"You always end with a jade's trick. I know you of old."
Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing" Act 1 Scene 1
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Potts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 9:16 AM
Subject: [USMA:12652] Re: Bill Roland again
> Darrick:
>
> The old saying, "Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs," comes to mind
> here.
>
> However, I have no more to say to you, other than that most members of
this
> list seem to have no problem with my postings or with my own considerable
> efforts in advancing the case for metrication (again, see
> http://metric1.org!).
>
> Goodbye, Darrick. I intend to ignore all your future postings.
>
> Bill Potts, CMS
> Roseville, CA
> http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > Behalf Of Darrick Priest
> > Sent: May 05, 2001 09:03
> > To: U.S. Metric Association
> > Subject: [USMA:12651] Re: Bill Roland again
> >
> >
> > My friend Bill,
> >
> > By definition, an ad hominem is an "attack" about a person's character
or
> > background, personality, and reason that, since this hypothetical
> > person is
> > dubious in character, others shouldn't give credence to this person's
> > argument. There is one caveat: the ad hominems fallacy can be
justifiable
> > if a person's character is the topic being argued. I don't have to
attack
> > your character, Bill; you do a good enough job with some of the
> > e-mails you'
> > ve written. On the other hand, a straw man fallacy is committed when a
> > person misrepresents the argument or theory of another person and then,
on
> > the basis of his or her misrepresentation, purports to refute the real
> > argument or theory. Therefore, if you want to label a fallacy on my
last
> > missive then, if anything, you should have accused me of a straw
> > man; but I
> > wouldn't expect you to know the difference between these extremely
> > fundamental fallacies. (Now, that's a very good example of an ad
hominem).
> >
> > My friend just because one receives what could be construed as an
> > automated
> > response to a "Thank you" for supporting the metric system, doesn't mean
> > that the effort was "pointless." Whether we (people like me who take
the
> > time to call and e-mail said companies) communicate with a marketing
> > representative via e-mail or telephone doesn't mean that we've spoken to
> > someone so low on the rung of importance-I think you labeled him or her
as
> > "BOTTOM"-that our message never reaches the upper rungs of said
companies.
> > I've spoken to several companies, economic professors, and family
members,
> > who live and breathe marketing and showed them your argument.
> > They have all
> > vehemently disagreed with you-vehemently, Bill. I don't know
> > what your past
> > experiences have been with telemarketing representatives, but if some of
> > your experiences are to your dissatisfaction then you must avoid
> > the fallacy
> > of Hasty Inductive Generalization. A hasty generalization is
> > when a person
> > generalizes from a single anecdote or experience, or from a sample that
is
> > too small or too unrepresentative to support a conclusion.
> > Without knowing
> > which companies you've taken the time to call and/or write, I'm unable
to
> > unequivocally say that you have committed a hasty generalization; in
> > addition, after reading everything that you've written over the past
four
> > months, I have yet to read one single anecdote that you have
> > actually called
> > or wrote a company, which labels their product with a metric
measurement,
> > with a "Thank you."
> >
> > One more thing regarding ad hominems: Equating a telemarketer
> > with the word
> > "BOTTOM" coupled with a tacitly denigrating phrase of "their
> > only job is to
> > send out canned replies," is not only inflammatory but also belies my
> > argument that we should continue to call, write, and e-mail companies
that
> > have taken the effort to label their product with a metric
> > measurement-even
> > C and H Sugar.
> >
> > Your fellow metric friend,
> >
> > Darrick Priest
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Bill Potts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 9:47 PM
> > Subject: [USMA:12643] Re: Bill Roland again
> >
> >
> > > Darrick:
> > >
> > > You have just provided yourself with a perfect example (your
> > own) of what
> > > argumentum ad hominem actually is.
> > >
> > > Never have I suggested that it's a waste of time to thank companies
for
> > > going metric. I have, however, suggested that it's waste of
> > time to send
> > > messages to the people at the BOTTOM of an organization AFTER it has
> > become
> > > evident that their only job is to send out canned replies. Such
messages
> > > don't reach those who make the decisions.
> > >
> > > I guess you missed my message (USMA:12401) about writing, via ordinary
> > mail,
> > > to the president and/or vice president of marketing of such companies.
> > >
> > > I will decide what I think, Darrick. And I'll thank you not to put
words
> > in
> > > my mouth or presume, in even the remotest way, to know what my
thoughts
> > are.
> > > You are quite obviously quite inept when it comes to reading minds.
And
> > you
> > > just as obviously know nothing whatsoever about me.
> > >
> > > Bill Potts, CMS
> > > Roseville, CA
> > > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > > > Behalf Of Darrick Priest
> > > > Sent: May 04, 2001 19:39
> > > > To: U.S. Metric Association
> > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: [USMA:12642] Re: Bill Roland again
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ..and Bill Potts thinks that it's a waste of time to thank companies
> > that
> > > > are supporting the metric system with metric first or metric only
> > labels.
> > > > Do you now understand, Bill, why it's important! There are
> > > > people out there
> > > > who would love to undo all the work the USMA has accomplished.
> > > >
> > > > Hey Bill! Go to you bathroom and kitchen right now, take
> > note of metric
> > > > first and/or metric only labels, and countermand this other
> > Bill with a
> > > > "Thank you" to all those companies that are actually doing what
> > > > we want and
> > > > have asked them to do.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: kilopascal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 3:32 PM
> > > > Subject: [USMA:12638] Re: Bill Roland again
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 2001-05-03 10:53
> > > > > Subject: [USMA:12608] Bill Roland again
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I got this from the BWMA Battle Boards.
> > > > > > Han
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Difference in distance measurements
> > > > > > April 28 2001 at 11:45 PM Bill Roland
> > > > > >
> > > > > Liters are also nowhere to be found in the gasoline industry,
> > > > all fuel is
> > > > > in gallons. I
> > > > > > have suggested to Coca-Cola that they convert the liter bottle
to
> > > > quarts,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > haven't heard back. I think it would be in Coke's best interest
to
> > do
> > > > > something
> > > > > > different than Pepsi, it would certainly get them more
publicity.
> > > > Anyway,
> > > > > > that's all I've got for now. If you ever have any questions for
an
> > > > > American,
> > > > > > send me an e-mail. Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bill Roland
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Respond to this message
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Author Reply
> > > > > > BWMA
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Soft drinks downsizing May 2 2001, 5:56 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bill,
> > > > >
> > > > > > With reference to Coca Cola and Pepsi, you might want to
> > look at the
> > > > Great
> > > > > > Metric Rip-Off page. There is a photograph of a US 12
> > floz Pepsi can
> > > > > alongside
> > > > > > a metric 330ml can. Needless to say, the metric can is
> > > > smaller. American
> > > > > > consumers need to be made aware that metric conversion
> > will lead to
> > > > > smaller
> > > > > > quantities being sold for the same price as it has in
> > > > Britain, so be on
> > > > > your
> > > > > > guard against metric downsizing by Pepsi and Cola.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Something is very nonsensical here. This Bill, wants coke
> > to DOWNSIZE
> > > > from
> > > > > a litre size to a quart size (946 mL). But, the BWMA response
makes
> > no
> > > > > mention of that bit of rip-off. But, when a metric product is
> > > > down-sized,
> > > > > it is a grievous sin. No wonder the governments and
> > industries ignore
> > > > them.
> > > > > They speak with forked tongue.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, note that the BWMA is using the AMERICAN dating methods.
> > > > Seems they
> > > > > only scream about cultural destruction when and where it suits
them.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
