Hey Andy, Bill is incapable of answering an argument without injecting some sort of sardonic comment. Hang in there, my friend. You are absolutely correct. ----- Original Message ----- From: Andy Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:54 AM Subject: [USMA:12972] Re: Pulling Together (was Jim Elwell on wrong list) > Bill: > Your snottiness is unwaranted. > > The man posted a lecture here, which, if true, or > which, if believed by people here, would render > useless our entire effort. > > I see no point in anything else in this forum until we > are first clear that yes, of course, Elwell is nuts, > and yes, of course, the Constitution does allow for > Congress to mandate metrication. > > For me to call attention to the absurdity of his > comments generates sarcasm and insults. > > If I am wrong, show me. > > If I am right, join me. > > But I cannot leave it that Elwell is free to give > bogus lectures that the Constitution prohibits our > activities and yet I am a trouble-maker to demand some > effort at correction. > > Rather than just insulting me again and again, why not > answer the questions, on point! > > 1. Do you think he is correct in telling us that the > Constitution prohibits Congress from mandating > metrication, yes or no? > > @. Assuming your answer is yes, then do you support > efforts (which Elwell says are wrong, unethical, > unpatriotic, un-American, etc.) to persuade Congress > to mandate metrication? > > Andy Johnson > > Really, rather than insulting me again and again, > these are simple direct questions. Why not just answer > the questions?! > --- Bill Potts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Andy Johnson wrote: > > > Why is it OK with you for Elwell to post a totally > > > untrue lecture about Congress not having > > Constitutional > > > power to mandate metrication? > > > > Maybe because I have the good sense not to try to > > change someone's mind > > about something that is totally irrelevant to our > > goals. > > > > Jim shares our goals and has amply demonstrated that > > -- over and over again. > > That he differs regarding one (and only one) of the > > means to achieve our > > goals is not something about which I'm going to get > > my knickers in a twist. > > > > As I think this whole dialog is becoming ridiculous, > > this will be my last > > word to you on the matter. > > > > Jim is not the enemy. > > > > Bill Potts, CMS > > Roseville, CA > > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > >
