2000-11-24
No, I don't feel this way. I'm just relating out of frustration the
feelings of the people I deal with on a daily basis. This is both from past
and present experiences. Most of the times I consider the background of
these people and fluff it off to ignorance. Other times I wish I had a
baseball bat handy when I hear these "anti-everyone else" comments.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Ma Be
Sent: Friday, 2000-11-24 02:30
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:9322] Re: American vs. Foreign
Hmm... I hope you're not speaking as one of those... "Americans",
or that you described how YOU feel. 'Cause if you did I'd
evidently have a loadful to say!... ;-)
Marcus
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 20:50:24 kilopascal wrote:
>2000-11-23
>
>American's don't care what the world thinks. Distrust and resentment are
>seen as jealously by a people who don't have it as good as
Americans do and
>deep inside, really want to live here. Most Americans already
feel the rest
>of the world owes them big time for all the countless times "we"
saved their
>asses from dictators. war, pestilence, and everything else you can name.
>Americans feel that they support the world and get nothing in return. And
>if you are an American and don't agree with the way things are done here,
>you are usually told in so many words, that you should go live somewhere
>else where it is better. That being said in a sarcastic tone as
there is no
>better place on earth than the US of A.
>
>If you are foreign born, you don't dare tell an American that something
>about America is wrong. If you do, you will get a very strongly worded
>suggestion to return to the hell from which you came, and a
comment that if
>your motherland was so great, why did you leave it to come here?
Americans
>are constantly reminding each other of the "millions" who are
dying to come
>here and the countless hundreds of millions who want to come here
but can't.
>Never is a mention of those who want to leave, unless someone did and
>returned because life was unbearable somewhere else. For this reason, you
>will not get much support for metrication from immigrants. They are too
>afraid to make waves, thinking they will be asked forcefully to leave if
>they are unhappy with our ways of measuring.
>
>This attitude is hidden in the word "culture". America resists metric,
>because FFU is part of America's culture. Culture is the politically
>correct term to describe the reason for not adopting a foreign idea. That
>is why the masses don't rally behind metric, and most likely never will.
>
>And, yes, as Rome once fell, so will America. When? No one knows. And,
>I'm sure it won't be in my lifetime either.
>
>
>John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Ma Be
> Sent: Thursday, 2000-11-23 13:09
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:9313] Re: American vs. Foreign
>
>
> Yeah, right... And then afterwards many American folks would...
> "look" surprised when they find out or experience why a
> significant number of people and countries "out there" look at the
> USA with a lot of... distrust/resentment, to say the least! On
> the other hand, history has been proving over and over again what
> kind of result emerges when... "empires" behave in such a
> fashion... Unfortunately though, noone can tell *when* that
> expected... fall would take place... (in any case I don't think it
> will happen in my lifetime...)
>
> Marcus
>
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:04:11 kilopascal wrote:
> >2000-11-23
> >
> >Even though this sounds like a good idea, I doubt the US will
> ever adopt it.
> >For one reason, it is a foreign idea. No matter how flawed an American
> >method might be, it is perceived to be better than anything foreign.
> >Imperial/pre-imperial units are not perceived as foreign. They are the
> >units the founding fathers used. Even if they came over on the
Mayflower,
> >they are still seen as American, because they were used by
Americans from
> >day one. SI is foreign, because it is something we would have to change
> >over to. And worst of all, it was not an American idea.
> >
> >Once a method or system is established in this country it is
very hard to
> >change it. Changing it means it was wrong from the beginning;
that it was
> >flawed. And if one part of an American method is flawed, others
> parts might
> >be too. We would have a domino effect. This country prides
> itself in being
> >consistent and stable for over 200 years. This may sound
arrogant, but I
> >don't think Americans care. They feel superior to all and want
it to stay
> >that way.
> >
> >Being different than everyone else and/or doing things in a
less efficient
> >way is not a concern to most. What is important is that the good
> old US of
> >A sticks out as being the best for all to see and admire.
> >
> >In addition to SI, money is another issue. We mint dollar
coins and print
> >two dollar bills, but they are rarely used. Using them would be
> like saying
> >we were wrong for not having them a long time ago. And arguing in their
> >favor based on the fact that others have them is even more reason
> to reject
> >them. Even when we come up with new money, we don't
immediately pull the
> >old stuff from circulation. We let it gradually wear out.
> Pulling it from
> >circulation before it wears out is like saying American money has
> no value,
> >and that would be a blow to our ego.
> >
> >Nothing must place into doubt who and what America is. America
may not be
> >perfect, but pretty damn close to it.
> >
> >So, as you see change is an uphill battle.
> >
> >John
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > Behalf Of Bill Potts
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2000-11-21 02:14
> > To: U.S. Metric Association
> > Subject: [USMA:9281] Re: US metric and integers -- OFF TOPIC
> >
> >
> > A helluva good idea, Joe.
> >
> > Maybe the current fiasco will lead to some revisions in that direction,
> > although it might possibly require a Constitutional Amendment. (I
> > don't have
> > time to read through it at the moment, so I don't know for sure.)
> >
> > Bill Potts, CMS
> > San Jose, CA
> > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > > Behalf Of Joseph B. Reid
> > > Sent: November 20, 2000 17:54
> > > To: U.S. Metric Association
> > > Subject: [USMA:9276] Re: US metric and integers
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill Potts wrote in USMA 9272:
> > >
> > > >Scott Clauss wrote:
> > > >> I suspect this is why other countries have run off elections.
> > > >
> > > >Which is really the only fair way to deal with a mere plurality.
> > > That way,
> > > >there is no such thing as a spoiler.
> > > >
> > > >If run-offs were the normal practice here, Nader could have
got his 5%
> > > >without affecting the outcome for the other two.
> > >
> > >
> > > I might add that the same result would be obtained in one
> election using
> > > the Australian system of single transferable vote, in which the
> > > voter marks
> > > his preferences by 1, 2, 3, etc. It was introduced in
> Queensland in the
> > > 19th century and is now used in all electios throughout
> Australia to the
> > > lower houses of parliament.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
>
>
>
Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
