Eddie: Comments interspersed. > Gently, gently, because I don't want Reid and Potts to > start pounding on me as they pounded on Andy, I would > like to ask: First, nobody pounded on Andy. Some of us simply supported Jim Elwell's right to believe as he does and noted that, his politics notwithstanding, he has made and will probably continue to make a considerable contribution to the cause of metrication. Andy didn't agree with our tolerant position regarding Jim's views and proceeded to pound on us (and on Jim). So, I guess you could say that Andy was the pounder and we were the poundees. If you doubt that, I suggest you review all the messages (I'm assuming you have saved them). > Isn't Andy correct when he says that the Constitution > allows Congress to order metrication? As I read the Constitution, yes. > And isn't Andy correct that this is obviously the goal > we all share in common? The goal we share in common is the metrication of the United States. Jim and, possibly, one or two others differ only with respect to the means. > And isn't Andy correct in claiming that if we were to > believe Jim Elwell on the subject of Congressional > action (that it is unconstitutional and, if > constitutional, that it is undesirable) then we might > as well fold up and abolish our efforts at > metrication? Andy's claim is based on a purely hypothetical situation. Most of us do not share Jim Elwell's interpretation of Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5. However, most of us do respect Jim's right to have his own interpretation. Jim doesn't need our permission to hold his views and we don't need his permission to proceed on the basis of our view of the enforceability of SI-based weights and measures regulations. > As for me, because of Andy's efforts, I am for > metrication. He helped to change my mind on it. Andy's efforts are admirable. I just don't understand his recent fixation on Jim Elwell's somewhat different approach to the challenge. > However, I want to help only if our goal is clear, a > goal of getting Congress to act sometime in the next > 10 years. I think our goal is clear. I also think that people who take Jim's approach can work quite productively in parallel with the rest of us. I see no evidence that Jim intends to sabotage our attempts at encouraging a regulatory approach. I think his efforts will continue to be complementary. His own record, with the company he founded, and his own enthusiasm are clearly positive attributes. > If we do not have such a goal, > if we do not hope for Congress to act, > or if we agree with Jim Elwell, > or if we hope for metric in 80 years, > then I want to bail out. I hope I've made it clear, by this point, that most of us (as far as I can tell) disagree with Jim Elwell with respect to the regulatory means. Most of us also regard him as a very fine fellow. > I want to help win this fight if we are at least > TRYING to win sometime soon. Good. > It is OK with me if we fail, but I want to be part of > the effort if we are at least TRYING to win. It's not O.K. with ME if we fail. I certainly don't want us to fail. I don't think Jim wants us to fail, but he disagrees with us on methodology. I don't let that bother me and I'm damned if I can understand why Andy lets it bother him. > I have talked with Andy about trying to get Rotary of > Jaycees or some group to take on the goal of federal > legislation as a one year national priority. > > But is this group in agreement with Jim Elwell that > you do not even want such legislation? Well, you've asked that several times and I've answered it several times. I am not in agreement with Jim Elwell on this matter and only claim to speak with any certainty about myself. However, I believe that most subscribers to this list are in favor of the regulatory approach. Please note that taking the regulatory approach does not preclude ALSO taking Jim's approach. Through the company he founded, Jim influenced many others to switch to and accept SI. Through his proselytization of SI, he has influenced others. The rest of us could do well to follow his example IN ADDITION TO pressing for appropriate legislation. In fact, many on this list do so (e.g., Jim Frysinger, Norman Werling, Nat Hager, myself, ...). The USMA Board also does so, in addition to pressing for legislation (an activity that is by no means completely straightforward or simple). Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
