John,
My intentions had been to do a follow-up survey a few months ago and
then things took a turn at the campus, opening up an opportunity I had
to take advantage of. After that, I was well into full time teaching. My
apologies to you and the others for not having done the follow-up survey
when I had hoped to. I will get to it as soon as I can.
This project is a few steps beyond being simple. The intial survey took
a few weeks for Lorelle Young and me to develop, honing our approach and
letters, not to mention the weeks of follow-up phone calls and faxes.
This next step will be more complicated because the letters will have to
be tailored to individual states based on the specifics of their replies
on the survey 15 months ago. I just cannot do it on a weekend.
Since I have the original replies (Lorelle has copies) I cannot just
"farm it out". Many of the offices and I have the history of previous
conversations in which to couch our new discussions. I'm certain that
Lorelle is quite busy too.
In the meantime, the NCWM minutes have come out with new names for some
people and also their site has shown marginal movement if any in the
states which have not adopted the UPLR amendment. I feel confident in
telling you that we are not about to find that all but a few states to
have adopted the amendment. Rather, we are most likely to find that only
a little change has been made. Cold approaches by others here to those
state officials would not help the problem, in my opinion.
The bigger issue, in my mind, is the FPLR amendment. That will do more
than anything I can think of to "tip" the remaining states into UPLR
amendment adoption. So, if you want to do something proactive, write to
your congressmen and women. Email at the Capitol has grown to such a
volume that it is virtually ignored. Invest in the 34 cent stamp
approach. Write to business organization such as Chambers of Commerce.
Write to bureaucrats in the Department of Commerce, etc. Push them to
push for FPLR amendment.
Jim
kilopascal wrote:
>
> 2001-04-05
>
> Any time I bring up the subject on this list, not one person responds. Not
> even a comment. One would think this was an important enough issue to
> follow-up on. We need to know what is happening in the states that didn't
> automatically adopt the UPLR.
>
> Come on guys. do we have to wait until 2009 to get an answer?
>
> John
>
> Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt
> frei zu sein.
>
> There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they
> are free!
>
> Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, 2001-04-05 15:22
> Subject: [USMA:12043] Re: TABD and a request about an off topic subject
>
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Easy solution. The US needs to allow for metric only labelling. Since
> the US is clearly in the minority (a minority of one to be exact) then the
> US adoption of metric only labelling is the clear solution to the increased
> costs of dual packaging. As metric only labelling appears to be the trend I
> don't see where the 2009-12-31 deadline should be a problem for US
> companies... unless of course they ignore the metric labelling issue until
> 2009-12-30<
> >
> > Which is precisely why I am troubled that I am hearing nothing so far on
> this list or from officials in the USMA about concrete plans to identify and
> lobby key resources in Congress to pursue this amendment to the FPLA. It is
> likely the single most important short-term goal this organization can have.
> If it fails to do this, I would be very concerned about the usefulness of
> the organization in contributing in a meaningfully significant way to the
> metrication of the United States.
> >
> > Ezra
> >
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
