Dear David and All, I think that you make a very valuable point here, when you say:
'This is not about culture, language, or who rules who. It is about working together to make a better world by moving forward and using the best measurement system available to us, and having everyone using the same system'. Unfortunately, to many anti-metric people metrication is about power over others and often they selfishly feel this as a loss of personal power over others. We often see rational debate about metrication issues subverted to an emotive exchange about who has power over who. This shift in emphasis is often used by anti-metric people for the simple reason that they know it has an immediate effect. Ultimately, I believe that these empty emotional arguments will gradually diminish and we will achieve a metricated world. However the selfish motives of the anti-metric people does help to make the metrication process painfully slow. Just remember that no individual, no group, no industry, no company, and no nation has ever gone permanently back to old measures once they have made their metrication transition. Cheers, Pat Naughtin ASM (NSAA), LCAMS (USMA)* PO Box 305, Belmont, Geelong, Australia Phone 61 3 5241 2008 Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online monthly newsletter, 'Metrication matters'. You can subscribe by going to http://www.metricationmatters.com and clicking on 'Newsletter'. * Pat is the editor of the 'Numbers and measurement' chapter of the Australian Government Publishing Service 'Style manual � for writers, editors and printers', he is an Accredited Speaking Member (ASM) with the National Speakers Association of Australia, and a Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist (LCAMS) with the United States Metric Association. This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. This email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by return email. on 2005-03-10 06.49, David King at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This just reminds us all of the need for a universal standard of > measurement. This is not about culture, language, or who rules who. It > is about working together to make a better world by moving forward and > using the best measurement system available to us, and having everyone > using the same system. Just imagine the chaos if we all used different > ways of measuring time, so that some countries had 20 hours in the day, > some 24 hours, some 30 hours, some 15 hours, etc. Or maybe some might > have 100 minutes in one hour or they might not use hours at all. By > continuing to avoid going fully metric, countries like the UK, Canada > and the USA are all making the world harder to live in, as so much time > is wasted on conversions of measurements to one's preferred system. > > Of course the USA chose to go metric back in the 19th century, and > officially made it legal for use back then. > > So if the EU is requesting that all US imports into the EU are labelled > metric only, then the US only has itself to blame for not keeping its > word and using metric which it promised to do over 100 years ago. > > And I think having metric only labelling on all products makes things > easier to compare, I hate seeing products from America that have both US > units and metric units on, as the US units just take up unnecessary > space and are confusing. Metric units are consistent and should be the > only internationally legal units for trade. > > > David King > > ** Get Fast Broadband from �14.99 > ** http://tinyurl.com/5y7mf > > Excellent web hosting and email > http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=3899401 > > Buy UKMA's report "A Very British Mess" ISBN 0750310146 > http://bookmark.iop.org/bookpge.htm?&isbn=0750310146 > > > > Paul Trusten wrote: > >> Some critics of U.S. metrication might frame the EU/NIST conference as >> "European interference with U.S. commerce." At such a juncture, NIST, and >> the rest of us, need to stand firm and quote the 1988 amendment to the >> Metric Conversion Act, which designates metric as the preferred U.S. system >> for trade and commerce. Congress said it, and that settles it! >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "James Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:43 >> Subject: [USMA:32408] Re: USMA announcement >> >> >> >> >>> I'm hoping that the EU stands firm. Even without that, many US companies >>> >>> >> want >> >> >>> the ammendment, as noted in the two recent NIST conferences on the matter. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> On Wednesday 09 March 2005 12:11, Hillger, Don wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> From USMA President, Lorelle Young: >>>> >>>> ______________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Last week, officials from the NIST Laws and Metric Group met with EU >>>> officials in Brussels to discuss their Metric Directive and learned that >>>> they intend to proceed with the implementation of the metric only >>>> directive in 2010 unless the EU industry requests a delay. They also >>>> told us they want to see the U.S. adopt the FPLA amendment to >>>> demonstrate that we are making progress. More details will follow when >>>> the official report of the meeting is released. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ______________________ >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> James R. Frysinger >>> Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist >>> Senior Member, IEEE >>> >>> http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> Office: >>> Physics Lab Manager, Lecturer >>> Dept. of Physics and Astronomy >>> University/College of Charleston >>> 66 George Street >>> Charleston, SC 29424 >>> 843.953.7644 (phone) >>> 843.953.4824 (FAX) >>> >>> Home: >>> 10 Captiva Row >>> Charleston, SC 29407 >>> 843.225.0805 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >
