🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <187@dcs.UUCP>, by wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul):
> In article <2882@hubcap.UUCP> billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>>From article <1988Aug28.010835.17290@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
>>     Ah, I see... Tell me, do you think your odometer should present
>>     the last two digits first, then some verbal representation of
>>     the next-to-last two digits, followed by the remaining digits?
>>
>>     If not, then why should a chronometer be any different??
> 
> Can you read? Henry argued from the FAMILIARITY of the month names versus
> numbers. If you can tell me of one place where the scheme you describe is 
> more FAMILIAR to folks than an all-numeric mileage, then fine. If you can't,
> stop using silly, contrived examples.

     Yes, I can read.  But familiarity does not imply that a system
     is in any sense optimal.  If that were true, there would be no
     point in converting to the metric system... 

> [12-hour time measurement, British units of measure] used to be, and still
> is to some extent, the practice of ALL ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES.

      See above.

> Besides, what are you trying to do to Henry? 

      To point out that when an international standard exists which
      is clearly superior to the one currently in use, that standard
      should be ADOPTED and not opposed because "we've done it this
      way for the last 2 zillion years, and we haven't the sense to change".

      (Not a direct quote, but a basic summary of the position).


                                          Bill Wolfe