Bill Potts, you write with much tolerance and wisdom. Thank you. And thanks to Jim Frysinger for his lucid and rational comments. To Andy and Eddie and any others who cannot understand how I support metriccation, but do not support mandated metric, all I can say is: think!! Not everything that is "good" can be, should be or will ever be mandated. I posted an analogy twice (on exercising) -- none of you who don't understand my thinking have made any attempt to show any errors in the logic. As to the Constitution, I will cease posting, as I seem to be incapable of getting some of you past the literal language of a half-dozen words in Section 8. I have never argued that these words cannot be interpreted, in isolation, as list members want them to be. My effort has been to point out that there are other interpretations and other sections of the Constitution that are involved, and that these other interpretations and sections will be used by anti-metricationists to try and get courts to invalidate any substantive metrication laws. One last thought on the Constitution: if, ten years ago (before I metricated my company), Congress had passed a law mandating metric-only products within a short time (say, two or three years), I would have filed a lawsuit based on the "takings" clause (5th amendment), because it would have destroyed the value of several injection molds worth over $200,000. If such a law passed today, my company won't suffer, but you can bet that a significant number of the 15 million or so businesses in the country will, and they will file such lawsuits. Finally, ignoring the Constitution, how many of you really think a person should have their life's savings destroyed and/or be thrown in jail because they prefer to label a box in pounds? Jim Elwell
