900
which creates problems in refit works specs etc

6 feet /72 inches is often easier to remember than 1828mm

All valid points. Thanks for those.

dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:34 am, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

...

But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?
Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.

--

Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
bring comfort, no?

On a personal level, no...

OTOH, enterprises engaged in large-scale and/or routine trade _do_ use
mks routinely. I'm guessing you're dealing essentially w/ individuals
not sizable corporate engineering groups.

I'm a NE by training and 40+ years experience so know mks for
engineering work intimately. Yet, for routine day-to-day living I'm far
more comfortable w/ English units simply because they're still what have
that innate feeling over.

It's no different than your familiarity w/ daily temp's in C and sheet
goods in mm--that was what you grew up with; it's what you unconsciously
think in. OTOH, while you "know" what an inch is, it takes actual
effort to relate that. We're precisely the other way 'round (and I
suspect will continue to be for the foreseeable future as there isn't
the mechanism in the States to coerce the changeover).

--

--

I think Obama needs to know about this. We need some more "change" we
can believe in. We need a Metric Czar.

Robatoy wrote:
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

One has to look at the basics for each system:

1 meter = one ten-millionth of the distance from the pole to the equator
measured along the prime meridian.

1 pound = "A pint's a pound the world around"

Now I ask you: which is more meaningful to the average person?

"Chuck" wrote in message
...

I think Obama needs to know about this. We need some more "change" we can
believe in. We need a Metric Czar.


Been there Done that. Jimmy C tried that and that is why we deal with a
mixed up mess today expecially in the auto industry. 30 years later and
American cars still have a mix of metric and imperial parts.

On Sep 8, 11:49*am, "Leon" wrote:
"Chuck" wrote in message

...



I think Obama needs to know about this. We need some more "change" we can
believe in. We need a Metric Czar.

Been there Done that. *Jimmy C tried that and that is why we deal with a
mixed up mess today expecially in the auto industry. *30 years later and
American cars still have a mix of metric and imperial parts.

Well, now you got another Jimmy C...*WEG*

"Leon" wrote in
:


Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?



0.10433070866141732283464566929134 inch.

Floating point error might have occurred.

Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

On Sep 8, 5:32*am, Robatoy wrote:
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Here are the main arguments for both sides of the debate:

PRO IMPERIAL:
There is absolutely no question; traditional imperial measurements are
far superior for woodworking. Most wreckers use it for very good
reasons:

PRO METRIC:
There is absolutely no question; metric measurements are far superior
for woodworking. Most woodworkers in the world use it for very good
reasons:

Intuitiveness:
1. Imperial is much more intuitive and natural. Feet and inches
(thumbs) have been used throughout human history as they are related
to human body parts (fingers and feet). As Michelangelo said: man is
the measure of all things.
1. Metric is much more intuitive and natural. Humans always use a base
10 system as it is related to human body parts (number of fingers &
toes). As Michelangelo said: man is the measure of all things.

Communicating measurements:
2. Imperial is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Someone
calls out a measurement for a piece of wood, & before you notice it,
you cut 10mm instead of 10cm.
2. Metric is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Quickly now,
is 19/32" bigger or smaller than 5/8"? On the other hand, it is
immediately obvious that 15mm is smaller than 16mm.

Ease of learning:
3. Imperial measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to
memorize all those crazy prefixes: femto, nano, micro, milli, centi,
deci, deka, hecto, kilo, mega, myria, giga, etc.
3. Metric measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to remember
all those crazy measures like inches, hands, feet, cubits, yards,
fathoms, rods, cones, chains, furlongs, cables, miles, etc.

Arithmetic:
4. Imperial uses simple fractional arithmetic which we all learned in
grade school. Not like metric where you need to know all those
prefixes and can easily make a mistake on your calculator & cut
something 10 times too big or 10 times too small.
4. Metric uses simple decimal arithmetic where you can use your
calculator directly without springing big bucks for one that
calculates inches and fractions.

Division:
5. It's a lot easier to divide stuff in imperial measurements. What do
you call half a millimeter? Ever try to divide 304.8mm by four? A foot
is real easy - 12" divided by four is 3".
5. It's a lot easier to divide stuff in metric measurements. Ever try
to divide 39 9/16 inches by four? While 1000mm divided by four readily
gives 250mm.

Accuracy:
6. Imperial is more accurate. You can easily go to 1/32 which is more
precise than 1mm.
6. Metric is more accurate. You can easily go to 0.5mm which is more
precise than 1/32"

The REAL Reason:
7. Metric is a stupid cowardly French system. You don't want to
support those smelly unwashed arrogant ingrates, do you? GOD BLESS
AMERICA!
7. Inches and feet are a stupid warmongering American imperialist
system. The rest of the world and all scientists use the much more
rational metric system. It's about time the US gets into the 19th
century, never mind the 21st! VIVE LA FRANCE!

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
[...]

1 pound = "A pint's a pound the world around"

which I think means 16oz in a lb and 16oz in a pint, but only in the US. An
Imperial pint is 20 fl oz the world around.

Tim W

On Sep 8, 8:36*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

1 pound = "A pint's a pound the world around"

Now I ask you: which is more meaningful to the average person?

Too bad it's wrong. A pint is 1/8 of a gallon or 20 ounces. A gallon
of water (a real one, not the wimpy American kind) is 10 lbs., so one
eighth of 10 lbs is not one pound.

Same goes for the silly Yankee gallon, which is eight point something
pounds.

Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
For linear distances, it doesn't really matter what you use: inches,
mm, cm, feet, cubits, whatever.

I was trying to figure out how much rain on my roof it took to fill a
45-gallon drum (55 gallons to you, Bubba). How many cubic inches in a
gallon??? While translated in to metric system, it was all
straightforward once I knew how many litres in a gallon.

Luigi

On Sep 8, 1:24*pm, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 8, 5:32*am, Robatoy wrote:

I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Here are the main arguments for both sides of the debate:

PRO IMPERIAL:
There is absolutely no question; traditional imperial measurements are
far superior for woodworking. Most wreckers use it for very good
reasons:

PRO METRIC:
There is absolutely no question; metric measurements are far superior
for woodworking. Most woodworkers in the world use it for very good
reasons:

Intuitiveness:
1. Imperial is much more intuitive and natural. Feet and inches
(thumbs) have been used throughout human history as they are related
to human body parts (fingers and feet). As Michelangelo said: man is
the measure of all things.
1. Metric is much more intuitive and natural. Humans always use a base
10 system as it is related to human body parts (number of fingers &
toes). As Michelangelo said: man is the measure of all things.

Communicating measurements:
2. Imperial is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Someone
calls out a measurement for a piece of wood, & before you notice it,
you cut 10mm instead of 10cm.
2. Metric is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Quickly now,
is 19/32" bigger or smaller than 5/8"? On the other hand, it is
immediately obvious that 15mm is smaller than 16mm.

Ease of learning:
3. Imperial measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to
memorize all those crazy prefixes: femto, nano, micro, milli, centi,
deci, deka, hecto, kilo, mega, myria, giga, etc.
3. Metric measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to remember
all those crazy measures like inches, hands, feet, cubits, yards,
fathoms, rods, cones, chains, furlongs, cables, miles, etc.

Arithmetic:
4. Imperial uses simple fractional arithmetic which we all learned in
grade school. Not like metric where you need to know all those
prefixes and can easily make a mistake on your calculator & cut
something 10 times too big or 10 times too small.
4. Metric uses simple decimal arithmetic where you can use your
calculator directly without springing big bucks for one that
calculates inches and fractions.

Division:
5. It's a lot easier to divide stuff in imperial measurements. What do
you call half a millimeter? Ever try to divide 304.8mm by four? A foot
is real easy - 12" divided by four is 3".
5. It's a lot easier to divide stuff in metric measurements. Ever try
to divide 39 9/16 inches by four? While 1000mm divided by four readily
gives 250mm.

Accuracy:
6. Imperial is more accurate. You can easily go to 1/32 which is more
precise than 1mm.
6. Metric is more accurate. You can easily go to 0.5mm which is more
precise than 1/32"

The REAL Reason:
7. Metric is a stupid cowardly French system. You don't want to
support those smelly unwashed arrogant ingrates, do you? GOD BLESS
AMERICA!
7. Inches and feet are a stupid warmongering American imperialist
system. The rest of the world and all scientists use the much more
rational metric system. It's about time the US gets into the 19th
century, never mind the 21st! VIVE LA FRANCE!

That is an explanation I can live with.

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C"
wrote:

The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.

I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
serious statement, it's unadulterated horse****.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On 09/08/2009 06:32 AM, Robatoy wrote:

But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

The cost for wholesale switchover would be a huge one-time cost, while
the cost for staying is paid incrementally. There isn't enough
incentive to make it worthwhile in the minds of regulators.

Kind of like keyboard layout...Dvorak is 10-15% faster for a trained
typist, but the cost of switching is too high to make it worth doing.

I'm in Canada, so we get everything...metric, US, and Imperial.
Personally I like metric for most things, but living so close to the US
it's just easier to use US units for construction/woodworking.

Chris

On Sep 8, 3:09*pm, Tom Veatch wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C"
wrote:

The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.

I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
serious statement, it's unadulterated horse****.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

I'm still trying to figure out what adulterated horse**** is. :-}

"Tom Veatch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C"
wrote:

The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.

I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
serious statement, it's unadulterated horse****.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA



It was a joke

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 3:09 pm, Tom Veatch wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C"
wrote:

The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.

I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
serious statement, it's unadulterated horse****.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

I'm still trying to figure out what adulterated horse**** is. :-}

manure from an unfaithful horse? Is the unadulterated stuff better?

Larry C wrote:

"Tom Veatch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C"
wrote:

The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.

I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
serious statement, it's unadulterated horse****.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA



It was a joke

An unadulterated joke.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...
Larry C wrote:

"Tom Veatch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C"
wrote:

The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.

I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
serious statement, it's unadulterated horse****.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA



It was a joke

An unadulterated joke.


I meant to say Stone Cutters - a Simpsons reference but I typed quicker than
I thought. The Freemasons are the guys who have all that treasure hidden
somewhere in the US.

On Sep 8, 4:12*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
Larry C wrote:

"Tom Veatch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C"
wrote:

The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.

I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
serious statement, it's unadulterated horse****.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

It was a joke

An unadulterated joke.



Then what is an adulterated joke?

On Sep 8, 3:09*pm, Tom Veatch wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C"
wrote:

The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.

I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
serious statement, it's unadulterated horse****.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

I need more info. Whose tongue in whose cheek? Which cheek..come on..
I'm trying to understand..

=0)

"Larry C" wrote in message
...

I meant to say Stone Cutters - a Simpsons reference but I typed quicker
than I thought. The Freemasons are the guys who have all that treasure
hidden somewhere in the US.

And are plotting to take over the world.