Here's a map of countries that have not yet adopted the metric system

Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 02:20 pm
Sorry, when I say:

"When I click on the second of these links, which you claim substantiates the idea that the BI system doesn't work, I am taken to the following post by you:"

I actually meant the third link, not the second.
0 Replies
Robert Gentel
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 03:06 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:

First of all, I have to say that I am so turned of by your calling me a liar, that I almost don't find it worthwhile to respond to you.

I feel the same, your intellectual dishonesty is offputting.

It doesn't seem to occur to you that someone might simply be wrong about something, or not notice something, or not share your assessment of something, or simply have limited time and attention to devote to a discussion, without deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

It does occur to me, but I don't think that's the case. You've read and responded to answers to your queries that you later claim doesn't exist. I consider this deliberate lying and am calling it that. If I thought it was a mere mistake I would not call it a lie.

When one says that something doesn't work, it sounds like one is saying that if that thing is tried, there will either be a false result, or else that the operation cannot be completed at all.

I made perfectly clear over and over what I meant while you lied about me not answering your questions. That your personal interpretation may differ doesn't detract from the fact that you lied about whether I answered your query over and over while you claimed I was unable to respond.

Of your above two items, the first certainly doesn't qualify. The fact that the BI units are defined in terms of metric units wouldn't lead someone working with BI units into error and it wouldn't prevent him from completing his work.

I said that the system doesn't work, and was clear to indicate that I felt this way because it was defunct. You are just moving the goal posts and insisting I said something completely different.

I never once said that someone using BI could not do so without error. I said the Imperial system doesn't work. And I was specific about how it doesn't work.

As for your second point about electrical units, it really isn't that clear to me that the units of electricity belong exclusively to the metric system. People working in the BI system always use the volt, amp, and ohm.

The volt, amp and ohm are metric units. There are no equivalents in the Imperial system so they are forced to simply use the metric units because the Imperial system has not been maintained in about 200 years.

People "working in the BI system" just use metric units for electricity because the Imperial system doesn't work to measure electricity .

You are just swiping the metric units verbatim and calling them Imperial but those are simply not Imperial units. So sure, if you copy the whole metric system and call it "Imperial" there would be a lot less negative to say about the "Imperial" system, but that's intellectual dishonesty. I am clearly not arguing against a system called "Imperial" I am arguing against the daft and defunct system that is the Imperial system.

To be working in the BI system simply means that one uses the inch, foot, yard, pound, slug, etc. for length, force, and mass. There is no feature of using the inch, foot, pound, etc. that is impossible to do or that leads to wrong conclusions. I don't think you've given anything here that could be described as "not working."

But you continue to deliberately ignore what I am talking about that isn't working, which is the maintenance of standards of measurement.

The system is just a naming convention based on the metric system, I know full well that it's possible to use to measure things but the standards of measurement require a body to maintain the standard and this is the part of the Imperial system that is not working.

I was very clear about that and you were very clearly trying to force me to argue something I wasn't and very clearly lying about me not answering your queries.

I do, however, believe that you have by now attributed virtues to the metric system which it doesn't have, which could be described loosely as magical qualities, and problems to the BI system which it doesn't have.

Yeah, you've said that over and over and never once answered this:

What attributes of the metric system am I claiming which it you consider "magical"? And don't give me the nonsense again about the Imperial system "not working". That isn't an attribute about the metric system and you are distorting what I'm saying about the Imperial system anyway by making me try to give examples of your distortion of it.

So what's the magical attribute of the metric system have I claimed?


I'm not going to waste my time exploring all of your links.

But you are willing to waste more time going on and on about how I can't answer you than read the answer?

When I click on the second of these links, which you claim substantiates the idea that the BI system doesn't work, I am taken to the following post by you:


You have descrived the above as substantiating your claim that the Imperial system doesn't work. I don't see it. Which part of the above shows how the BI system "doesn't work?" Once again, to me, not working means that something either leads to a false result or cannot be completed.

And once again I know where you've moved the goal posts. I said the Imperial system doesn't work and have explained time and time again that what I mean is the system no longer is able to maintain its own standards. You are insisting that I give you examples of your own distortion of what I said. Here is where that post addresses the lacking functionality of the Imperial system in maintaining its standards.

Robert wrote:
a measurement system that needs another measurement system to define itself isn't a standard measurement system anymore and is an arbitrary naming convention and bastardization of the real measurement system it relies on


Your response to my accusation of bad logic doesn't constitute a refutation. It's just a statement that you appear to think will have some psychological effect and does nothing to refute my description.

Your claim of bad logic isn't something you can substantiate in any way. If you try, I'll refute it but as long as you are just tossing it out there and hoping it sticks I'll treat it as another one of your baseless accusations and am under no obligation to refute your unsubstantiated claim.
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 04:09 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I would like to answer several of the points you made in the post to which this is a reply, but I cannot get past the point that you have called me a liar repeatedly. I am not a liar, and injecting that personal note into what might have been a civil exchange is a dishonorable way to try to make your point. I do not enable or associate with people who respond to my opinions with ad hominems, certainly not if they do so repeatedly. I can argue my points for a very long time, and often have on this board, but you called me a liar repeatedly in this post, and it is behavior which demands condemnation. Calling me a liar once is out of bounds, but calling me a liar or dishonest six or more times in one post is pretty much the end of any discussion between us.

Henceforth, I will not acknowledge your presence on the board, nor respond to anything you say. I will not post in your threads, and urge you not to post in mine. If you do, your posts will be ignored, and if anyone questions why I'm not acknowledging you, I'll describe the reason clearly. I'm not sure if your behavior is a breach of the board TOS or not, but I won't put up with it.
Robert Gentel
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 04:22 pm
You lied repeatedly. Now I can understand if you don't want to substantiate your claims, and can understand not liking being called a liar. But that should be remedied by not lying repeatedly, not by condemning the condemnation of your lying.

The question still stands:

What's the magical attribute of the metric system have I claimed?

You lied repeatedly about that and as long as you keep doing so I'll call it what it is.
0 Replies

Related Topics

conversion of feet and inches to centimetres - Question by leslieann seegobin
What is a Milimeter? - Discussion by Montana
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/11/2023 at 07:14:22