>All measurement systems are abstract representations, and all of the arguments always come down to ease of use. Whichever system a person is accustomed to is the easiest.

While this is true, I'm sure that it is also true that while a person brought up using SI can more easily use than than metric, a person brought up using metric can more easily use metric than the person who grew up using SI can use SI.

> > Ah yes, the final bottom line is not one of freedom of choice, but of "stupendous capital cost."
>
> Actually, the cost argument is the minor one, and that of freedom of choice the greater. It seems like we keep running into a difference of basic political philosophy. On one hand is statism, coercing people to live a predefined Happy Quiet Good Life, and on the other is liberty, leaving such trivia as measurement systems to the people it concerns.

I'm so sick of people using freedom of choice to excuse doing stupid things. Freedom of choice doesn't mean "do whatever you want any time you want." There have to be set standards and rules or there would be chaos. This measuring system thing is exactly the same as having a national language. Say you sold ice cream, and by law all ice cream containers were to have nutritional information on them. It would hardly be right for the government to allow these nutritional facts to be written in Chinese, because a very small part of the population knows Chinese, and the point of the nutritional information is to inform the public. You can make up all the crazy measuring systems you want, but you can't use them expecting anyone else to understand what you're talking about. By moving to make the metric system a national measuring system, the governments are just trying to make things more universal.

>
> Summary:
>
> Myth #1) Customary is less precise/scientific/logical.
>
> It can measure anything metric can and some things metric can't.
>

What things that metric can't?

> Myth #2) Customary is harder to use.
>
> It is harder to learn. Ease of use is totally relative to experience.
>

Actually, it is harder to use. If I were to ask you to tell me how many inches there are in 2.5 miles, you'd have to think for quite a while. If I were to ask you how many milimeters there were in 2.5 kilometers, you'd know the answer pretty much immediately.

> Myth #3) Customary is out of date.
>
> It's being used right now. In any case, time and the usefulness of measuring systems are unrelated.
>

True, but usefulness of measuring systems and USE of measuring systems ARE related, and there are a great many people wanting to change measuring systems. If SI was a wonderful and perfect system, there wouldn't be nearly so many people wanting to get rid of it.

> Myth #4) Metric is stealing our heritage and ought to be fought.
>
> There are better things to worry about.

Metric IS stealing our heritage, as is the 19th amendment, the 14th amendment, and the mechanized horse.

> Myth #5) The U.S. is the only country that uses customary.
>
> Countries don't use measuring systems; people do. Everyone except for unfortunate folk under a few domineering European governments may use any system they like, even make up their own. In any case, the users of measuring systems and the usefulness of measuring systems are unrelated.

Actually, they are. If a measuring system isn't useful, less people will use it. If it were useful, people who were using it at one time would continue to use it.

> Myth #6) Customary perpetuates ignorance.

I'm pretty sure it's vice-versa.

> Myth #7) A few militant Metric Nazis are really uptight about other people in other places doing things another way.
>
> OK, this isn't a myth. But European cultures' superiority complexes are nothing new.
>
> gab"Don't tread on me"by

Myth #8) A few crazy SI Hippies are really uptight about their right to be innefficient and perpetuate their inefficiency for their children.

Ok, this isn't a myth. But stubborness is timeless.

Wes - "In an argumentative mood and wearing healthily treaded boots."