Friday, February 03, 2006

Communciation Problem

The o/s rels were not too hard to understand, given they come from the north of England and their accent is almost Scottish. Where we did have problems, was imperial and metric. There eyes glazed a bit as they did mental calculations about the speed of cars, the temperature, distances and weights.

I thought that the UK was a bit further along the road to metrication than it obviously is. They know they are supposed to be thinking metric and seem to have a vague understanding, but we could tell that it just did not work for them. 'Yes it is hot, it is 100 degrees', meant much more to them than whatever our equivalent is.

Sadly I confess, I grew up with imperial and it is intersting as to what has stuck and what hasn't.

Day to day stuff is easy. I know how much a litre is along with how far a kilometre is. I know what it feels like to drive at 60kph or is that kmh? I also recall when I stupidly as a teen wound the Valiant up to 97mph, that was it's limit. It just would not crack the 100 mph. At least it did not valve bounce like Holdens did at that speed. Scares me to even recall that.

Height is not too bad. I know 183cm is 6' ('means feet kiddies) and I add and substract from there. But I instantly know how tall some is if they are 5'6" ("=inches kiddies).

2.5cm = 1 inch, easy to convert, but I still have to think a bit, not always. I do know what a piece of timber 4x2 is. The desirable but usually untrue 8 inches = 20cm.

I have totally forgotten about stones, pounds and ounces. It is either metric or meaningless. I can recall that over 12 stone is a bit on the heavy side as I used to be 9 stone for years. If people still used stones, I might understand, but people seem to have taken to the American style pounds only. Plus I think US pounds are different to what our pounds were. Not sure on that.

Kilojoules or calories, I am sure I have too much of both.

Pounds per square inch against kilopascals. I do the height thing here. 29 pounds per square inch in your tyre is about 200 kilopascals........... I think or is that hectopascals?

Do you kiddies know how difficult it was to add pounds, shillings and pence? I recall a school teacher saying that it was a waste of time teaching us this as we would not need it. He was correct. It was a bit like adding hours and minutes but with an extra thrown in as well.

Speaking of, what would be terribly sensible would be a metric clock. Why don't we have metric time?

The good old days weren't always so good. I am very thankful for metrication.

Now kiddies, get over this 6 foot, eight inches thing. Let it die. We are a metric country. 183/75/20uncut is quite acceptable, and even at my age, I understand.

15 comments:

  1. Interesting, publishing your stats now Andrew...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sadly Skander, I am only 180 tall.

    ReplyDelete
  3. me, I'm 187, and slightly heavier...

    ReplyDelete
  4. So we could say 187,80 and ????

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ah, you are tall hung dude. Works for me but never find them easily. You must have seen plenty in Sth America. (Don't worry, no one is observing comments on an four day old post)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Andy, what do you mean by "Works for me but never find them easily."?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is Andrew btw. Precious I know. Just meant your stats sound good. But not the usual sort of stats I go for. Never seem to come across guys of your age with your stats but I supposed I don't look for them. I met a really tall guy recently and I think it was the first time I have ever met a really tall guy. It was a bit different to have someone significantly taller than me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry, erm, Andrew. What height are you? I though you said you were 183, so I wouldn't be that much taller—like 4cms, less than 2 inches! I do remember you referring to yourself as an "otter" though.

    The tall guy wouldn't be the postie below, would it? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I did not actually give my stats. I never said they were mine. Mine are 180,75,8cut. Five foot eleven if you like, short of six feet. Not the guy at the post office. He would only be about 170. The one I am talking about would be 190 I reckon.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Guess I need to be consistant. 20cm

    ReplyDelete
  11. That sounds better. For you, for R and for your self-esteem. At least you are (now) practising what you preach, Andrew! But how should I interpret this in regard to your "desirable but usually untrue" comment? hmmm

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't measure it. It is a comparative measure. If he said his is 30cm, then mine must be 20cm. Ah, idea for a new post. But too many gay content posts lately. Will compose and publish later.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Not "haven't" measured it I notice. Not the sort of thing that changes regularly, I'd have thought. Other than the old shower/grower dichotomy...

    ReplyDelete