94 years? I had no idea that it has been around as an organisation for that
long. I was going to say that there's a key milestone coming up in 6 years
but - erm - ahem.... ;-)
From: trus...@grandecom.net
To: usma@colostate.edu
Subject: [USMA:47486] Re: Opponents of metrication change
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 11:38:03 -0500
CC: usma@colostate.edu
To all,
I can state to you thatthe organization advocates US conversion to the SI
metricsystem as the Nation's primary, everydaymeasurement standard, a stance
that hasnot 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 TrustenPublic Relations DirectorU.S. Metric Association,
inc.www.metric.orgtrus...@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.
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/
Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now
