Giusi wrote:
> "Brian Christiansen" ha scritto nel messaggio

>
> Saying that US folks resist because they don't want to be told what to do is
> facile and egocentric. Everyone else changed, we couldn't or wouldn't and I
> listened to all the excuses. Quietly most of US industry did change over
> because otherwise they couldn't sell their products.
>
> In the kitchen, students are blown away with how much cleaner metric is,
> because you can put a bowl on the scale, tare it, then add, tare, add, tare
> etc. until done. You don't have to wash up a bunch of greasy or otherwise
> soiled cups, etc. Right now there are still recipes calling for ml of this
> ior that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in grams.
>
>


I agree that the switch to metric measurement was unsuccessful because
Americans were too lazy and/or too scared to learn it. It was like
learning a foreign language, "too much work" for the average person.
I also don't think the government or schools worked hard enough on the
transition to make it palatable.

I remember clearly many of the fears, having to learn new measurements
for travel(km), food (grams, kilos, liters) and even sewing (buying
fabric by the meter?) Oh, noooooo! As a result we have had two or three
more generations who have successfully ignored the concept.

gloria p

In article
>,
Ranée at Arabian Knits > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > Want volume? How many teaspoons in a tablespoon?
>
> 3
>
> > How many tablespoons in a cup?
>
> 16
>
> > How many cups in a fifth of wine?
>
> I don't know. But that's because I don't know what the volume of a
> fifth of wine is.

It's a fifth of a gallon. 16 cups in a gallon, so 3.2 cups.

But the point is that a lot of our measurements aren't base 2, and are
difficult to convert.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> On May 3, 6:33 am, Omelet > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Giusi" > wrote:
> > > "Brian Christiansen" ha scritto nel messaggio
> >
> > > > I also think that it is partially due to the fact that we (Americans)
> > > > don't > really like either the government or the French telling us what
> > > > measurement > system we are supposed to use.
> >
> > > Lame excuse. Who do you think established what you think of as American
> > > standard measures? They actually have the original certified measures in
> > > Washington DC. I was in university and just out of it when we were supposed
> > > to be changing to netric. What a joke! Americans were too lazy to bother
> > > and the government had plenty of problems and didn't push the issue. I got
> > > a couple of jobs/projects because I was one of the very few designers who
> > > could produce work in metric and annotated in more than one language.
> >
> > > Saying that US folks resist because they don't want to be told what to do is
> > > facile and egocentric. Everyone else changed, we couldn't or wouldn't and I
> > > listened to all the excuses. Quietly most of US industry did change over
> > > because otherwise they couldn't sell their products.
> >
> > > In the kitchen, students are blown away with how much cleaner metric is,
> > > because you can put a bowl on the scale, tare it, then add, tare, add, tare
> > > etc. until done. You don't have to wash up a bunch of greasy or otherwise
> > > soiled cups, etc. Right now there are still recipes calling for ml of this
> > > ior that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in grams.
> >
> > What I especially like about Metrics is the liquid to solid to weight
> > conversion. 1cc = 1ml = 1gram of liquid. QED!
>
> Only if its specific gravity is close to 1.
>
> Of course, kitchen measurements hardly ever involve 250 ml
> of liquid mercury, for example.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Actually I've got a recipe... (TINR)

We should be putting the chemistry into 'cookbook chemistry'. LOL

On Mon, 03 May 2010 17:07:09 -0600, "gloria.p" >
wrote:
>
>I agree that the switch to metric measurement was unsuccessful because
>Americans were too lazy and/or too scared to learn it.

That's simply not true. Those who were raised with metric have just
as much difficulty accomodating to the British system. Spacial
perseptions are internalized from the cradle, and once whichever
system is internalized it will forever be predominent, it cannot be
unlearned. The only way that the US can adopt metric is to remove ALL
British measurement configured items from existance in one fell swoop
and still it would take at least 2-3 generations to make the switch.
People can learn both systems, and do, but just like language the one
one is born with will always be predominent... vastly predominent.
Laziness and fear hasn't a whit to do with it. I worked with both
systems all my life and can work with both, but will never feel
comfortable with metric. I've known many people the same. No one can
percieve bra size better than me but I've never had a dream about
metric boobs... and I bet you don't know your metric bra size... now
like a little hamster you're going to scramble to look it up. LOL

Janet Baraclough wrote:

> from "Nancy Young" > contains these words:

>> I don't know why it bothers anyone, there is enough software to
>> convert recipes if people don't like it. Other than that, it seems
>> we *like* imperial
>> measurements and so be it.
>
> <sigh>. America doesn't use Imperial measures. You use American
> customary system, which is not the same.

<bigger sigh> I used the wrong word. Doesn't change my point.
Or my opinion.

nancy

>Brian Christiansen wrote:
>
>>Metric makes more matematical "sense" than conventional measurement,
>>and it is perhaps easier for most people to use decimals rather than
>>fractions (decimals are just "easier" fractions, they are still
>>fractions). However, I don't cook because it makes "mathematical"
>>sense, I cook/bake because I enjoy the process and the finished
>>product.
>>The government/French or anyone else telling me how I am supposed to
>>measure stuff because it is "better" takes the enjoyment out of it.
>
>Metric measurements do have that chemistry lab look to them. On
>top of that, you don't see many American recipes calling for 240 of
>anything, and 1/2 cup is more descriptive to me, anyway.
>
>I don't know why it bothers anyone, there is enough software to
>convert recipes if people don't like it. Other than that, it seems
>we like imperial measurements and so be it.

In some ways, the US system is NOT the imperial system. For example,
liquid measurements are different.

--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal dsgood.dreamwidth.org (livejournal.com, insanejournal.com)

>On May 3, 1:59*am, Gabby > wrote:
>> On May 3, 5:27*am, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>> > Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan'
>>flour. > Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.
>
>> My first introduction to chick pea flour was to 'gram flour'. *I
>> thought they were saying 'graham flour' which was a product my mom
>> would add to bread but it looked nothing like that product which
>>is a type of whole wheat flour. *It took a while to sort out the
>>mistake.
>
>If Australians know chickpea flour as Besan, why don't they call
>chickpeas "channa dal"?
>
>That would be consistent.

I remember an African cookbook (can't recall which country) with a
recipe for making peanut butter from groundnuts.

--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal dsgood.dreamwidth.org (livejournal.com, insanejournal.com)

dsgood wrote:

>> I don't know why it bothers anyone, there is enough software to
>> convert recipes if people don't like it. Other than that, it seems
>> we like imperial measurements and so be it.
>
> In some ways, the US system is NOT the imperial system. For example,
> liquid measurements are different.

Thank you.

nancy

On May 2, 3:33*pm, "Virginia Tadrzynski" > wrote:
> "James Silverton" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Geordie *wrote *on Mon, 03 May 2010 07:13:35 +1000:
>
> >> I've written a blog entry about American names for ingredients
> >> and what their rest-of-English-speaking-world equivalents are,
> >> it's athttp://bit.ly/a8gIcv
>
> >> One American friend expressed surprise that she'd never heard
> >> any of these, instead saying that all the Australian English
> >> terms were commonplace. *That's not accurate, but some might
> >> be more common than others. *I'd be curious for people's
> >> comments about what is commonplace and what isn't, and any I
> >> might have missed.
>
> > Since we American are in the majority, one might, if one was to be
> > obnoxious, say standard English cooking terms with translations for other
> > dialects :-)
>
> > --
>
> > James Silverton
> > Potomac, Maryland
>
> > Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
>
> But India, Australia, the 'English' part of Canada,

Canada? Are you sure their use of culinary terms is based on
Australian English? Let's look at a couple of examples from that blog:

American "English"

Bell Peppers Capsicums
Chilli Chilli Mince Like Con Carne

Do Canadians refer to "Chili" as "Chilli Mince Like Con Carne"? Isn't
the right term "Chili con carne"?

And do Canadians refer to Bell Peppers as "Capsicums"?

> and the former British
> colonies in Africa and the Caribbean speak 'Kings English'...it's only us in
> the States who speak 'Merkin'.

So, the people in the Caribbean use the Australian term "Chilli Mince
Like Con Carne"? That would be quite funny. In fact, except for the
author, does anybody in the entire world use this idiotic phrase
"Chilli Mince Like Con Carne"?

On May 2, 10:53*pm, Geordie Guy
> wrote:
> Despite the .com, the blog is mine and an Australian blog (if such
> geographical restraints exist on the net).
>
> I've had plenty of fights over the chard thing, because while chard and
> silverbeet are the same thing, the variety you get in the US is usually
> different to that grown elsewhere (it frequently has a pink or red stalk)..

"Elsewhere"? Have you actually traveled all over the World -
including China, Russia, India, Brazil etc - to determine that the US
variety is different form the rest of the world, while the Australian
variety is the world standard?

> - G
>
> On 3/05/2010 12:30 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>
> > Janet *wrote *on Sun, 2 May 2010 23:51:21 +0100:
>
> >>> Hi all,
>
> >>> I've written a blog entry about American names for
> >>> ingredients and what their rest-of-English-speaking-world
> >>> equivalents are, it's athttp://bit.ly/a8gIcv
>
> >>> One American friend expressed surprise that she'd never heard
> >>> any of these, instead saying that all the Australian English
> >>> terms were commonplace. *That's not accurate, but some might
> >>> be more common than others. *I'd be curious for people's
> >>> comments about what is commonplace and what isn't, and any I
> >>> might have missed.
>
> >> * In England, *baking parchment and grease-proof paper, are
> >> two different products not the same thing..
>
> >> * *Swiss chard is commonly called swiss chard in England too.
>
> > I think the blog, were it to cover the different terms used in different
> > countries, could be very useful. It is not necessary really to fight
> > about what are the most used words, even if that can be rather
> > entertaining..

On Mon, 3 May 2010 22:59:49 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

>The message >
>from Sqwertz > contains these words:
>
>> On Mon, 03 May 2010 07:13:35 +1000, Geordie Guy wrote:
>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I've written a blog entry about American names for ingredients and what
>> > their rest-of-English-speaking-world equivalents are, it's at
>> > http://bit.ly/a8gIcv
>
>> "Green Onions" are more common than Scallion, and Spring Onion is
>> not a scallion or green onion.
>
> "Spring onion" in the name used in England for scallions.

Aside from the fact that what you wrote is NOT English spring onion,
green onion, and scallion are all botanically different plants. Spring
onion is immature bulb onion, not readily found in US markets. In US
markets what's typically found are green onions (those never form a
bulb, and scallion. Scallion is a different plant from green onion,
scallion is thicker, about twice the diameter of green onion.
Culinarilly all can be used interchangeably but they are different
plants.

On Mon, 03 May 2010 14:09:48 -0700, Ranée at Arabian Knits
> wrote:

>In article
>,
> ewdotson > wrote:
>
>> It isn't really a case of one system making more sense than the other
>> from a mathematically standpoint. They're simply in different bases.
>> Metric is base 10, the US customary system is base 2.
>>
>> If you don't have the ability to make precise measurements, base 2 is
>> rather easier to work with. That is, if I gave you a gallon of water
>> and some empty containers, you could probably do a fairly respectable
>> job of dividing the water into halves and then halves again to get
>> quarts. On the other hand, if I gave you a liter of water, you'd
>> likely have a harder time measuring out deciliters by hand and eye.
>
> My question is why do Europeans give a flying fig what units we use
>here? Other than for the purposes of conversion, I mean. Why get your
>panties in a wad over this?

It's just something to fight about. It seems to make some folks feel
superior for some reason.

Lou

On May 3, 9:54*pm, "dsgood" > wrote:

> In some ways, the US system is NOT the imperial system. *For example,
> liquid measurements are different.

It never made sense to me as a kid in school:
8 ounces = 1 cup
2 cups = 1 pint
2 pints = 1 quart
4 quarts = 1 gallon
but the Canadian gallon is 160 ounces, not 138 ounces.

"Miss, why is the American gallon smaller?? Are their cups smaller?
Are their ounces smaller? Why?????" No teacher could tell me, it
just was what it was.

Imagine my joy when, some 40 years later, I discovered the gill.

LOL

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Omelet > wrote:
>
> > What I especially like about Metrics is the liquid to solid to weight
> > conversion. 1cc = 1ml = 1gram of liquid. QED!
>
> I like that also, although you need to be a little careful, since it
> really only applies to water. Most kitchen liquids are close enough,
> though. Still, if you are measuring liquid mercury in the lab, don't
> rely on that conversion!

When I was in science, 1ml = 1gram of water at standard temp and
pressure. I see they've monkeyed with it. Now the measurement is
connected with the wavelength shell shifts of electrons in an element
and a good old chunk of something that someone designated as a kilogram
for the hell of it (since it seemed to weigh the same as a kilo of
water?) some time ago.
<http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_g...cubic_centimet
er>
Nothing I ever did required anything close to this level of precision.

leo

On 5/3/2010 9:08 PM, Gabby wrote:
> On May 3, 9:54 pm, > wrote:
>
>> In some ways, the US system is NOT the imperial system. For example,
>> liquid measurements are different.
>
> It never made sense to me as a kid in school:
> 8 ounces = 1 cup
> 2 cups = 1 pint
> 2 pints = 1 quart
> 4 quarts = 1 gallon
> but the Canadian gallon is 160 ounces, not 138 ounces.

An American gallon is 128 fluid ounces, not 138.
>
> "Miss, why is the American gallon smaller?? Are their cups smaller?
> Are their ounces smaller? Why?????" No teacher could tell me, it
> just was what it was.
>
> Imagine my joy when, some 40 years later, I discovered the gill.
>
> LOL

You can blame Imperial measurements, which Canada used to use the last
time I was there (1958,on some bureaucrat back in the days of the
British Empire. All of their conquered territory used many different
measures and the Imperial measurement was the governments way of
standardizing. Sort of like pounds, guineas, crowns, shillings, etc.

On 5/3/2010 7:56 PM, dsgood wrote:
>
>> On May 3, 1:59 am, > wrote:
>>> On May 3, 5:27 am, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan'
>>> flour.> Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.
>>
>>> My first introduction to chick pea flour was to 'gram flour'. I
>>> thought they were saying 'graham flour' which was a product my mom
>>> would add to bread but it looked nothing like that product which
>>> is a type of whole wheat flour. It took a while to sort out the
>>> mistake.
>>
>> If Australians know chickpea flour as Besan, why don't they call
>> chickpeas "channa dal"?
>>
>> That would be consistent.
>
> I remember an African cookbook (can't recall which country) with a
> recipe for making peanut butter from groundnuts.
>

Well, nowadays peanuts are called groundnuts in a large part of Africa.
The fruit of the peanut actually forms in the ground so it makes sense
that some people would call it by that name as much as for the original
groundnut.

On May 3, 11:24*pm, George Shirley > wrote:
> On 5/3/2010 9:08 PM, Gabby wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 9:54 pm, > *wrote:
>
> >> In some ways, the US system is NOT the imperial system. *For example,
> >> liquid measurements are different.
>
> > It never made sense to me as a kid in school:
> > 8 ounces = 1 cup
> > 2 cups = 1 pint
> > 2 pints = 1 quart
> > 4 quarts = 1 gallon
> > but the Canadian gallon is 160 ounces, not 138 ounces.
>
> An American gallon is 128 fluid ounces, not 138.

Of course. I multiplied 2 by 4 and came up with 18. Time for me to
go to bed.

In article
>,
Cindy Hamilton > wrote:

> > > In the kitchen, students are blown away with how much cleaner metric is,
> > > because you can put a bowl on the scale, tare it, then add, tare, add,
> > > tare
> > > etc. until done. *You don't have to wash up a bunch of greasy or
> > > otherwise
> > > soiled cups, etc. *Right now there are still recipes calling for ml of
> > > this
> > > ior that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in grams.
> >
> > What I especially like about Metrics is the liquid to solid to weight
> > conversion. 1cc = 1ml = 1gram of liquid. *QED!
>
> Only if its specific gravity is close to 1.
>
> Of course, kitchen measurements hardly ever involve 250 ml
> of liquid mercury, for example.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

I see you got my point.<g>
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:

> I believe that is why corn flakes were invented by the Kellogg brothers,
> also. One of them had some unbelievable number of children. All were
> adopted, of course, since he and his wife never had sex.
>
> --

That is only part of the story of that sick SOB...

I won't go in to any more detail. :-(
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Omelet > wrote:
>
> > What I especially like about Metrics is the liquid to solid to weight
> > conversion. 1cc = 1ml = 1gram of liquid. QED!
>
> I like that also, although you need to be a little careful, since it
> really only applies to water. Most kitchen liquids are close enough,
> though. Still, if you are measuring liquid mercury in the lab, don't
> rely on that conversion!

I understand that it has to do with the density of the stuff involved,
but did not want to go that deep for the neophytes. <g>

Which is more dense? A Kilo of Lead, or a Kilo of feathers?
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

A few weeks ago, reading the BBC's news website, I came across the
interesting information that the Indonesian "hobbits" were only three
metres tall.



--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal dsgood.dreamwidth.org (livejournal.com, insanejournal.com)

>On 5/3/2010 7:56 PM, dsgood wrote:
>>
>>>On May 3, 1:59 am, > wrote:
>>>>On May 3, 5:27 am, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan'
>>>>flour.> Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.
>>>
>>>>My first introduction to chick pea flour was to 'gram flour'. I
>>>>thought they were saying 'graham flour' which was a product my
>>>>mom would add to bread but it looked nothing like that product
>>>>which is a type of whole wheat flour. It took a while to sort
>>>>out the mistake.
>>>
>>>If Australians know chickpea flour as Besan, why don't they call
>>>chickpeas "channa dal"?
>>>
>>>That would be consistent.
>>
>>I remember an African cookbook (can't recall which country) with a
>>recipe for making peanut butter from groundnuts.
>>
>
>Well, nowadays peanuts are called groundnuts in a large part of
>Africa. The fruit of the peanut actually forms in the ground so it
>makes sense that some people would call it by that name as much as
>for the original groundnut.

what was the original groundnut?

Someone I showed that cookbook to was quite irritated by that recipe.
She felt it should either be peanut butter from peanuts or groundnut
butter from groundnuts.

--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal dsgood.dreamwidth.org (livejournal.com, insanejournal.com)

In article >,
"gloria.p" > wrote:

> I agree that the switch to metric measurement was unsuccessful because
> Americans were too lazy and/or too scared to learn it. It was like
> learning a foreign language, "too much work" for the average person.
> I also don't think the government or schools worked hard enough on the
> transition to make it palatable.

How comfortable are you with switching to another OS? If you are
comfortable, how comfortable do you think others are? I remember the
push around 1960. Every mechanic, professional and backyard, would have
had to buy new tools. Tough sell. Back then, that was the forefront of
the argument.
The good news is that the metric system is slowly encroaching on
American life. That's how it should be. It's a big change if you didn't
grow up with it.

leo

On Mon, 3 May 2010 02:16:17 -0700, "Brian Christiansen"
> wrote:

>
>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
.. .
>> That's a rather pathetic reason (if indeed it is a reason) not to
>> change to an easier/better system, isn't it?
>>
>Metric makes more matematical "sense" than conventional measurement, and it
>is perhaps easier for most people to use decimals rather than fractions
>(decimals are just "easier" fractions, they are still fractions). However,
>I don't cook because it makes "mathematical" sense, I cook/bake because I
>enjoy the process and the finished product.

I know what you're saying about the cooking process (or at least I
think I do), but I don't have a problem separating the 'mathematical
logic' aspect of measurements from the cooking process itself.

>The government/French or anyone else telling me how I am supposed to measure
>stuff because it is "better" takes the enjoyment out of it.

Sorry, I just don't understand that. Australia made the switch some
time around 1974 (give or take), and whilst I've heard a lot of
Aussies complain about the metric system over the years, I've never,
ever, heard anyone complain merely because it originated in France or
some other country "telling us what to do". In fact, I don't think
I've ever heard any such thing from other than from Americans.
There must be a cultural factor at play with this.

--
Jeßus

May God protect you from his followers.

On 04 May 2010 00:54:13 GMT, "dsgood" > wrote:

>
>>Brian Christiansen wrote:
>>
>>>Metric makes more matematical "sense" than conventional measurement,
>>>and it is perhaps easier for most people to use decimals rather than
>>>fractions (decimals are just "easier" fractions, they are still
>>>fractions). However, I don't cook because it makes "mathematical"
>>>sense, I cook/bake because I enjoy the process and the finished
>>>product.
>>>The government/French or anyone else telling me how I am supposed to
>>>measure stuff because it is "better" takes the enjoyment out of it.
>>
>>Metric measurements do have that chemistry lab look to them. On
>>top of that, you don't see many American recipes calling for 240 of
>>anything, and 1/2 cup is more descriptive to me, anyway.
>>
>>I don't know why it bothers anyone, there is enough software to
>>convert recipes if people don't like it. Other than that, it seems
>>we like imperial measurements and so be it.
>
>In some ways, the US system is NOT the imperial system. For example,
>liquid measurements are different.

And that's where it often gets really confusing with non-metric
systems... such as U.K gallons, U.S gallons. So much variation between
counties. There's not much consistency at all in non-metric systems.

I was about 11 y/o when we switched to metric at school, I immediately
preferred it over the old imperial system as it was *so* much simpler
for me

On Mon, 3 May 2010 23:28:59 +0100, Janet Baraclough wrote:

> The message >
> from Sqwertz > contains these words:
>
>> On Mon, 3 May 2010 08:33:58 -0400, James Silverton wrote:
>
>>> Australians would seem to use the Indian name, "Besan", for chickpea
>>> flour. The package I bought was also labelled "Gram flour". Is that a
>>> mistake for "Graham flour" tho' I had no idea that Graham flour was made
>>> from chickpeas.
>
> No . Nothing to do with Graham crackers. Gram is another name for
> chickpea.
>
>> Its garam flour. But you'll never see this.
>
> I think you're confusing Bengali gram (chickpea) with Hindi garam
> masala, spice mix used in curry, doesn't contain chickpeas.
>
> Janet

It looks liek I am. I could have sworn I've seen it on a printed
bag "garam flour". Probably did, they just misprinted it.

Kind of like my bag of "Hoe Chilli" ("Whole Chile")

-sw

On Mon, 03 May 2010 05:08:44 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 May 2010 16:15:48 -0700, "Brian Christiansen"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >I also think that it is partially due to the fact that we (Americans) don't
>> >really like either the government or the French telling us what measurement
>> >system we are supposed to use.
>>
>> That's a rather pathetic reason (if indeed it is a reason) not to
>> change to an easier/better system, isn't it?
>
>The Metric system is used universally in the health care and science
>fields. Always.

Noted.

> I like metrics better as it's much easier to convert numbers by 10's.

That's precisely why I like it so much. I'm not great with maths and
fractions give me the heebeejeebies
Also not good at remembering all the nuances between all the
non-metric systems.

>I do wish we would switch over to it completely!

It's bound to happen eventually - I'm not going to predict exactly
when though

On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:54:48 +1000, Geordie Guy
> wrote:

>On 3/05/2010 6:16 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 May 2010 17:32:46 -0500, George Shirley
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> As to Australian versions of measurements, you just have to speak Strine
>>> to understand it.
>>
>> Australian versions of measurements?? Quite simply, it's the metric
>> system.
>
>> These days, about the only time we need to use another system is for
>> cars/machinery that used the old imperial size nut and bolts...
>> Whitworth etc.
>
>Can't agree.
>I'm 29, and nobody I know 10 years younger through to 40 years older,
>measures the height of a person in centimeters or meters, it's always
>feet and inches.

You're right about that and I forgot about that exception.

I too automatically default to ft rather than cm when it comes to a
person's height. Having said that, I also have no difficulty using
metric for the same task if I need to.

>I have no idea how far 20 feet is along the ground, but I know I'm "six
>two". In every other circumstance it's metric. I'm 6'2" and 85 kilos,
>and I have no idea what height I am in centimeters, or my weight in
>pounds (about 160 wouldn't it be? you double it-ish)

I can only roughly estimate my weight in pounds instead of kilos.
Mind you, it's permantly etched into my memory that 2.2lbs = 1KG.
I have no frigging idea how many pounds or kilos are in a stone though

On Mon, 03 May 2010 10:37:24 -0500, Lou Decruss
> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 May 2010 07:59:23 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>>187.96cm 187.39 pounds
>>
>>This group has a loosely associated web page:
>>
>>http://www.recfoodcooking.com/index.html
>>
>>There are several handy converters in the upper right corner. There are
>>also pointers to the FAQ and other handy stuff, like pictures of some of
>>us.
>
>Wayne (I think) posted this some time ago and it's a great little
>program. Not for mac though.
>
>http://joshmadison.com/software/convert-for-windows/

I also use that little proggie. It's excellent, does the job and is
small in size. At least we don't have this problem with bytes

On Mon, 3 May 2010 01:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Gabby >
wrote:

>On May 3, 5:27*am, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> Chick pea flour in Australia is most commonly known as 'Besan' flour.
>> Not sure if that's a world-wide thing or not.
>> --
>> Jeßus
>
>My first introduction to chick pea flour was to 'gram flour'. I
>thought they were saying 'graham flour' which was a product my mom
>would add to bread but it looked nothing like that product which is a
>type of whole wheat flour. It took a while to sort out the mistake.

Must've been fun in the kitchen mixing up two totally different flours

In article >,
Je?us > wrote:


> >Wayne (I think) posted this some time ago and it's a great little
> >program. Not for mac though.
> >
> >http://joshmadison.com/software/convert-for-windows/
>
> I also use that little proggie. It's excellent, does the job and is
> small in size. At least we don't have this problem with bytes

What about bytes?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

brooklyn1 wrote:

> On Mon, 3 May 2010 22:59:49 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> > wrote:
>
>>The message >
>>from Sqwertz > contains these words:
>>
>>> On Mon, 03 May 2010 07:13:35 +1000, Geordie Guy wrote:
>>
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I've written a blog entry about American names for ingredients and
>>> > what their rest-of-English-speaking-world equivalents are, it's at
>>> > http://bit.ly/a8gIcv
>>
>>> "Green Onions" are more common than Scallion, and Spring Onion is
>>> not a scallion or green onion.
>>
>> "Spring onion" in the name used in England for scallions.
>
> Aside from the fact that what you wrote is NOT English spring onion,
> green onion, and scallion are all botanically different plants. Spring
> onion is immature bulb onion, not readily found in US markets. In US
> markets what's typically found are green onions (those never form a
> bulb, and scallion. Scallion is a different plant from green onion,
> scallion is thicker, about twice the diameter of green onion.
> Culinarilly all can be used interchangeably but they are different
> plants.

http://www.foodsubs.com/Onionsgreen.html
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Mon, 03 May 2010 22:53:01 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> Je?us > wrote:
>
>
>> >Wayne (I think) posted this some time ago and it's a great little
>> >program. Not for mac though.
>> >
>> >http://joshmadison.com/software/convert-for-windows/
>>
>> I also use that little proggie. It's excellent, does the job and is
>> small in size. At least we don't have this problem with bytes
>
>What about bytes?

It's neither metric or imperial or anything else?
AFAIK! I suppose someone will come along now and tell me different

On 04 May 2010 05:06:14 GMT, "dsgood" > wrote:

>A few weeks ago, reading the BBC's news website, I came across the
>interesting information that the Indonesian "hobbits" were only three
>metres tall.

Heh
--
Jeßus

May God protect you from his followers.

"Ranée at Arabian Knits" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ewdotson > wrote:
>
>> It isn't really a case of one system making more sense than the other>>
>> from a mathematically standpoint.
> My question is why do Europeans give a flying fig what units we use >
> here? Other than for the purposes of conversion, I mean. Why get your >
> panties in a wad over this?

Because they are forced to include those measurements used in only one
country on labeling, advertising, in registrations, etc. It makes for an
extra cost, extra work and is all for one country only. It once was two,
the USA and Burma. Nice company.

Why and how does that make sense? You live on the same planet. You sell to
Europe and Asia and buy from Europe and Asia. Why, especially after having
agreed decades ago to convert, should everybody else have to undertake extra
work to participate in the global market.

I am also surprised at the dismissive quality in you words. Flying fig and
panties in a wad are impolite expressions for this. There was a global
concord and the US didn't fulfill its promises.

"Doug Freyburger" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> Giusi wrote:

Metric cookery is done with weights. They do not have a >> bunch of
various sized containers marked 125 ml, 150 ml, we use the scale. >> It's
just plain easier once you have rewritten the recipes.
>
> Having tried to cook by weight and by volume, even with several scales> on
> the counter, I find it bizzare that anyone would consider cooking by>
> weight easier. It's more accurate, produced more consistant results and
> so on. Plenty of reasons but easier is definitely not in the list.
> Cooking by volume is easier when tried side by side.

I bet you anything I have more experience at this than you do. The result
is that any recipe from my old US books, etc. that I use has been annotated
with weights. For example, biscuits:
Bowl on scale, tare. Add flour to weight. Tare. Use ordinary coffe spoon
to add baking powder, salt, maybe sugar. Tare. Add lard to weight. Tare.

Mix these ingredients to meal, put container back on the scale and tare.
Add milk to weight. Mix.

I have one teaspoon and a bowl or FP bowl to wash. If necessary I would
also figure the weight of the baking powder, salt etc., but I haven't found
that necessary.

Make same biscuits with cups etc. and I have to wash the cups used for
flour, the spoons, a greasy cup in which I have measured the fat.

You probably made the mistake of weighing everything separately in different
containers and then adding them to another container. Not necessary.

"Melba's Jammin'" > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:barbschaller-

> Right, and I just posted a few links to the Standards of Identity pages >
> for tomato paste, catsup, puree.

You are a truly virtuous person. I was too lazy to look it up for him.

On May 3, 4:05*am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

> I don't know why it bothers anyone, there is enough software to convert
> recipes if people don't like it. *Other than that, it seems we *like*
> imperial
> measurements and so be it.

I think it is normal to prefer the system you grew up with. I learned
the metric system in school, and used it for science classes. I can
estimate grams when tourists are ordering food at my counter even
though my scale only does pounds in decimal form.

But I have to admit I would not want to redo all my recipes and throw
out all my measuring cups spoons, etc. If a new recipe calls for
metric, then I can do that, but I don't see any reason to convert
something I already do just fine.

Back when I was in high school, my physics teacher was a Canadian, and
she said it was really hard for the country to convert. There are a
lot of costs involved as people need to buy new things for their
homes. I wonder how many people have a scale for small weights in
their home. I have one that goes to 2 lbs (in the english system of
course), so even I would need to buy a new scale for grams. Stores
would have to change their pricing system and all their signs and
labels.

Most things work better to convert slowly. For example, most liquid
products show both ounzes and liters (or mL) on them. While we often
refer to liter and 2 liter bottles, the half litter bottle is usually
referred to as 16.9 ounces even if that sounds weird.

On May 3, 2:47*pm, brooklyn1 > wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 2010 21:12:36 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
>
> > wrote:
> >Giusi wrote:
>
> >> Since you asked! *Metric cookery is done with weights. *They do not have a
> >> bunch of various sized containers marked 125 ml, 150 ml, we use the scale.
> >> It's just plain easier once you have rewritten the recipes.
>
> >Having tried to cook by weight and by volume, even with several scales
> >on the counter, I find it bizzare that anyone would consider cooking by
> >weight easier.
>
> Depends on the ingredients and the quantity specified. *It's much
> easier to weigh dry ingredients in any quantity more than a cup...
> items like sugar,flour, beans, and pasta are more convenient to
> weigh... and it's certainly more convenient to weigh meats.

On May 3, 2:47*pm, brooklyn1 > wrote:

> Depends on the ingredients and the quantity specified. *It's much
> easier to weigh dry ingredients in any quantity more than a cup...
> items like sugar,flour, beans, and pasta are more convenient to
> weigh... and it's certainly more convenient to weigh meats.

Which bowl should I put on top of the scale to measure the dry
ingredients in?

For weighing things to be as easy as scooping them, you pretty much
need a gut feel for the density of various ingredients.