09-16-2010, 12:54 PM
(09-16-2010, 02:25 AM)TheDragoon Wrote: Regardless whatever point on whatever tangent from the body of this discussion that you're trying to make (I'm honestly not sure exactly what that point is or at least why it would matter at all) it certainly doesn't touch on any of the rest of the discussion.
Let me explain it to you, then. Our disagreement starts with the very first lines of Pete's tirade:
(09-12-2010, 11:29 PM)--Pete Wrote:(09-10-2010, 12:54 PM)Taelas Wrote: Oh, and while you're at it, switch to metric and centigrade. Even more rational, logical ideas!
I often hear complaints or jabs about the USA not being on the metric system. Actually, we've been on the metric system since the late nineteenth century (1878).
Taelas remark was not about just any metric system, but about THE metric system known as SI. Pete acknowledges this by providing a link to a SI webpage in his first sentence. After all, why would anyone expect the US to switch to systems that are no longer the international standard. Then Pete disagrees with Taelas by telling the US are already on THE metric system, but now he refers to the Metric Convention of 1875, which was 85 years before SI was created. After this, he proceeds by picking units from metric systems left and right, and showing their shortcomings as arguments against that one metric system, the SI.
Now, who is incorrectly equating "metric" with "SI"?