On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:40:41 -0500, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:


>Exactly so. The merchants and traders standardized the units between
>and amongst themselves. They had to in order to get and give equal
>value. You mistake what was happening then with the world we live in
>now. There was no governing body to establish and certify all the
>measure units.

Nonsense. This was already old hat when Hammurabi included such
provisions in his Code of Laws some 3750 years ago.

Government regulators have been involved in this for a long, long
time.

Sure, measurements of this sort go back a few millennia earlier, into
prehistoric times when nobody had any written language to tell us
about it. But the way you put it was pretty misleading.

Gene Nygaard

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
> On 27 Feb 2005 13:12:00 -0800, "Sheldon" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Ophelia wrote:
>>> "Ann Pacl" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > There are 8 ounces to 1 cup. Happy cooking.
>>>
>>> These cup measures confuse me. A cup of flour (for e.g) could not
>>be the
>>> same as a cup of rice or cornflakes surely? How do you work out the
>>> different densities?
>>
>>So long as the *ratio relationships* are maintained it makes no
>>difference by what method one measures. Whether one chooses volume of
>>wieght is merely a matter of convention and/or convenience... so long
>>as one is consistant.
>
> Howdy,
>
> You are correct but for one thing:
>
> It is not normally possible to maintain those relationships.
> As a test, you might try to weigh a cup of flour each day of
> the week. It is likely that the weights will vary
> considerably despite your efforts to be consistent.

quite so. That is what bothered me

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ophelia wrote:
>> "Ann Pacl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > There are 8 ounces to 1 cup. Happy cooking.
>>
>> These cup measures confuse me. A cup of flour (for e.g) could not
> be the
>> same as a cup of rice or cornflakes surely? How do you work out the
>> different densities?
>
> So long as the *ratio relationships* are maintained it makes no
> difference by what method one measures. Whether one chooses volume of
> wieght is merely a matter of convention and/or convenience... so long
> as one is consistant.

Ahh now I understand Thanks

"Michael Odom" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:38:29 GMT, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Michael Odom" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:41:16 GMT, "Ophelia" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Ann Pacl" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> There are 8 ounces to 1 cup. Happy cooking.
>>>>
>>>>These cup measures confuse me. A cup of flour (for e.g) could not be
>>>>the
>>>>same as a cup of rice or cornflakes surely? How do you work out the
>>>>different densities?
>>>>
>>> If the author of the recipe is any good, she/he will have allowed for
>>> the different densities of ingredients in the measurements in the
>>> first place.
>>
>>Yes indeed I understand that. What I refer to is the statement that there
>>are 8 ounces to 1 cup. It doesn't state WHAT is. There have been many
>>responses saying something similar. There is nothing about the density of
>>ingredients
>>
> Huh?
>
> A cup is comprised of eight ounces. Those are fluid ounces, a
> measurement of volume. Volume is not weight. There are, however,
> ounces that are measurements of weight. Twelve of them constitute a
> pound. A pound of nails and a pound of feathers will comprise
> different volumes as measured in fluid ounces, but both will weigh 16
> ounces.

Yes I have got it now thanks

In article >, "--"
> wrote:

> "Gal Called J.J." > wrote in message
> ...

> > > My wife likes to say, "A pint's a pound, the world around." Then I ask
> > > her what the price of beer in London has to do with anything. Well, I
> > > asked her that once.
> >
> > DH is a complete smart ass, and he likes that "pint's a pound"
> > phrase as well. I can't wait until the next time he says it, I'll
> > happily spring your response on him -- revenge is sweet... ;-)
>
> wouldn't do that unless you want to lose - a 16 ounce US pint of water is
> very close to 16 ounces of water - 1.05 pound, roughly.


So what does that have to do with the price of beer in London?


:-)

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "--"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Gal Called J.J." > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> > > My wife likes to say, "A pint's a pound, the world around." Then I
>> > > ask
>> > > her what the price of beer in London has to do with anything. Well,
>> > > I
>> > > asked her that once.
>> >
>> > DH is a complete smart ass, and he likes that "pint's a pound"
>> > phrase as well. I can't wait until the next time he says it, I'll
>> > happily spring your response on him -- revenge is sweet... ;-)
>>
>> wouldn't do that unless you want to lose - a 16 ounce US pint of water is
>> very close to 16 ounces of water - 1.05 pound, roughly.
>
>
> So what does that have to do with the price of beer in London?
>
>
> :-)

Nowt laddie