X-No-Archive: yes "Mjolinor" wrote : "Roger Gt" wrote : > "Mjolinor" wrote : > : "Roger Gt" wrote : > : > "Mjolinor" wrote : > : > : "Roger Gt" wrote : >
: > : > : > "A prime example of true British Thinking!" : >
: > : > : > Cubic meters? How about cubic "cubits?" : > : > : That one went over my head : > : > A Cubit is about 18 inches, so a cubic Cubit would be about a : > : > quarter the volume of a cubic meter. (See conversions) Not : > : > likely a single ox would produce a large volume of Methane gas : > : > what you could meter in cu Meters! : > : >
: > : > Looses a lot in translation! : > : : > : It certainly does because that one went over my head as well. : > : : > : yes I would have thought that as it was cubic meters initially : > : then it would be more correct to quote a cubit to be slightly : > : over 457 mm. I suspect the volume would be the same whether : > : measured in cubic meters or cubic cubits or maybe some other : > : antiquated units like cubic inches, cubic feet or maybe : > : cubic furlongs is to your taste. :) : >
: > A meter is 39.3700787 inch so 18 about inches is close enough for : > government work! : > Cubic Chains "Or" Fathoms, I use them all! They are all valid. : > Like "Stones" in England! : >
: > The point was that the "British Thinking" is over stated in grand : > terms and about manure! : I still don't see it :) : : > I see that implied humor does not play well on the news group : > unless you add (:>) to every instance! So the reader knows to : > expect some obscure humor or innuendo! : : Implied humor worked fine for me in all the posts. : : As a user of "stones" I find it kind of hard to measure volume with it.
If you agree that "stones" are a legitimate unit of measure, you got it. I did not suggest that you could convert Cubic measure to stones, rather that all are legitimate units!
I find it interesting that many people read into the posts much which is not stated in the post nor even implied!