>> Ma Be wrote: >>> First of all, there should be a *LEGAL* deterrent developed to PREVENT the >>> use of "weird" sizes, like 227, 28, 29, 454... (you get the picture), >>> simply because: >>> >>> 1) These are crappy imperial sizes in disguise. >>> 2) Such absurd sizes can only confuse consumers >>> 3) Such stupid values are obviously totally irrational for package sizing >>> in a metric world >>> 4) These values are significant natural deterrents to per unit calculations.
> Jim Elwell wrote: >> Marcus, you just make American metrication all that much harder to achieve >> when you promote this type of thinking. It's bad enough to want the >> government to mandate metric, but now you want the government to mandate >> what size of packages can be used. "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Absolutely! Why? If one opens the door to such ridiculous sizes it won't be > long till others follow suit, and when they do and people finally complain > about the stupidity of such mediocre sizes the argument will finally pop: > "well, let me then label these with what they really are, nice 1 qt, 20 oz, > 12 oz, 1 lb, etc." Therefore, this is **utterly unacceptable** a danger/risk Jim Elwell speaks for me, too. First, the prospect that your neighbors may be able to continue buying imperial sizes if they want them is not a danger or risk of any kind. It's called freedom of choice. Demanding the sizes you feel are rational but denying other people the sizes that work better for them is hypocrisy. It's also paternalism, and causes government to be hated all the more and trusted less. We don't need any more of it. California has a similar law which says that loaves of bread must be one of a small number of "standard" sizes. The law was used a few years ago when a new brand tried to introduce a small loaf good for 4-6 slices. A lot of people, including myself, liked the new size and found it useful, but the makers were forced to discontinue it. Now, as a single person, I can no longer keep fresh bread in the house unless I buy twice as much as I can use before it goes bad. This is not progress. But the existing producers pay lobbyists to keep it that way. The moral of this tale is that government bodies cannot be trusted with the power to impose this kind of requirement.
