Eddie Lechat wrote:
> So...
> we hope that Congress will mandate metrication
> but for any member of Congress who says that he
> wants metrication to be a purely "voluntary"
> thing, we are satisfied with that. Is this
> the message from Reid and Potts and Elwell?
There is no single message from Joe Reid, Bill Potts and Jim Elwell. Each of
us expresses his own views.
How many times do I have to say that I disagree with Jim on this point? How
many times do I have to say that my respect for Jim in any way moderates my
disagreement with him on this point? Like me, Joe favors directed
metrication, as opposed to the voluntary kind Jim favors. Joe is, of course,
perfectly capable of speaking for himself and will, no doubt, continue to do
so.
> So, in other words, nobody in Congress needs
> to sweat things. They can keep us happy through
> supporting "voluntary" metrication, whatever
> that might be, and they can make everyone else
> happy through refusing to vote for metric. Right?
Wrong! Please don't put words into people's mouths. That's simply
counterproductive.
> If a member of Congress were to drop in and visit
> our board, would the member be able to figure out
> what we even want?
Who knows? You're getting back into hypotheticals again. If that did happen,
and if that hypothetical congressperson stayed a list member for long enough
to get a true reading, I suspect s/he would get the impression that we want
the Government to take a strong leadership position (including regulations)
on SI.
However, I don't think any of us is depending on drop-ins when it comes to
making the larger case.
Bill Potts, CMS
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
