To all,
I can state to you that
the organization advocates US conversion to the SI metric
system as the Nation's primary, everyday
measurement standard, a stance that has
not changed in the 94 years we have been in existence.
As we say, it is not "metrIFication" because we believe thereis no
"if" involved.
Paul Trusten
Public Relations Director
U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
www.metric.org
trus...@grandecom.net
+1(432)528-7724
On Jun 3, 2010, at 11:24, Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks for your words, John - you would make a very good 'soccer'
referee!!
I wouldn't say I was a dissenter as such - I don't really have that
much against metric(ation). You have to understand that the way
things were carried out here was (IMHO) totally wrong and if you
don't want America having the same low opinion (via polls) about the
metric system as the UK then you'd be wise to learn from the
mistakes made here in the UK. I really honestly don't think that
talking like this can be described as 'winding up' etc and and I am
especially humbled that for some I am an individual who come across
as having all power and wisdom to bring down this group or whatever
nonsense Schweisthal (ametrica) talks about.
I have contributed to this list for many years - possibly too many
years, it makes me feel old thinking about it (!)
I have been courteous to all who I have had discussions with.
I have held back on occassion because posting what I thought would
be of benefit to me instead of the forum (I have to realise that I
am something of a 'guest' here).
Because of the history of involvement with this list I have ended up
having sometimes very personal and private 'off list' conversations
with people. I have EVEN MET - IN PERSON someone who is a regular
contributor when he visited the UK once and spent an early evening
with them. I could not have done that if this list did not exist -
ie - I have made international friends thanks to this very list.
That's something I am very thankful for.
To have twisted individuals who's chief aim in life is to bad-mouth
the USA and 'have a go' at it at every opportunity, make 'secret'
conversation in the background about stifling debate and silencing
people in the most un-American way and then goes on to somehow
represent core USMA beliefs stinks of the worst hypocracy I have
ever heard. Needless to say this person is banned from this forum.
This person being Ametrica, Euric, Kilopascal, Jeremiah, Daniel (and
finally, really) John P Schweisthal. One person. It speaks volumes
that this list allows people like myself - who might have different
views on metric (some quite contrary) - to post to this list but has
been forced to deny the ramblings of someone - just one individual -
who professes to be 'pro-metric' but at each and every turn exposes
himself as simply using the metric system as part of an overall anti-
americanism.
I've pretty much said the same thing (above) at many stages every
now and again and have yet to be proved wrong at every forum he has
been banned from (including the bwma and metric-versus-imperial.com
site more recently).
All the while I have had decent, friendly, honest conversation with
almost all other people on the forum.
I have 'had run-ins' with Steve Davies. But we know where we
stand. I don't hate him and I don't think he hates me. We disagree
at times but we have the few collective brain cells required to
realise that it's just a subject of debate and have had 'off the
list' emails where we've even apologised when we might have gone a
bit too far. It's called lively debate. It's good. It's needed.
It's exactly as jmsteel says.
John Frewen Lord calls me a wind up merchant - a mayhem causer.
Give me one example of someone here being affected by my 'mayhem'.
Tell me one regular poster, here, that thinks 'I wind them up'. I
would honestly like that individual to mail me because so far I
think I have had - on one or more occasion - an off the list
conversation with every regular poster who posts here and I have to
say that they are all extremely polite and friendly. Quite the
opposite end of the spectrum to the private email I had from just
one person (which I did not ask for or request in any other way)
who's email was arrogant, rude, offensive and downright nasty. The
email told me not to email back as it would go straight into his
junk box. The email was from John Frewen Lord. [It's a
measurement debate for God's sake!]
However - while the likes of Frewen Lord and Schweisthal want me
silenced or ignored - I shall continue to debate with the good
people of the USMA listserv for as long as they want me to debate
here with them and as long as they find my posts of some interest no
matter how small. If that should change then I will be the first to
deregister because I am not the sort who likes to hang around when
what I *contribute* is essentially a waste of my own private effort.
Thanks for reading (and also thanks to the recent well-wishers if I
have forgotton to email them back).
Steve H
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 03:52:51 -0700
From: jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net
Subject: [USMA:47479] Re: Opponents of metrication change
To: usma@colostate.edu
It would appear that the US government will not use any form of
compulsion to further metrication. Therefore, the cause can ONLY be
furthered by convincing people. That requires a compelling argument
to people who aren't already convinced. We may not actually convert
Steve, but we should welcome dissenters so we have someone to
practice on and try to sharpen the effectiveness of our arguments.
Preaching to the choir really doesn't sharpen one's preaching skills.
It is certainly reasonable to expect everyone on the board to behave
civilly towards each other, but if we can't counter dissenter's
arguments with stronger, better arguments, we are not of much use to
the metrication movement, are we? Obviously, I do NOT favor kicking
dissenters off the board, I favor converting them. Now, whether my
argument is strong enough is a whole other matter. But that is why
athletes exercise; this is mental exercise. The real game is when
we make arguments to people who actually control metrication
decisions in the US.
From: John Frewen-Lord <j...@frewston.plus.com>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 2:18:14 AM
Subject: [USMA:47478] Re: Opponents of metrication change
I fully endorse free speech. However, having said that, you have to
put that principle in the context of the forum concerned. Yes,
let's have lots of debate on HOW to metricate, WHO to metricate,
even WHY to metricate. But a discussion on WHETHER to metricate?
Doesn't make sense to me on this forum.
Surely whether to metricate is a given, else why bother with the
USMA? Or is the USMA itself so unsure about whether the US should
metricate it needs to allow (even encourage?) opponents of
metrication free access to post their anti-metric views? If the
USMA is in fact fully convinced that the US needs to metricate (and
presumably it is, else why would it even exist?), then any postings
(and subsequent discussions) that are anti-metric in nature are at
the very least 'off-topic' and a waste of everyone's time.
Stephen Humphreys, as has been pointed out in the past, is a 'wind-
up' merchant. He posts here just to cause mayhem. The best thing
is, if he is to be continued to be allowed to post here, is for
everyone of us to simply ignore him.
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trusten
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 6:50 AM
Subject: [USMA:47477] Re: Opponents of metrication change
Ametrica,
The USMA Listserver is a forum on metrication, not an executive body
for its enforcement.
I think you are confusing freedom of speech with enforcement.
Perhaps this is why the U.S. Constitution was crafted to divide
power among three branches of government:, to separate discourse
from enforcement. The legislatures are deliberative bodies. They
give voice to both supporters and opponents of an idea, and then
hold votes to arrive (or not arrive) at a plan. But. once a plan is
approved, and then endorsed by the executive, the process must be
carried out with total unity. In Constitutional terms, once the
Congress has fixed the standard of weights and measures (Article I,
Sec.8) and gives the go-ahead for the changeover, all else
folllows. Metrication is like the central nervous system. It starts
in the brain.
The 1970s U.S. Metric Board (USMB)was a toothless and divided body.
It was born of watered-down legislation, was premised upon a vague
mission ("coordinate the increasing use of the metric system) and
it died due to a lack of national leadership on metrication and also
due to disunity from within. I certainly agree with you that there
should be no anti-metric members on the USMB. To appoint such
people to that board is absurd. But to include opposing views in a
discussion group is just that: to allow free speech, and not
necessarily to endorse the contents of the speech.
I have been a subscriber to the USMA Listserver since 1997. It has
been one of the most useful tools I've had for advancing the
national goal of U.S. metrication. As a private citizen, as editor
of USMA's newsletter Metric Today, and now as the organization's
public relations director, I could not have done without the list.
It has been a very rich source of both background information and
late-breaking news on metric that has helped supply the newsletter
with articles of interest, and it has been an invaluable source for
keeping USMA and its members welcome in the circles of government
and industry that will make metrication a fact in America. In that
spirit, our Web site has been honored with a place on the
International Bureau of Weights and Measures' list of "useful
links," and has made USMA a primary metric source for journalists
across the country. Over the years, the list has given voice to the
opposition, but almost all of that opposition was of the disruptive
variety. On a few occasions, we have had to ban some subscribers who
were nothing less than would-be saboteurs.
I believe that one of the worst images USMA could project is that
of a monolithic insurgency bent upon squelching debate and acting
with a kind of brute force. Given the sight of such a group, U.S.
industry would run the other way. In the Australian government
booklet Metrication In Australia, the point is rammed home that
metrication is a complex event, requiring the assent of many
different sectors of a society. Using this approach, Australia
succeeded brilliantly in metricating itself at every level. I know,
because I visited that country in 2007 and saw it for myself, right
down to kilonewtons of force on a sewer cover and 700-gram portions
of steak in a restaurant. To accomplish that change required the
widest possible cooperation among indusry, academia, goverment, and
the communications media. The booklet noted that no penalties were
established to enforce metrication. Everybody measures things, so
once the decision was made to go metric, there was little to impede
the process, because the path had been well designed. But the path
requires talk. If we are to do this thing, we have to talk to each
other.
The best outline for U.S. metrication I have seen came in the form
of the cover letter on the 1971 report to the Congress on metric (http://www.metric.org/laws/metric-study-1968.html
) .Now, that's the spirit!
Paul Trusten
Public Relations Director, USMA
Paul,
Can you provide by example where offering the opposition a say on
any matter has actually helped in promoting that particular matter?
Didn't metrication fail in the '70s~80s because the US Metric Board
was required to include persons opposed to metrication?
You don't promote metrication by giving those who oppose your ideals
a voice. If you do, then you guarantee your ideal will NEVER bear
fruit. As for the statement below where ....The Listserver is meant
to promote communication between USMA members and others interested
in metrication, I would take it to mean something quite different.
Persons opposed to metrication are not interested in metrication.
The whole concept of the existence of the USMA is to PROMOTE
metrication. If you allow those who oppose metrication to be apart
of your group (even under the false belief that they will change
their beliefs) your are assuring its failure.
I believe the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:30 apply to this situation:
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather
with me scatters.
Think of how these words apply to the issue at hand. If the people
whom you allow to be apart of your group do not back you 100 % then
your goals will fail. Case and point; the fate of the US Metric Board.
In order for the Listserver to be successful and meet its goal, it
must only contain members who support metrication, otherwise
metrication will continue to fail and people like your self will see
your frustrations increase.
Discussions and debates should be tailored to finding ways to
formulate a workable plan that can be presented to the government in
the name of the USMA. I've have yet to see anything even close to
this happening. By allowing those with opposing viewpoints, you have
caused the potential supporters of metrication to scatter, not
gather. The result is a failure of the nation to metricate.
Metrication needs strong leadership and that only comes from
surrounding yourself with true and loyal supporters. If you really
want to see metrication happen in the US you will do what it takes
to assure the USMA is a group of supporters. Otherwise you might as
well give up and concede defeat.
Opposing viewpoints may be an excellent source of lively discussion,
but it is a terrible source for promoting metrication. The
opposition is using you to divide your efforts and conquer you. It
is up to you as an officer in the USMA to determine if that is in
the USMA's best interests.
Truthfully, I doubt you will do what is right and continue along the
wrong path. So, don't be surprised when your frustration with going
nowhere increases. Actually, I think it is somewhat exciting to
watch the metric world progress at America's expense. Maybe helping
keep the metric system out of the US isn't such a bad thing, if it
gives other the power to move ahead.
Ametrica
[USMA:47463] Purpose of USMA Listserver (was Re: Re: Bespoke
tailoring)
Paul Trusten
Mon, 31 May 2010 21:56:03 -0700
Ametrica,
The description of the USMA Listserver is stated on our Web site at
www.metric.org/listserver.htm , in part, as follows:
The Listserver is meant to promote communication between USMA
members and others interested in metrication. The subscribers alone
determine the volume
and content of messages.
I would interpret this to mean that, since metrication is a
measurement issue, any discussion of related measurement issues is
welcome. While the majority of subscribers to our Listserver support
U.S. metrication, opposing viewpoints are always welcome. Indeed,
opposing viewpoints are excellent sources of lively
discussion of the issue.
Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
Public Relations Director
U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
trus...@grandecom.net
www.metric.org
www.twitter.com/usmetric
+1(432)528-7724
, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com for
more metrication information, contact Pat at
pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com or to get the free 'Metrication
matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter
to subscribe.
Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail - Free. Sign-up now.
