KatLondon wrote:

I think 'mil' must be only in the US, everywhere else is more or less metric and unfortunately, 'mil' is how most people pronounce mm!

We use "mil" sizing in Canada too even though we switched over to the metric system in the '70s. It's all about context: Anyone discussing sheeting or rolled materials knows that when someone gives a thickness measurement in mils that it's in thousands of an inch. Conversely, if someone is talking about the length of something and states a mil size it's understood that it's in millimeters. 
 

colrehogan wrote:

I have had to use pints, quarts and fluid ounces at work in the last 10 years and I thought it was a pain after learning metric for chemistry.

Ah... I can guess why. 

That would be so strange to me.  When I was in the lab I worked with volumes in the μl to ml range, sometimes down to nl, and i don't even know how you'd do calculations with those in imperial.  It would be bizarre. I used molar as well (moles per liter) and how would you do that in imperial?  I'm sure there is a way, but I don't know what it would be.

That sounds right.  Hope you like them!

So, right. You guys do have some weird measurements still in common use.  Stone comes to mind.

All I know is I'd rather have a liter of beer than a quart of beer.

~Joe

Neat discussion.

As for backing sheets I simply use another sheet of the same paper, which lasts for maybe 3-5 sheets of typing, which increases my paper cost by 25%. I can live with that - office paper is cheap. I tried some 67 lb "cover stock" as backing but it was too thick and stiff for most machines.

Now onto the off-topic: That's another archaic measure! Motivated solely by this thread I looked it up for the first time in my life, always before being satisfied with the knowledge that 20 lb letter paper was OK for common use. I find it is the weight of 500 sheets of standard size stock. But get this : the "standard" size might vary by paper type and manufacturer! (at least according to the first random website I found) This is whack. It makes me wonder if all office paper manufacturers are honest. How tempting to say "Oh. We use a larger standard size paper than the industry to maintain higher quality standards" The argument is not supposed to make sense.

I can see in paper that weight would be at least as important as thickness: if only thickness counted the unscrupulous would find a way of making puffed paper, like cheap ice cream. Or newsprint, for that matter. Another term that will soon fall into desuetude as there are fewer and fewer printed newspapers, and those that remain are even getting stingy with newsprint, for crying out loud!  Welcome to the new world... <CUT>

I also saw an opaque backing sheet on eBay but passed it up as it looked too torn up to use and only would have value to collectors of typewriter paraphernalia. At present the syndrome has not progressed beyond typewriters.