Yes he is! Don't worry, Eddie: I went several rounds with Bill and the
best he could do was to coward out. Common Bill, tell us more metaphors of
your egg-sucking grandmother.
----- Original Message -----
From: eddie lechat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 9:54 PM
Subject: [USMA:13093] Re: Pulling Together (was Jim Elwell on wrong list)
> Andy announced a few days back that he was deleting
> himself.
>
> Gently, gently, because I don't want Reid and Potts to
> start pounding on me as they pounded on Andy, I would
> like to ask:
>
> Isn't Andy correct when he says that the Constitution
> allows Congress to order metrication?
>
> And isn't Andy correct that this is obviously the goal
> we all share in common?
>
> And isn't Andy correct in claiming that if we were to
> believe Jim Elwell on the subject of Congressional
> action (that it is unconstitutional and, if
> constitutional, that it is undesirable) then we might
> as well fold up and abolish our efforts at
> metrication?
>
> As for me, because of Andy's efforts, I am for
> metrication. He helped to change my mind on it.
>
> However, I want to help only if our goal is clear, a
> goal of getting Congress to act sometime in the next
> 10 years.
>
> If we do not have such a goal,
> if we do not hope for Congress to act,
> or if we agree with Jim Elwell,
> or if we hope for metric in 80 years,
> then I want to bail out.
>
> I want to help win this fight if we are at least
> TRYING to win sometime soon.
>
> It is OK with me if we fail, but I want to be part of
> the effort if we are at least TRYING to win.
>
> I have talked with Andy about trying to get Rotary of
> Jaycees or some group to take on the goal of federal
> legislation as a one year national priority.
>
> But is this group in agreement with Jim Elwell that
> you do not even want such legislation?
> --- Darrick Priest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > 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/
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
>
