>Yea, I'm making a big deal out of what, to most of you, is probably a >technicality. However, it WAS the issue to this guy. It WAS the reason he >refused to give in. Shouldn't we at least try to understand what motivated >the guy?
Oh I understand. But truthfully it seems like misguided energy. Almost approaching whining. >And it certainly was NOTHING related to fraud -- he wasn't trying to rip >anyone off! I don't beleive anyone made that comparison...but if the scales weren't certified, there would be no way to know for sure. I would never claim the guy was actively trying to rip anyone off, yet the fact is eventually his scales became obsolete. Plain and simple. I equate this to car racing for example. Helmets have safety ratings by Snell. SA90 helmets conform to the rules of 1990....SA95 to 1995. Every 5 years, the helmets conform to differing rules. Eventually, racing sactioning bodies update their rules to reflect the changes in the safety systems being developed. So if I had an SA85 helmet then I could not participate in an event with this helmet. Nothing is technically wrong with it, and it's protected my head for the past 15 years but yet it's illegal for use. One COULD argue the SA85 helmet's capability to protect your head...but in the end, it's deemed antiquated by safety standards and thus not approved for use. You wanna race, get a new helmet. Plain and simple. In the end, I see his beef....but it's thin. I do understand it's nothing about fraud, I was just explaining WHY the government has to be involved. Along the line the government said they would not re-certify non-metric scales. They gave a conversion date....and ample notice. I say the government did a good job to not back down. Wish the United States would do the same. I say give people enough time to prepare and make any changes...but then stick to your damn promised dates. >He refused to use a NEW approved scale system. He had a perfectly good one >that the government had approved in the past. Exactly...his old scale became antiquated by policy. >>Simple as that. Quit trying to read more into it than has already >>been read into it...wayyyy too much I say. > >I know what you are saying here. However, I would suggest that one should >"know thy enemy." > >The anti-metricationists in the USA are going to parade this guy through >the streets of New York if we ever get mandatory metric laws, and there are >going to be (anti)-Metric Martyrs in the USA. > >If this is viewed as "oh, it's just because he wouldn't buy a dual- label >scale," then you have no idea what motivates people such as this, and will >not be able to as effectively counter them. And I think such people will be >MUCH more effective in the USA, due to our national temperament. I agree with you here....but I think people see through his rallying argument and understand the government's position on approval of the scales. That's why his case didn't rally more support than he had. I do agree we should understand what motivates people like the metric martyr...if at the very least to prepare valid, logical arguments to the contrary. B
