|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:47 pm
::feels less tall, now:: what a releif...!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:10 am
Sandraugiga I am 5'5 if my length translater is correct. sweatdrop 1.70 in the metric system in any way. sweatdrop Since there are 2.54 cm in an inch (exact conversion), 170 cm is 66.9 inches, so you're actually 5'7". I only knew to double check because I knew that I'm close to 168 cm, and am myself greater than 5'5. I'm, actually, typically somewhat fiendish, and list my vitals in metric, if Imperial units would be a standard reply. (Such as on my Gaia profile) Yay for science teaching me a decimal system of measures. *chuckles* Maybe we should prod Icy to convert the whole table. twisted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:37 am
I got the length from [here]. And I still get the same reaction. 1.70 meter is 5.58 feet. 1.65 meter is 5.41 feet. Am I doing something wrong here? sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:21 am
To be honest Sandra, I'd trust Ballykun's knowledge over the Internet. xd ;;
*whimpers* Gyuuuu, so mean, Ballykun! ;.; Making me do icky, ikcy convertions! *pretend angry chu!*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:08 am
Sandraugiga I got the length from [here]. And I still get the same reaction. 1.70 meter is 5.58 feet. 1.65 meter is 5.41 feet. Am I doing something wrong here? sweatdrop You're not doing anything wrong with the conversion, you're just getting confused with the units. 1" is less than 0.1 foot, so 5.58 feet is going to be closer to 5'7" than it is to 5'5". This is pretty close to my height, so I hope I'm right. Metric system is way better anyway. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:18 am
He leaned against the door-frame glancing over at the chart. After a moment, he casually turned his head and spoke
Chalk up another in the six foot bracket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:14 pm
Moryera You're not doing anything wrong with the conversion, you're just getting confused with the units. 1" is less than 0.1 foot, so 5.58 feet is going to be closer to 5'7" than it is to 5'5". This is pretty close to my height, so I hope I'm right. Metric system is way better anyway. whee Head hurts xp How can you guys count in that. gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:33 pm
Sandraugiga Moryera You're not doing anything wrong with the conversion, you're just getting confused with the units. 1" is less than 0.1 foot, so 5.58 feet is going to be closer to 5'7" than it is to 5'5". This is pretty close to my height, so I hope I'm right. Metric system is way better anyway. whee Head hurts xp How can you guys count in that. gonk Years of indoctrination practice. One almost becomes convinced that 12 (inches to a foot) > 3 (feet to a yard) > 1760 (yards to a mile) makes for an natural excellent system of ascending units. This is even after abandoning many of the sillier units, like rods (16.5 feet), and furlongs (40 rods). (There are 8 furlongs in a mile) NB: Actually, rods are still commonly used in canoing to measure portaging distances. This is due to the accident of design in that a canoe length is quite nearly exactly one rod. Also note, that I haven't yet begun to point and laugh at how weights, mass, and volume are measured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:54 pm
It's a good thing that Icy is not (yet? surprised ) collecting how much people weigh then? whee
Okay... Deep breath... If that is true, then I'm when I'm standing on one foot 5'6 (To be precize 5feet and 6.96 inches, indeed closer to the 5'7 Bally) and when I'm standing on the other, I'm 5'4. Not that people would notice that in real life, for I wear correcting shoes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:09 pm
Sandraugiga xp Head hurts xp How can you guys count in that. gonk Easy answer? We don't. We try to ignore it most of the time. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:10 am
Icy will never collect how much people weigh, because it isn't polite to ask a lady how much she weighs. 3nodding
I am curious about the size of people's hands and feet though. xd ;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:12 am
Icysnowgirl Icy will never collect how much people weigh, because it isn't polite to ask a lady how much she weighs. 3nodding I am curious about the size of people's hands and feet though. xd ; at this, he chuckled
Size 13 shoe, just in case you were serious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:18 pm
I'm 12 feet tall.
OK, 5'2.5"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:04 am
Icysnowgirl Icy will never collect how much people weigh, because it isn't polite to ask a lady how much she weighs. 3nodding I am curious about the size of people's hands and feet though. xd ; I'm size 35. 3nodding Mods, I will have to converge that too! gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:02 am
Wait, what's in it for us if you are collecting all this info?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
