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

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.

- G

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 at http://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

"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 at http://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, and the former British
colonies in Africa and the Caribbean speak 'Kings English'...it's only us in
the States who speak 'Merkin'.
-ginny

>
>"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 at http://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, and the former
>British colonies in Africa and the Caribbean speak 'Kings
>English'...it's only us in the States who speak 'Merkin'. -ginny

No. Most Anglophone Canadians speak dialects closely related to
American English. Newfoundlanders speak something which isn't much
like US English; but which is definitely not the Queen's English.

The English-speaking parts of the Caribbean speak dialects not much
like either standard British English or US English.

Australia and New Zealand speak in ways roughly similar to London-area
English; but there's been some divergence.

Indian English? Take a look at the India edition of Google News; the
vocabulary has diverged from the Queen's English.

And in some parts of Canada and New Zealand, as in some parts of the
US, there's the influence of Scots.

--
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 2, 3:33*pm, "Virginia Tadrzynski" > wrote:

> But India, Australia, the 'English' part of Canada, and the former British
> colonies in Africa and the Caribbean speak 'Kings English'...it's only us in
> the States who speak 'Merkin'.

Bull pucky. Only BBC announcers speak RP. In the UK, "English" changes
every twenty miles or so. Don't try to tell me that Jamaicans and
Tobagoans speak the same as East Anglians.

On May 3, 12:35*pm, Janet Baraclough >
wrote:
> The message
> >
> from spamtrap1888 > contains these words:
>
> > On May 2, 3:33*pm, "Virginia Tadrzynski" > wrote:
> > > But India, Australia, the 'English' part of Canada, and the former British
> > > colonies in Africa and the Caribbean speak 'Kings English'...it's
> > > only us in
> > > the States who speak 'Merkin'.
> > Bull pucky. Only BBC announcers speak RP. In the UK, "English" changes
> > every twenty miles or so.
>
> * *You're hopelessly misinformed. *Speaking *"Queens English" refers to
> correct grammar and *vocabulary. There are still plenty of people all
> over the world speaking QE

If accent doesn't matter, then I, too, speak the Queen's English.
Except I don't make the subject-verb agreement errors that Brits do.
('Man U have won the Premiership for a third consecutive time" --
actual British sentence.) And I never use the non-word "quango" in a
sentence.

On May 4, 8:31*am, Janet Baraclough >
wrote:
> The message
> >
> from spamtrap1888 > contains these words:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 12:35*pm, Janet Baraclough >
> > wrote:
> > > The message
> > > >
> > > from spamtrap1888 > contains these words:
>
> > > > On May 2, 3:33*pm, "Virginia Tadrzynski" > wrote:
> > > > > But India, Australia, the 'English' part of Canada, and the
> > > > > former British
> > > > > colonies in Africa and the Caribbean speak 'Kings English'...it's
> > > > > only us in
> > > > > the States who speak 'Merkin'.
> > > > Bull pucky. Only BBC announcers speak RP. In the UK, "English" changes
> > > > every twenty miles or so.
>
> > > * *You're hopelessly misinformed. *Speaking *"Queens English" refers to
> > > correct grammar and *vocabulary. There are still plenty of people all
> > > over the world speaking QE
> > If accent doesn't matter, then I, too, speak the Queen's English.
> > Except I don't make the subject-verb agreement errors that Brits do.
> > ('Man U have won the Premiership for a third consecutive time" --
> > actual British sentence.) And I never use the non-word "quango" in a
> > sentence.
>
> . In Queen's English we don't start sentences with "and".
>

You did when it was the King's English (King James):

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light
from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.

On Sun, 2 May 2010 18:33:45 -0400, 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 at http://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

> But India, Australia, the 'English' part of Canada, and the former British
> colonies in Africa and the Caribbean speak 'Kings English'...it's only us in
> the States who speak 'Merkin'.
> -ginny

i think it's magnanimous of the u.s. to allow them to do that.

your pal,
blake

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"?

>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 at http://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 :-)

I believe India has the highest number of English-users.

--
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)

Janet wrote on Mon, 3 May 2010 00:29:51 +0100:

>> 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 at http://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 :-)

> You may be a majority in rfc, but hardly in Geordie's blog.

> afaik, America is not the majority of English speakers,
> either.

What dialect is the majority dialect? Not British, not Indian, not
Australian!

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

In article >,
Janet Baraclough > wrote:

> The message >
> from "James Silverton" > contains these words:

> > 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 :-)
>
> You may be a majority in rfc, but hardly in Geordie's blog.
> afaik, America is not the majority of English speakers, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English...l_distribution

As far as English as a first language, out of 375 million, 215 are in
the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...peaking_popula
tion

For total English speakers, the US is still on the top, closely followed
by India, and Nigeria is far behind in third.

The US has about a quarter of the English speakers.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
Janet Baraclough > wrote:

> The message >
> from Dan Abel > contains these words:
>
> > In article >,
> > Janet Baraclough > wrote:
>
> > > The message >
> > > from "James Silverton" > contains
> > > these words:
>
> > > > 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 :-)
> > >
> > > You may be a majority in rfc, but hardly in Geordie's blog.
> > > afaik, America is not the majority of English speakers, either.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English...l_distribution
>
> > As far as English as a first language, out of 375 million, 215 are in
> > the US.
>
> You're overlooking the far greater number of bi or multi lingual
> people today, who are absolutely fluent English speakers.

I didn't overlook them, I just didn't see them first. See the cite
below.

> English is the official language in 33 countries .

Interestingly enough, it's not the official language in the US, UK or
Australia. And in many countries where it is an official language, it
isn't the most common spoken language.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ing_population
>
> Janet
>

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mon, 3 May 2010 17:11:43 +0100, Janet Baraclough wrote:

> The message >
> from Dan Abel > contains these words:
>
>> In article >,
>> Janet Baraclough > wrote:
>
>>> The message >
>>> from "James Silverton" > contains
>>> these words:
>
>>> > 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 :-)
>>>
>>> You may be a majority in rfc, but hardly in Geordie's blog.
>>> afaik, America is not the majority of English speakers, either.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English...l_distribution
>
>> As far as English as a first language, out of 375 million, 215 are in
>> the US.
>
> You're overlooking the far greater number of bi or multi lingual
> people today, who are absolutely fluent English speakers.
> English is the official language in 33 countries .
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ing_population
>
> Janet

USA number one!!!

your pal,
blake

On 5/2/2010 4:13 PM, 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
>
> 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.
>
> - G
For one thing we don't refer to the measurements we use as "Imperial"
but as "American Standard." I think the Canadians still use some
Imperial measurements where a quart is not a quart but a little larger, etc.

We don't spell chili con carne with two l's either, that translates as
chiles with meat. Most Americans call Chiles "peppers." But, that too is
a misnomer, there are different types of chiles and none of them are
pepper but that is the common name here. I think the chilli version came
from India orginally but am not sure.

I agree it would be easier to do the measurements in metric but somehow
we have resisted using the French measuring system that the rest of the
world uses even though our government adopted it a long time ago. They
just have trouble enforcing it, hence automobiles with both metric and
standard size screws, nuts, and bolts.

Ground meat covers a wide variety of grinds of meat, you have to live
here to understand that. Minced meat, in my opinion, is ground way too
fine to enjoy and I used to buy minced meat when I lived in the Middle
EAst. Unfortunately a lot of it there had cinnamon in it, never
understood why.

As to Australian versions of measurements, you just have to speak Strine
to understand it.

Other than that, you were fairly close.

"George Shirley" > wrote in message
...

> I agree it would be easier to do the measurements in metric but somehow we
> have resisted using the French measuring system that the rest of the world
> uses even though our government adopted it a long time ago. They just have
> trouble enforcing it, hence automobiles with both metric and standard size
> screws, nuts, and bolts.
>
I agree that metric makes a lot more sense mathematically than a random
hodgepodge of fractions (1 quart = 4 cups, 1 cup = 8 ounces, 1 foot = 12
inches, etc.). My dad says, however, that he knows what an inch, or an
ounce, or a cup is, and therefore that is what he teaches to me, and what
parents in general teach to their children.

Even though I think that metric makes more sense mathematically, if I were
to teach someone how to bake, I would probably use cups, tablespoons,
teaspoons and other "standard" measures, because that is what I know.

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.

Brian Christiansen

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?

--
Jeßus

May God protect you from his followers.

"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.

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.

Brian Christiansen

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.

nancy

On May 3, 4:16*am, "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.
>
> 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.
>
> Brian Christiansen

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.

--
Ernest

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.

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?
>
> --
> Jeßus
>
> May God protect you from his followers.

The Metric system is used universally in the health care and science
fields. Always. I like metrics better as it's much easier to convert
numbers by 10's. :-) I do wish we would switch over to it completely!
--
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

On 5/3/2010 5:08 AM, Omelet wrote:
> In >,
> > 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?
>>
>> --
>> Jeßus
>>
>> May God protect you from his followers.
>
> The Metric system is used universally in the health care and science
> fields. Always. I like metrics better as it's much easier to convert
> numbers by 10's. :-) I do wish we would switch over to it completely!

Join the US military, they've been using metric since the early sixties
to my knowledge. I can do both but prefer feet and inches even if it is
hard to multiply and divide fractions. <G>

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 5/3/2010 4:19 AM, 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?

It's only "easier" if you're dividing a recipe by 10. Personally I
prefer the binary nature of the English units.

Most of us free thinkers think that's a perfectly good reason, since the majority of our cookbooks, teaching, kitchen supply goods, etc., are based on what the majority of us want, not what some "foreigners" think we should use. Such a change to metric measures has been voted on many times by various levels of authority, and our non-metric system seems to be quite set in stone. Maybe metric will become more desirable when us oldsters die out. ;-)

N.

On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 20:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

> Most of us free thinkers think that's a perfectly good reason, since the majority of our cookbooks, teaching, kitchen supply goods, etc., are based on what the majority of us want, not what some "foreigners" think we should use. Such a change to metric measures has been voted on many times by various levels of authority, and our non-metric system seems to be quite set in stone. Maybe metric will become more desirable when us oldsters die out. ;-)
>

I'm fine with our method, but I like to use non-American recipes too -
so I have a scale now.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 2013-06-10, Nancy2 > wrote:

What total crap.

> Most of us free thinkers

Free thinkers? There's an oxymoron if ever I've seen one.

> think that's a perfectly good reason, since the majority of our
> cookbooks, teaching....

ALL the sciences, from medicine to engineering, are taught in metric.
Yes, even in the US.

> not what some "foreigners" think we should use.

What about native citizens who want metric? I prefer it and it chaps
my hide the moronic masses of this country have dictated to the
educated. You think it OK the educated of this country should not be
free and must use what the ignorant think we should use? Not to
worry. All your base units are belong to SI, whether you like it or
not.

That bottle of wine is in milliliters. That large bottle of soda and
the size of your car engine are in liters. More examples are too
numerous to mention. Besides, all those illegal Mexicans, for whom
we've so graciously graced every label in the US in Spanish, do not
count in US units, so metric is included free of charge.

We will be free when the dumb-asses die out.

nb

Most of us free thinkers think that's a perfectly good reason, since the majority of our cookbooks, teaching, kitchen supply goods, etc., are based on what the majority of us want, not what some "foreigners" think we should use. Such a change to metric measures has been voted on many times by various levels of authority, and our non-metric system seems to be quite set in stone. Maybe metric will become more desirable when us oldsters die out. ;-)

N.

On 6/9/2013 10:41 PM, Nancy2 wrote:
> Most of us free thinkers think that's a perfectly good reason, since the majority of our cookbooks, teaching, kitchen supply goods, etc., are based on what the majority of us want, not what some "foreigners" think we should use. Such a change to metric measures has been voted on many times by various levels of authority, and our non-metric system seems to be quite set in stone. Maybe metric will become more desirable when us oldsters die out. ;-)
>
> N.

An algebra professor shamed America for avoiding metrication. The United
States, Liberia and Myanmar are the last hold outs.

Becca

On Monday, May 3, 2010 3:19:57 AM UTC-5, 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?

You think it's a better/easier system. I don't. Neither do many of us. It's all opinion.

N.

"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.

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!
--
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

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

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!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 5/3/2010 6:18 AM, 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.

Any engineer can produce work in metric. Or in the
cubit/stone/fortnight system for that matter. It's all just units.
There's nothing special about metric that makes it wonderful.

> 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.

The simple fact is that (a) we don't give a damn and (b) nobody has ever
come up with any kind of compelling reason to do it.

> 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.

What does that have to do with metric? You are confusing measurement by
weight with a system of measurement. I suspect it will be a shock to
you to discover that there are scales calibrated in English units.

> You don't have to wash up a bunch of greasy or otherwise
> soiled cups, etc.

Remind me not to eat at your place.

> Right now there are still recipes calling for ml of this
> ior that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in grams.

So how do you measure ml without getting those cups greasy?

On Mon, 3 May 2010 12:18:00 +0200, Giusi 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.

i'm not sure what the unit of measurement has to do with tare weight.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1n7xukrrwvd98
Giusi 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
>>or that, but gradually even liquids are being expressed in grams.
>
> i'm not sure what the unit of measurement has to do with tare weight.>

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.

blake wrote on Mon, 3 May 2010 10:21:47 -0400:

> On Mon, 3 May 2010 12:18:00 +0200, Giusi 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.

> i'm not sure what the unit of measurement has to do with tare
> weight.

Most scales, even the cheapest non-metric, have some sort of taring
mechanism even if it involves turning a knob rather than pressing a
button.

Cooking is not an exact science and there is a good deal of leeway in
measurements. I don't think it matters all that much that 250g is bit
more than half a pound and a liter not quite two pints. What gets me and
I always sense being short changed is beer bottles with 330ml or even
300ml instead of the god-given 354.9ml it should be.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

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