Not to mention that in Beer measure, 2 butts = 1 ton, and from what I've seen in a couple of bars, I can understand why.

>Amusing as your answer is, big man, you're not all that far off, considering some of the bizarre weights and measures in the "imperial" system:
>
>http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/units/index.htm
>
>I'd forgotten that 28 lbs also make a quarter (qr) and 4 qr = 1 hundredweight (cwt), 20 cwt = 1 ton (not a metric tonne). Small workers' vans over here are rated by their weight in cwt.
>
>Think of lengths: poles and furlong (furrow-long, i.e. the length of ploughed furrow)
>
>In "troy weight" there are 20 grains to a scruple (cf your "sand")
>:-)
>
>>I remember the old English monetary system where 12 pence was one shilling and 20 shiling was one pound. So my guess is that 13 sand is one gravel, and 21 gravel is one stone. 679 stones is one mountain. :-)
>>
>>>What do you say if someone weighs between stones? I can't imagine women would be willing to give or take 14 lbs!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>14 deg C
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Celsius? What's that? You and your crazy metric system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mike if u think about it even England switch from the english system to the metric system that everyone uses around the world, I have several American friends that told me that US tried that during the end 70's and 80's, but Americans was just too dumb and didn't want to learn. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>That's really not that far off. The metric system makes so much more sense, but Americans proved resistant to switching.
>>>>
>>>>Given that a tape measure or ruler has both metric and imperial markings, and that it's easier by far to count cms when measuring, what's the point of selecting feet and inches? Fair enough, when describing someone's height, it's easier to envisage if you say 6' rather than 1.84 metres.
>>>>
>>>>Talking about imperial. In the UK we use a unit of stones, usually for a person's weight. A stone is 14 lbs. So a fairly heavy person may be 16-17 stone. But it's hard to envisage when you guys say "220 - 240 lbs"