Because American flour was filled with weevils, which add more mass than volume?
Cups are something any pioneer can carry with ease.
No they are not. There are 2.88 US teaspoons to the British tablespoon, and 4 British teaspoons, so the US teaspoon is nearly 40% bigger.
A dessert spoon is two thirds of an Imperial tablespoon. We used to use a heaped dessert spoon as a close enough approximation to a tablespoon - we didn’t have any tablespoons.
Is metric assload a mass or a volume?
We use mass here in Japan and it’s easy to get used to. Small amounts are measured with tablespoons and teaspoons.
I’ve cooked in the States and I think it’s just a matter of which you get used to. When I use recipes from the States, I look on line for the conversion if it’s something which I don’t know.
…
Volume, clearly.
I didn’t send him my bread recipe, just a common online pancake recipe =)
He needed pancakes to go with the maple syrup - his mother wanted to add it to water and ice to make a drink … 
What is this “take out your scale” objection? The scale lives out on the counter top, I use it so much.
I thought about this last night, and I do remember seeing dessertspoon used as a measurement. My earlier comment was incorrect.
It does seem like in more modern British cookbooks it has gone out of fashion, though.
Not only that, but I have two of 'em that both live on the counter. Can’t have too many scales!
I grew up with volume measurements, but have switched to weight. It’s a ton easier. It seems that most people on this thread who is arguing against weights may not have tried it - really, it’s tons better. More precise, dirties fewer dishes, takes a lot of the guesswork out of cooking (not just baking!)
Think about how many times you read a recipe that says “1 medium onion.” WTF? What’s a medium onion? I know what MY definition of medium is, but how am I to know what the cookbook author’s is? Yeah yeah yeah, I know a little more or less onion either way isn’t going to make or break a lot of recipes, but why not just say “4 ounces chopped onion” and make it idiot proof? My cookbooks are littered with notations next to the measurements - “20 ounces of flour”, “4 ounces butter” etc.
And let’s not forget meat. Even us Americans use weight measurements for meat. I can just imagine recipes calling for 1 cup hamburger or 1 medium roast. 
I simply don’t need and don’t want that degree of precision in my cooking. I don’t need a recipe to be “idiot proof” and I don’t need it to be “more precise” and I don’t need it to take away guesswork. In the kitchen, guesswork is exactly what I’m there to do!
Meat is sold by weight, so the package itself tells you how much there is. Even then, I don’t bother with precision. If the recipe says “1/2 pound ground beef” and my package says “1.42 lbs.,” I just take roughly half of the package, even though I know it’s going to be significantly more than a half a pound. Who freaking cares?
So is flour. And sugar.
Not really. Flour and sugar are sold in standard-sized packages, which is conceptually different. You buy flour and sugar in 5 or 10-pound packages to be stored and used as needed over time. So for each recipe, you need to measure the amount. I prefer to just scoop it out or pour it into my graduated measuring cup. I don’t want to have to use a scale. Scales are fiddly, and you can’t just throw them in the dishwasher when you’re done with them.
You buy meat in roughly the amount you’re going to use for your next cooking episode. I have never bought a package of flour or sugar with the idea that the package is going to be used up in the recipe I’m working on now.
Somebody had to do this… “1 cup hamburger” gets 10,800 hits on Google.
In the U.S., all non-liquid foods are sold by weight.
Well, personally I prefer not only metric, but also the base-10 numbering system over the binary/ternary system
Same thing with nuts and bolts. “Standard” vs. "metric :dubious: Uh, for everybody but the US, “metric” is standard :rolleyes:
Well, if it’s already in the bowel, you’ll probably have to leave it there until you’re going to the loo
Sure, I’ll buy that - most people who cook with regularity can figure out the onion thing on their own. It’s beginners who typically have problems with the “one medium onion” thing.
But still, I’m with the rest of the people on this thread who find that weighing is easier than measuring by volume for a lot of stuff. Fewer dirty dishes (you can use the same bowl for almost everything, and no need to sift the flour), more precision, faster (no digging through the cupboards for that one measuring cup that always seems lost), etc. etc.
Also, it’s easier if you cook by ratio. Stock is 3 parts water, 2 parts bones, 2 parts veggies. Roux is 3 parts flour to 2 parts fat. Custard is 2 parts liquid to 1 part eggs. Simple when doing it by weight, doesn’t work at all by volume.
Well, when you’re measuring by volume, what do you do when it’s a little above the line in your measuring cup? It’s the exact same problem.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at.