Gene Nygaard wrote in message . ..
On 10 Dec 2003 06:50:50 -0800, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:



I was merely pointing out that you have it ass-backwards. There is
absolutely no looseness in the use of pounds as units of mass.

Non-sequitor. Loosness was never at issue. At issue was ambiguity.
Pounds can be either a unit of mass or a unit of force and often that
is not even made clear by the context. That pretty well fits the
defintion of ambiguous, does it not?

Slugs, OTOH, are only defined as units of mass. No ambiguity there.

The OP referred to slugs as ambiguous. The OP had it bass akwards.

--

FF



It is pounds force that are the recent spinoff, not the other way
around. It is pounds mass that are the venerable units, and pounds
force which are the *******ization, not the other way around.


Was not the pound ever defined as a unit of weight? If it was
defined as a unit of weight then it was simultaneously defined as
a unit of force without regard to whether or not the person(s)
defining it UNDERSTOOD that they were doing so.

E.g. in your researches, what is the earliest definion of pound that
you can find?

--

FF