If I had any doubts about Eddie/Andy's not being able to digest simple declarative statements, he has pretty much erased them. In two emails he asks me why I "don't ask my lawyer." Apparently, having "consulted my lawyer" does NOT mean I have "consulted my lawyer" in his fantasy world. I posted yesterday: "AMs will pull out all stops if metric mandates try to force them to cease the use of colloquial units." Marcus writes: > Just a point of order here to clarify that the last > suggestion that was being vehicled here said NOTHING > about "*forcing* people to *cease* the use of > colloquial units"! What was being said is that the > government would cease to support colloquial units > definitions! I disagree. You are combining what were originally two different topics: mandates either prohibiting colloquial units or requiring any that are used to be in smaller type, and the issue of undefining colloquial units. I stand by my statement: what is happening in England will happen to a MUCH greater degree in the US, IF we have some kind of legislation trying to stop the use of colloquial units. As to the other issues Marcus addresses, I can only say we have to disagree. It is clear to me there is plenty of legal precedent to fight metric-only mandates. Apparently it is not clear to Marcus and possible others. Marcus does make one statement I will comment on: > In any case, since there can't be contradiction in the > constitutional texts, it stands to reason that there > would be very few possible interpretations that could > harmonize those 2 amendments that have been discussed > here. I think you need to validate your premise here. Since when can't there be a contradiction in constitutional texts? Were the authors infallible? Did they foresee (or even attempt to foresee) every instance where rights would conflict? Jim Elwell
