Dear Marcus,
Well done. That is a superb letter.
--
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
CAMS - Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist
- United States Metric Association
ASM - Accredited Speaking Member
- National Speakers Association of Australia
Member, International Federation for Professional Speakers
on 2001/05/15 06.02, Ma Be at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2001 10:23:23
> Gregory Peterson wrote:
>> A recent letter sent to me by a retired couple in Canada.
>>
>> greg
>>
> Thanks, Greg, for sharing this with us. However, I'd like to also share a
> response to this couple as below - after '**', if you will please. Thanks.
> (observations in parentheses are not "part" of my answer, they are aside
> statements addressed to the list)
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> Thank you for bringing to my attention, your efforts to have metric
> conversion mandatory, I had no idea there was a movement on in this regard.
>
> My husband and I are seniors and have a difficult time converting
> to metric measures. We have picked up a little, by osmosis over
> time.
>
> ** Dear Ma'am,
>
> While we do sympathize with you concerning your troubles with metric, we
> honestly and sincerely find it quite difficult to believe that *anyone*
> actually would have as much difficulty with adjusting to metric measures as
> you've indicated your case might be. However, by the tone of your answer we
> probably know why this appears to be so in your particular case.
>
> You talk about "converting" to metric measures most probably meaning that you
> may have been trying to learn metric all these years by "converting" metric
> measures back to "familiar territory". That's perhaps the source of the
> problem right there! Our experience shows, and is corroborated by results,
> that by and large one of the major difficulties for people to adjust,
> *regardless of age*, is the fact that they keep trying to relate to metric
> measurements based on their familiar frames of reference. Most experts on
> this issue firmly believe that this is arguably the single biggest barrier for
> people to "switch" - or accept change, and one of the major causes for people
> to reject the metric system altogether. Ma'am, such efforts and manner to
> deal with this issue can be easily shown to actually be quite
> counterproductive and thus are NOT recommended. Please allow us to show this
> to you by a simple metaphorical association.
>
> The above, trying to learn metric based on conversions to imperial units, is
> akin to someone learning a language by translating words, sentences,
> expressions in the new language back to our familiar English all the time
> while "practicing" the new tongue. It's a well-known fact now that such
> tactics to learn a new language simply does NOT work and is never taught by
> any reputable language teacher anymore nowadays. The proper way of learning a
> new tongue is to *create a new mindset*! The same goes for learning metric.
> While a system of units is not in the domain of arts, but science, it does
> have elements of its being a "language" as far as learning is concerned, which
> makes this example a proper one to use to draw the point home.
>
> Therefore, please allow us to recommend that you change your approach to
> learning the SI system - actually this is the official name for the modern
> metric system - by adopting the tried-tested-and-trued methodology of creating
> a new mindset. We're very confident that if you and your husband do it this
> way you will certainly find no trouble whatsoever learning this new...
> "skill", and again we repeat, *regardless of your age and personal abilities*.
> If people could learn imperial at school successfully, and this appears to be
> your case, then we have no reason to believe why you wouldn't be able to also
> with regards to learning metric. Our experience shows that the majority of
> those who do it this way ends up actually claiming how easy and better it is
> to operate in metric as compared to imperial. Evidently, provided they keep
> an open mind about it and do not allow themselves to be influenced by
> preconceived ideas! **
>
> If metric was arbitrarily shoved down our throats with mandatory
> laws, we would find it very difficult indeed. I realize the children
> of today find metric measure relatively easy since they were taught
> that system in school, we were taught imperial measures.
>
> ** At this point, please allow us to reinforce and clarify your use of "easy"
> above. Children do not find metric 'relatively easy' BECAUSE they are taught
> 'that system in school', they actually do so because the SI system ITSELF is
> actually undeniably easy to learn. How can one not agree with this when
> metric is, among many other things,
>
> 1) coherent - one unit ONLY per physical quantity, like the meter for length,
> watt for power, joule for energy, etc. No need for several different units
> depending on size and application, like the inch, foot, yard, mile, fathom,
> furlongs, etc... And here an observation is in order. A kilometer, a
> centimeter, a millimeter, and the likes are *actually* STILL the meter! Just
> like cents in our currency are STILL dollars!!! The use of prefixes is only
> meant to cut down on zeros and decimal points so as to facilitate the
> reporting and manipulation of the value of the measurement. By the way, isn't
> this how they do it also in the computer industry? And we would respectfully
> ask you, what would you rather work with:
> '1 000 000 000 bytes', or simply '1 gigabyte'? Besides, don't we already have
> similar expressions in our currency, such as 'megabucks', and the likes?
>
> 2) requires no conversion factors whatsoever
>
> 3) is a pure decimal system - no clumsy, complicated fractions to deal with
>
> 4) internationally used and understood all around this planet of ours
>
> 5) supported by ALL governments, industries, and scientific community around
> the world
>
> 6) being a simpler system it would render operations much less susceptible to
> potentially costly mistakes
>
> 7) being a simpler system it requires much less time and effort for
> mathematical manipulations and learning
>
> And here another observation is in order, a one that perhaps you may not be
> aware of, that the SI system is even used to define imperial measurements
> themselves! I.e. imperial measurements no longer exist *by themselves*,
> alone, as they are ALL defined in terms of metric standards. In other words,
> what is an inch, for example? It is *defined* AS 0.0254 meters! So, alas, if
> even the imperial units themselves are defined as some metric values, why not
> use the real thing, the metric units themselves directly?! If measuring
> instruments are all calibrated against metric standards why not use such
> standards directly? **
>
> Why the
> hurry, give us time to absorb this. You only have to wait another
> 20 years or so and all of us that were taught the imperial measure
> will be long gone, and you can have your way.
>
> ** Ma'am, there are at least two difficulties with the above. First, that it
> can be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that people *can* learn metric
> in as little as 15 minutes and become completely familiar with it with just a
> few days' practice, if done properly. Second, why should progress be halted
> and/or delayed unnecessarily, when, as we claimed above, it does not
> necessarily have to be that way?
>
> Please, understand that this is not a matter of 'having our way', as you put
> it, versus 'your way', but a matter of providing society with the tools they
> need to continue fostering and bringing prosperity and more progress to all
> society by making things more efficient, simpler and easier to do. People
> have more important things to do in life than to have to spend the additional
> unnecessary extra time and resources it requires to continue operating in an
> 'imperial' environment - there will be more on this below. **
>
> We feel, I suppose, the opposite to your views. Did we really need
> to convert to metric at all? Going back to imperial now, would
> be as costly as metric was to bring in, I am not suggesting that.
>
> ** And we would like to answer your question above, by unequivocally saying,
> yes, we DID need to 'convert to metric' after all. Why? There are just too
> many reasons for it, but let us provide you with the most important one.
>
> Economics! Yes, unlike many would have you believe it, it does cost *more* to
> operate in imperial *in the long run* than to do so in metric. Many would say
> that with the advent of computers and technology this requirement has largely
> been mitigated. However, nothing could be farther from the truth. Why?
> Because people still require to do *extensive manual* manipulations here and
> there, and we're not talking about ordinary citizens, only, but mostly those
> that are required to use the system the most, industry workers in general.
> Technology will never offer effective means for people to avoid this - manual
> manipulations - unfortunately. It suffices for one to visit a construction
> site to witness for him or herself what we mean.
>
> And since labor is usually one of the largest cost factors in any business
> enterprise anywhere, it should not be difficult to conclude how important it
> would be for them to use a tool that would save them time in the job, wouldn't
> you say? Therefore, is it any surprise, really, that the overwhelming
> majority of countries around the world decided to go about this via imposing
> legislation to that effect - as much as nearly all of us 'hate' to 'be told'
> what to do? **
>
> In our country we cannot afford to change major business practices
> at this time in our history. The U.S. realized the tremendous cost
> to converting to metric measure and backed out of the agreement.
>
> ** Actually, Ma'am, it's the other way around! *No* country can afford NOT to
> change 'major business practices' into metric. It's not that the US 'realized
> the tremendous cost to converting to metric measure' that has been the
> problem, but rather the misguided opposition by some members of society who,
> while perhaps as sincerely and honestly as they might be, have unfortunately
> missed the actual tremendous benefits it would entail society to switch and
> decided to do any and every thing, at any cost, to stop progress in that
> direction!!!
>
> While it may be true that there could be large *initial* investments in such
> undertaking, they can, first, largely be mitigated by proper strategic plans
> of action, such as making the change during regular maintenance schedules in
> some cases, for instance, and, second, they would be largely compensated by
> the long run benefits of running a business in a much more efficient
> environment.
>
> In brief, it goes like this, one spends, say, a million dollars to switch,
> while one would be saving, say, 50, 100 thousand *every year* as a result of
> having adopted a better system. It shouldn't be too difficult to see that in
> the end one would be ahead in this game after all after just a few years!
>
> At this point you may be thinking, well, if this is actually so why aren't we
> seeing more businesses switching and even witnessing some going back in the
> other direction? And the answer is, because of the high risk of the loss of
> market share, as this would place businesses on unequal footing with the
> others *marketwise*. That's when governments are called in and asked to step
> in, not with the intention to 'shove something down your throat', as you put
> it, but to remove the obstacles for a successful transition to a better system
> *for everybody*.
>
> You see, there is always a very high risk for doing things differently,
> uniquely, if the environment overwhelmingly does not. Therefore, what happens
> is that businesses are missing out on the opportunity to do better and prosper
> more by being forced by the environment to operate inefficiently, and since
> everybody would likewise be losing, too, the status quo remains and nobody
> loses!
> However, this will ultimately hurt us as a country, the more world markets
> integrate themselves via a process we call globalization. Why? Because there
> are foreign companies who don't have this "compromise" with imperial
> measurements we insist on having and, believe us, will definitely cash in on
> this comparative advantage and may ultimately be the winners in this 'war'.
> So, do we honestly want to give *them* this advantage? Wouldn't it be better
> if *we* could also enjoy the same benefits they already do? **
>
> It has cost our country billions of dollars to convert to metric
> measure with no obvious business advantage, that I can see.
>
> ** Usually such advantages are indeed not as easily visualized, but, trust us,
> people in the business community do know! We just wish they'd be more
> forthcoming to share more with the public the news of such 'advantages'. **
>
> Most
> of our export is to the U.S. with added cost to every adjustment
> to imperial measure. Every increase in cost eventually rolls down
> the line to the consumers. We are pensioners and are very aware
> of the affects of increased prices shrinking our pension.
>
> ** However, please don't blame metric for that! If, anything, it's sticking
> to an inefficient system that is costing us more *in the long run*, and this
> *despite an environment that may be overwhelmingly imperial*!
>
> By the way, you may not be aware of the fact that according to some reliable
> sources, almost 40% of the entire American industrial park has already
> metricated! And here, please allow us to present two contrasting but
> convincing examples to you.
>
> First, the more 'visual' one. The pharmaceutical and medical industries are
> metric - even in the US! Have you already noticed that? When you buy
> medicine you buy it in milligrams, grams, micrograms and the likes. If you
> watch the ER show, an *American* production, all you hear is hospital staff
> personnel using kilograms, grams, liters, etc, don't you? If YOUR life were
> at stake would you want it to depend on someone doing the right conversion of
> units? For instance, figuring out how much medication to dispense, or how
> much to cut during surgery, etc, if one were to grapple with pounds, ounces,
> pints, gallons, liquid ounces, drams, inches, feet, and the likes. We should
> be very thankful that this industry has already metricated - and long time ago
> we should add, wouldn't you say?...
>
> The second example is a 'hidden' one: the automotive industry. Many Americans
> are led to believe that car manufacturers design vehicles in imperial
> measurements, since a lot of things come to the public level still in imperial
> terms. However, it would suffice a visit to an American car factory or to
> talk to a mechanic to see that the picture is rather different. True, there
> may be some portions of a car that give the impression that they remain
> imperial, like tires, torque, power rating, etc. However, these are either
> not fundamentally part of the design process of a vehicle or are simply
> 'dumbed down' for public consumption. Therefore, there is no 'harm' per se if
> they remained so *as far as the public is concerned* for the time being! And
> thus the public gets 'deceived' into believing that nothing has changed there.
> **
>
> I doubt you will agree with anything I have written, however, thank
> you for bringing it to our attention, I shall oppose the mandatory
> time frame you are suggesting, by writing to the appropriate powers
> that be. I vehemently oppose your suggested action. I will also
> be writing to Jim Melenchuk to support his actions, or lack of action from
> your point of view.
>
> ** And we honestly hope and pray that after reading the above you will decide
> not to. Here goes our personal request to you. Please do not place
> yourselves in the opposite side of the equation. Please consider what we have
> shared with you above, and let progress take its course. Think of the world
> and heritage you would be leaving to your children. Is it really worth
> keeping and fighting for something that is more and more a reality of a
> sophisticated highly technological society we are living in.
>
> You made a plea in the beginning of your letter to 'give us more time to
> absorb this'. However, our response to you is that you actually don't need
> that much extra time. All you'd need is to take a second look at this issue
> and ponder over what's been presented to you here, and try it again. Perhaps
> it would also help if you talked to people with metric backgrounds and get an
> assessment from them about how they feel about it. Having a perspective from
> someone who's 'on the other side of the fence' should certainly greatly help
> increase your understanding and appreciation of this issue from where we're
> coming from. We're absolutely convinced that you will find nearly only one
> position from them, that it's really worth adopting metric *for ourselves*.
>
> The SI system, unlike many would want you to believe, has been created from
> the ground up as a user-friendly system. It's a system where it's the users
> who are actually the ones who benefit the most. Many charge that metric is
> 'unnatural', 'unmanly', and things like that, yet they fail to disclose that
> ALL metric underpinnings come from nature and are based on easily grasped
> concepts. Like, water freezes at 0, boils at 100 degrees Celsius, the meter
> is defined in terms of the speed of light, and we could go on and on and on.
> But the truth of the matter is, it's been one of the biggest breakthroughs in
> the history of mankind, as scientists *around the world* could finally come up
> with a system that could finally withstand the test of time and could serve
> well generations and generations to come.
>
> Therefore, *we*, in turn, would like to place a request before you and your
> husband, Ma'am: please join *us* in this quest to make this country an even
> better one to live in, and support our plan for a more modern, progressive
> Canada. Please, let progress take its course, if not only for the benefit of
> our children and next generations. We're convinced you won't regret it if you
> did so.
>
> Best and warm regards, **
>
> (Well... I don't honestly know the background of how this took place.
> Perhaps this was a result of a couple of old folks visiting Greg's site or
> something. Whatever it is, we should perhaps investigate more to find out who
> this individual they mentioned is. Hopefully we can undo any potential damage
> this couple's contact might already have been made
>
> Marcus)
>
>
> Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
> http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
>
