I've noticed that most of the recent posts on this thread have little to do
with anything that will really affect my bees or my practices with them.
That said, it's time to jump in, and I promise to wander back somewhere
close to the original subject of the thread before I'm done.
 
At first I was ignoring the thread because I don't really care much about
it.  Then I began peeking at a few of the notes and discovered that most
were fairly amusing (as holy wars usually are when viewed by disinterested
parties.)
 
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.  I use metric socket wrenches
whether the nuts and bolts are metric or not.  I can usually find one
that's close enough.  I buy liter bottles of soft drinks occasionally, but
it's because they sell it that way.  I always think of them as slightly
overgrown quarts.  But I'll always measure in feet and inches because of
two very important personal facts.  My shoes are exactly one foot long
(size 8 1/2 - American of course!  what is the metric equivalent anyway?)
and the segments of my index finger are all exactly one inch long,
providing me with a handy three inch ruler.   I would never expect those of
you who are much taller or shorter than me to appreciate the significance
of these facts.  Miles work well for me too - especially quarter miles.  A
quarter mile is the emotional distance at which I commit to a freeway exit,
given sufficient warning that it's coming up. It's also about as far as I'm
willing to walk unless I'm either in a serious bind without other
locomotion or just out for a stroll.
 
I suppose all this is very subjective, but so what.  It works for me, and
besides, not everything in life belongs in multiples and divisions of 10.
For example, some psychologists have proposed that the human mind is only
capable of conceptualizing 1, 2, or 3 objects concretely.  The idea is that
when you see four objects, your mind groups them into 2 pairs that it calls
4.  when you see 5 objects your mind sees a grouping of 3 and 2 which it
labels as 5.  Numbers of objects greater than 7 to 9 don't group easily
enough, so we count them.   If this theory is true (I think it is for me)
then the metric system is dubious in some applications.  Maybe I should
count physical objects in base 3.
 
As I recall, the original post in this thread had something to do with
whether we should all measure and label our honey consistently using the
metric system.  That post was a while back and has stirred up almost as
much discussion as the calf joke, and has gone at least as far afield.  I
think of honey in terms of weight when I'm lifting a super or a 5 gallon
bucket, but I don't really think of it in terms of weight once it's in the
jar.   At that point, it's conceptually more natural to think of it as a
volume.   Of course, that nice, neat, sterile metric system has an answer
for volume too.   But maybe those of us who aren't regulated to the point
of having to put an exact measurement on our labels could take a different
approach and not use any exact unit of measurement at all.  For example, I
could label the jars that currently say "1 pound" with something like "A
nice little pot of honey" and the ones labeled "2 1/2 pounds" could say "A
nice big pot of honey"  That's what most people think when they see the
jars anyway.  And if we're talking about a jar of honey and there isn't one
there for reference, most people have to ask, "How much honey is in a
pound?"  At which point I hold my hands up and measure a puond of honey in
the air and say "Oh, about that much."
Michael