Jim:
You say that legislation is not necessarily the only
way to achieve the goal of U.S. metrication. I'd say
that this is a ridiculous comment. What other way do
you have in mind? God coming to town and giving
orders? An armed revolution? Of course the only way is
a government mandate. I think this is exactly why Andy
stomped off in a huff. He wants no part of folks
pretending to be for metrication while not being sure
about advocating government action. I feel as he does,
exactly, only I hope to bring you guys to seeing
clearly what you stand for. As for Andy, he has made
his decision. He believes that this group is made up
of folks who would prefer allowing Elwell to call them
losers rather than standing up to him and declaring
yourselves not to be losers.
--- "James R. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You have a non-sequitur here, Eddie. Metrication of
> the U.S. is a goal.
> A government mandate (via legislation or otherwise)
> is one means of
> obtaining that goal. It does not follow that this is
> the only means by
> which to obtain that goal.
>
> Personally, I'm in favor of government mandated
> metrication because I
> think the transition would be quicker and,
> hopefully, better organized.
> This would, I believe, benefit and help protect
> smaller businesses who
> are liable to suffer more from a protracted process.
>
> However, I recognize that Jim Elwell has well
> thought out reasons for
> his opinions and I respect that. Since his goal is
> the same as mine and
> since voluntary metrication and directed metrication
> are not in
> conflict, there is plenty of room on this list for
> both of us. I
> especially admire Jim for the excellent job he has
> done in metricating
> his company, teaching many people to become
> metrically proficient (to
> the point that many of them became Certified
> Metrication Specialists),
> and for his generosity in donating metric rulers to
> classrooms and
> teachers, myself included. Jim has put his money
> where his mouth is and
> has posted some excellent comments here as well.
>
> Alarm bells go off in my head when I hear people
> demand 100 % agreement
> with their views and they refuse to tolerate
> divergence of
> opinion--especially when that results in their rude
> treatment of those
> holding different views. Jim Elwell has my respect
> for remaining a
> gentleman while being castigated so vilely on this
> list. Likewise, Bill
> Potts, who had the courage to speak up in support of
> Jim's right to
> express his views here and who received nothing but
> guff in return.
> Bill, too, has contributed much to the cause with
> his SI Navigator web
> site and his excellent postings here.
>
> Let's try to be more ecumnical and tolerant on this
> list. That is what
> we Americans would like to think we stand for.
>
> Jim Frysinger
>
> eddie lechat wrote:
> >
> > Jim, I don't want this to be some personal fight,
> but,
> > seriously, I do not think it is consistent to
> claim to
> > be for metric and to also claim not to be in favor
> of
> > using the government to force metric.
> ....
> --
> 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
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
