While consumers might not appreciate the subtleties of weight on the boxes, they would be the first to complain if a big box was only half full.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of James R. Frysinger Sent: 01 November 2009 13:49 To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: U.S. Metric Association; UKMA Metric Association Subject: [USMA:46101] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents I've said for years that shoppers buy the "yea big" size: "Find me a nice roast about yea big, honey." Or, "Which size of canned tomatoes do you want, Mom, the big one or the little one?" If this were not so, deceptive packaging would not work so well. Jim STANLEY DOORE wrote: > The Head of a major consumer group in Northern Virginia USA thirty > years ago found that shoppers in grocery stores visually look at the > size of the product first and not the label before purchasing. so it > has been known for decades that dual unit labeling is not needed except > for perhaps measurements of ingredients for recipes. > Stan Doore > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* carlet...@comcast.net <mailto:carlet...@comcast.net> > *To:* U.S. Metric Association <mailto:usma@colostate.edu> > *Cc:* UKMA Metric Association <mailto:secret...@metric.org.uk> ; > U.S. Metric Association <mailto:usma@colostate.edu> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:59 AM > *Subject:* [USMA:46047] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents > > I was driving on the 103 in Nova Scotia from Lunenburg to Halifax > ten years ago. Part was a limited-access road. The highway signs > showed evidence of once having said miles, but it was scraped off > with the new distances shown. > > > > Carleton > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Frewen-Lord" <j...@frewston.plus.com > <mailto:j...@frewston.plus.com>> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu > <mailto:usma@colostate.edu>> > Cc: "UKMA Metric Association" <secret...@metric.org.uk > <mailto:secret...@metric.org.uk>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:28:39 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada > Eastern > Subject: [USMA:46043] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents > > Canada converted all its speed limit signs in one night. Went to > bed, signs were in mph. Woke up next morning, all were in km/h. > The stick on solution was used - very cheap, very fast, and very > effective. Most lasted until they needed to be replaced for other > reasons. > > When you consider Canada's vastness, and the fact that every road > has speed limit signs by the million (roads 60 km/h and under by law > have to have signs every 500 m [exception - blanket '50 km/h unless > signed otherwise' signs when entering a metropolis], while those > roads over 60 km/h had to be signed every 1 km, including freeways), > this was quite some achievement. > > John F-L > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Pat Naughtin <mailto:pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com> > *To:* U.S. Metric Association <mailto:usma@colostate.edu> > *Cc:* UKMA Metric Association <mailto:secret...@metric.org.uk> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:08 AM > *Subject:* [USMA:46042] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents > > Dear John, > > Well said. It is interesting to note that changing all road > signs in an entire nation can be done in a day - that's right - > in a single day. > > It all depends on the method you choose. Australia, New Zealand, > India, South Africa, and Ireland chose successful methods > largely by copying each others successes. They all chose to > change to metric only signs and the job /done in a day /was the > result. > > Others have chosen other methods based on simple conjectures or > prejudices. The UK chose two methods that proved to be > unsuccessful so far: > > 1 Design, build, and repair roads all in metric measures while > you provide the public with signs based on the metric inch, the > metric foot, the metric yard, and the metric mile that were all > defined in metric terms in 1959. This truth was hidden from the > UK people by an arbitrary decision made at the time of the > Thatcher government - it was based on a simple political > prejudice that was encapsulated in the phrase (as I recall > Margaret Thatcher's words), '/WE have saved the pint and the > mile for Britain/'. > > 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. > > These two thought have led to the current situation in the UK. > They began to use this prejudice and this conjecture in about > 1965 and there are many who still support them even despite > their obvious failure after 44 years - so far - and with many > more years still to come! > > Remember that the alternative is to look at a nation that has > made the upgrade in a single day and copy the successful methods > that they chose to use. > > Cheers, > Pat Naughtin > Author of the ebook, /Metrication Leaders Guide,/ that you can > obtain > from http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html > PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, > Geelong, Australia > Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 > > Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has > helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to > the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically > that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, > or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and > resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for > commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in > Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the > Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric > associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. > See http://www.metricationmatters.com > <http://www.metricationmatters.com/>for more metrication > information, contact Pat at pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com > <mailto:pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com> or to get the free > '/Metrication matters/' newsletter go > to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe. > > On 2009/10/20, at 22:58 , John M. Steele wrote: > > I hear you, but I think I have to disagree. The 10' tent > doesn't really make them "anti-metric," but it does > perpetuate the status quo of "duality is fine." > > We have been stuck in stasis since 1866 when "duality is > fine" first became the law of the land. In 143 years, > progress has been limited to: > *The 1893 Mendenhall order, and 1959 adjustment of the foot > and pound. > *In 1994, requiring most consumer goods to have both metric > and Customary net contents, under FPLA. (But meat, deli, > produce, and beer remain Customary only). I suppose I > should note a few things are metric-only like wine, spirits. > > We have backpedalled or failed to complete: > *Metric in Federally-funded highways and Federal buildings. > *Enforcing EO12770, making Federal agencies metric (look at > NASA). > *Completing permissive-metric-only for either FPLA (stalled > at NIST) or UPLR (stalled by 2 States). > > Unless we are more agressive, it could take another kiloyear. > > An activity planned for a 3 m x 3 m tent would fit fine in a > 10' x 10' tent AND send a message. A message that > scientists and engineers should be trying to send. (there > are other groups that I probably wouldn't berate for not > using metric, but scientists, engineers, USMA, and a few > other groups need to set the example) > > --- On *Tue, 10/20/09, Stephen > Humphreys /<barkatf...@hotmail.com > <mailto:barkatf...@hotmail.com>>/* wrote: > > > From: Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com > <mailto:barkatf...@hotmail.com>> > Subject: [USMA:46039] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu > <mailto:usma@colostate.edu>> > Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 4:24 AM > > Sometimes the things I read here make me very > surprised. There's almost a paranoia involved. Please > can you believe me when I say, quoting a *tent* as 10 x > 10 foot does not make the USA Science Festival > anti-metric. Not even slightly. > Ordinary people - far from also not equating a tent to > anti-metricness - could be scared off or at least > perplexed by such pseudo-warlike polarity on how people > measure things. At best telling someone that quoting a > tent that way is not pro-metric will make them think > that people who want metrication are quirky and odd. At > worst it would scare people off. > I'd be less concerned about some blurb which took the > size of a tent off the packet it came in in feet and be > more concerned with what gets discussed INSIDE that > tent. Isn't that what matters? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CC: usma@colostate.edu <mailto:usma@colostate.edu> > From: pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com > <mailto:pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com> > To: usma@colostate.edu <mailto:usma@colostate.edu> > Subject: [USMA:46035] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival > Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:26:21 +1100 > > Dear Paul, > > Thanks for passing on the reference to the USA Science > Festival information. > > Sadly, I guess from their reference to '10x 10 foot' > Festival tent, that this is not to be a fundamentally > pro-metric event. > > I am reminded that '/Scientists and Engineers for > America and fifteen other /science organizations/' > united to ask seven questions of the 2008 congressional > candidates in preparation for the presidential elections > in the USA last year. I was stunned that 16 science and > engineering organisations were able to raise such > significant questions without mentioning the resistance > to the metric system in the USA at all. It reminded me > of the line, '/There is an elephant in the room/', but > no-one wants to admit that it's there!/ > > See the article, '/A metrication elephant/': > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Did you know you can get Messenger on your mobile? Learn > more. <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/174426567/direct/01/> > > -- James R. Frysinger 632 Stony Point Mountain Road Doyle, TN 38559-3030 (C) 931.212.0267 (H) 931.657.3107 (F) 931.657.3108
