Our own experiments with duality would seem to confirm this. It may help the public become familiar with metric IF it is done for only a limited time, with a published plan and timetable for phasing out the Customary or Imperial measure. In our case, FPLA was placed in effect with no further plan (at the time) and the public has never been convinced that they need to use the dual period as an educational opportunity. There is no commitment that we ARE going metric and only arguing over details in the plan. Lobbyists are approaching it as stopping further expansion of metric dead, at least to the degree they can. This has been successful enough that pro-metric forces are left to accept dual as better than no metric at all, and even push for dual in areas where it is presently not required. It is a first step, but if you don't have a plan, you are not on a path. --- On Tue, 10/20/09, Pat Naughtin <pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com> wrote:
From: Pat Naughtin <pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com> Subject: [USMA:46042] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: "UKMA Metric Association" <secret...@metric.org.uk> Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 9:08 PM 2 'Dual signs are good for educating the public' is an interesting conjecture that, as far as I can find, has no basis in fact and no precedent in history. It is simply a false conjecture that has always proved to be false wherever its application has been attempted.
