Date:         Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:35:55 -0700
Reply-To:     "Mike \"Rocket J Squirrel\"" <camping.elliott@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         "Mike \"Rocket J Squirrel\"" <camping.elliott@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: The Vanagon as a standard unit of volume
Comments: To: Gary Bawden <goldfieldgary@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:  <AANLkTimGGDGnxyHsvHYXNMlizZJSrjAbO0qEzKsCFruy@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Gary Bawden wrote:

> Hmm... Mr. Squirrel, while I like your proposal of the Vanagon as a
> unit of volume, I can't accept your measurements. The space under the
> van is detemined by the size of tires and is therefore subject to
> change.

Mr Bawden's suggestion to redefine what a volumetric Vanagon is makes
whole thing unnecessarily complicated. This body wishes to know whether
Mr Bawden thinks that we also need to compensate for armed vs armless
driver and passenger seats? Or trouble ourselves with whether the
particular Vanagon has round or square headlights?

We say no, and find the Socratic suggestion a silly one.

The existing definition, /as written,/ is clear and not open to
interpretation. However, in the interest of satisfying Mr Bawden's
fault-finding with this august body's honest endeavor to settle this
before Friday is over, we propose to insert the word "standard" into the
definition thereby satisfying Mr Bawden's objection. Viz:

>> Assume the /standard/ volumetric Vanagon to be a rectangular prism with the
>> following dimensions: 15' x 6'4'' x 6'1''

We feel it be in the best interest of everyone that all agree on one
standard unit of volume. But this body recognizes the sovereignty of
nations and reckons that Canadians will probably end up with a slightly
different definition, that the United States will steadfastly stick with
Imperial units, and that the whole rest of the g*##amn world will go all
metric on us.

--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel" Elliott