The bigger problem is "50 States = 50 Ways." Eventually, the Feds would have to step in to restore some order. However, I have no problem using it temporarily as a "cattle prod" to get the Feds moving on metrication; nothing else has worked.
On Monday, June 16, 2014 9:58 PM, "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> wrote: > > > > >On Jun 16, 2014, at 8:33 PM, wrote: > >The problem with state by state legislation is that some states already >*require* >> >>units outside the SI for Unit Pricing, while even the current FPLA is silent >>of the units of measurement that may or must be used in Unit Pricing. >> >> >> >> >>Eugene Mechtly >> >> >>________________________________ >> >>From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [owner-u...@colostate.edu] on behalf of >>cont...@metricpioneer.com [cont...@metricpioneer.com] >>Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 10:55 AM >>To: U.S. Metric Association >>Subject: [USMA:53983] State by State Metrication >> >> >>Yes indeed, Thank you Don. >>With 110 names on our list, one would think that those 110 people probably >>live in at least ten or perhaps even twenty or so states. We have state >>metrication legislation pending in Hawaii (HB36). We have state metrication >>legislation pending in Oregon (LC44). Please consider introducing state metrication legislation in your state too so we can give momentum to this trend. I know that some may argue against this state-by-state strategy, and I agree that a federal mandate would be preferable, but a federal mandate seems unlikely in light of the current gridlock in Congress. Even though a state-by-state metrication legislation strategy may not be ideal, at least it sends a message that some Americans in some states want metrication. Who knows? It just might work. I say we give it a try. What say you? Please consider introducing metrication legislation in YOUR state. >> >>----- Message from "Ressel, Howard R (DOT)" <howard.res...@dot.ny.gov> >>--------- >> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:18:35 +0000 >> From: "Ressel, Howard R (DOT)" <howard.res...@dot.ny.gov> >>Reply-To: howard.res...@dot.ny.gov >>Subject: [USMA:53982] Re: Rejoining USMA >> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> >>Probably a good time to thank Don for coordinating this list for all these >>years, I think we sometimes forget he is the quite guy keeping it going and >>thanks to Colorado State for hosting. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>I agree, unless we hit some sort of server limit to the number of users, the >>>more the merrier even if they just listen in. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf >>>Of Harold_Potsdamer >>>Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 12:25 AM >>>To: U.S. Metric Association >>>Subject: [USMA:53973] Re: Rejoining USMA >>> >>> >>>But how many actually post? Why sign up if you have no intention to post? >>> >>> >>>Do you drop people off who don’t post a message after a fixed amount of time? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>From:Hillger,Donald >>>Sent: Sunday, 2014-06-15 00:05 >>>To:U.S. Metric Association >>>Subject: [USMA:53970] Re: Rejoining USMA >>> >>> >>>About 110 names. >>> >>> >>>From:owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of >>>cont...@metricpioneer.com >>>Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2014 21:55 >>>To: U.S. Metric Association >>>Subject: [USMA:53969] Re: Rejoining USMA >>> >>> >>>Welcome back! I am curious. Approximately how many are on the USMA list? >>> >>>----- Message from Bill Hooper <billhoope...@gmail.com> --------- >>> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:04:09 -0400 >>> From: Bill Hooper <billhoope...@gmail.com> >>>Reply-To: billhoope...@gmail.com >>>Subject: [USMA:53968] Rejoining USMA >>> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> >>>Have been away for some time and am now rejoining the USMA list. >>>>Bill >>> >>> >>> >>>----- End message from Bill Hooper <billhoope...@gmail.com> ----- >>>David Pearl www.MetricPioneer.com 503-428-4917 >> >> >> >>----- End message from "Ressel, Howard R (DOT)" <howard.res...@dot.ny.gov> >>----- >> >> >>David Pearl www.MetricPioneer.com 503-428-4917 > > >
