On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:48:11 Jim Elwell wrote: >Marcus brings up an excellent point: > >> True, and well put, Jim. Only one problem though. As I put it >> earlier, from Jim's perspective there is ONLY his way as an >> acceptable way (at least that I can see). While WE are >> 'generous' enough to consider his way is ok, too. *By >> definition, or philosophical principle* his doesn't tolerate >> ours! and THAT's what worries me, Andy, Eddie and a few others!!! > >There are three issues here: (1) whether my way is the only way, (2) whether >I will sabotage your legislative efforts, and (3) whether I am being >intolerant. > >(1) Marcus is correct in his interpretation: my (voluntary) methods are >perfectly acceptable to the rest of you, while your (mandatory) methods are >not acceptable to me. I have never tried to hide this fact, it is exactly >what I have been arguing all along. > Understood, Jim (just a reminder that I'm ccing this to Andy, too, as I said I would throughout this dialogue, not that I want to cause antagonism here any further, but only that I'd like Andy to be aware of the potential outcome of this dialogue, ok? Hope you'll understand, Jim). As for your answer, I must say I'm really sorry to hear that my conclusion was right. I was hoping that you could find a little more tolerance towards our position, or the most general position of this group that sees the need for more pro-active legislative action on this. But I haven't given up on you entirely yet, BTW!... ;-) >(2) If you look at the list I posted yesterday of steps to metrication, you >will see that there is nothing imposed on private business until step 6, and >nothing on the general business community until step 8. > And I still find it quite bizarre (honestly...) that you can live with such blatant 'discrimination' between accepting imposition on governments but not on other stakeholders... :-S >I believe quite strongly that by the time step 6 is reached, let alone step >8, the rest of you will see that the remaining steps are unnecessary. > I honestly don't recall or have kept records of all the details about your 'overture' on this, but it suffices to say that lifting restrictions to metric-only labels, for example, will NOT do the trick as long as businesses do not take advantage of that leeway! >Would I sabotage your efforts? With respect to any efforts to convert >government operations I would be marching right beside you. However, if you >try to mandate various types of metrication onto private businesses BEFORE >the government itself has converted, I would have a very hard time with it. >Not only do I believe it is wrong to mandate it on business, it is >hypocritical to ask businesses to metricate while the government plods along >using colloquial units. > It is only hypocritical, IMHO, if governments were treated or mandated any differently from the private sector! But, as I already told you several times, mandating metrication should be a very serious business and not entered into lightly. Heck I'd not defend that if it was not followed by "carrots", my friend. I'm interested in finding a solution that would be bearable and acceptable to as many as possible. Mandating metrication without being willing to pay for it (at least partially) would definitely not be a fair deal for anyone. Metrication is an effort which is not meant to drive businesses out of business, but on the contrary to give them the necessary boost for them to prosper even more. Darn it, Jim, I'm also a businessman and I do understand at least a little of this aspect. You should know this by now, my friend. A "blank" mandate for metrication would simply be irresponsible. >...(3) Am I intolerant? It is not Jim Elwell who wants to impose his views on >others, it is those of you who want to coerce metrication in the USA. By >analogy: > >(a) I will let everyone paint their home the color they choose. >(b) You insist everyone paint their home blue. >(c) I am therefore intolerant. > >Huh?????? >... I also have education in the science of logic and I honestly can't follow your 'logic' (?) rationale above. Sorry... But what's the affirm sentence and what metatheorem are you alluding to here? But using the counterpositive logic construct to yours though (or logically now correctly), by your rationale above I could build the following: (a) Two ways are acceptable to us (legislation deffenders) - our approach AND yours (b) You insist on ONLY your way (c) *You*'re therefore intolerant... ;-) See how this could... backfire, Jim? And lead us nowhere?... :-) Measurements are the domain of science, and as such, one can delve into the right or wrong territory for our times today. Therefore, this is no longer a matter of democracy, but a matter of doing the right thing. Once looked at from this perspective it becomes somewhat easier to press for metrication without having to "apologise" for it that much... ;-) Cheers, Marcus Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
