I agree. It is time for action! I am tired of only being able to stand at
the sidelines and wring my hands. We need to establish a pro-metric
political action committee (PAC) that has the freedom to lobby politicians.
SI-PAC would ideally have members and funding from US-based multinational
corporations (Procter & Gamble?) and foreign corporations who trade with the
US.
Jason
----- Original Message -----
From: kilopascal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 2:29 PM
Subject: [USMA:15014] Re: States reversion to English -Reply
> 2001-08-27
>
> Marcus,
>
> You're not serious, are you? Why would any "true-blooded" American do
> anything as unpatriotic as support metric. Why does the US need to
change,
> especially now, when American firms are able with no resistance to push
FFU
> in to Canada, and more so, in to Mexico, Venezuela, and soon the entire
new
> world. And who knows where else after that?
>
> I'll bet the same people working on the "reversal", are the same ones
> working tirelessly trying to get the FPLA amended in time for the EU
> deadline of 2009. OH, yes, 14 states allow metric labeling......big
> whipty-do! How many companies are supplying metric only for those states
> and dual labels for the rest? A tease, that is all it is. They tease us
> with some trivial concession and we think victory is around the corner.
>
> WAKE UP FOLKS! While we are waiting for change, American business is
> working its hardest to establish FFU everywhere it can. By 2009 FFU may
> well be so far established, that it will be impossible to reverse it or
> limit it.
>
> While we are talking, the FFU camp is fighting. By 2010, we will know who
> the winner is.
>
> John
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, 2001-08-27 18:08
> Subject: [USMA:15013] Re: States reversion to English -Reply
>
>
> > Thanks, Howard, for this "gloom" update. Now, *for the n-th time*...,
is
> A-N-Y-B-O-D-Y working in the backstage to stem the tide of reversals. Is
> anyone doing anything about that?
> >
> > We've been talking and talking about this situation with DOTs, and we've
> also discussed the necessity of (especially) metric states to "stand
united"
> or something AND to exercise their power/persuasion/whatever to contribute
> towards the cause, but I'm yet to hear of anything.
> >
> > And what about those that were responsible to bring the metrication
cause
> to the front burner (in the first place) of DOTs, who are they and (most
> importantly) WHERE are they now?... :-S
> >
> > Finally, does USMA have any plans to pitch in and do something about it,
> or will it (as usual...) sit as an observer from the sidelines until the
> reversion process is complete???... (For crying out loud, if there is no
> legislation effort put forth or suggested they could at least use their
> access to influential people within the DOTs to persuade to stop such
> nonsense...)
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:28:47
> > Howard Ressel wrote:
> > >According to my list:
> > >
> > >Connecticut is in the process of reverting to IP, DOT decision (58.7%
> metric as of 1999).
> > >
> > >Montana does appear to be still SI the "Still SI as of 5/30/01 was in
the
> wrong column and I missed it.
> > >
> > >Idaho is in process of reverting to IP, per DOT.
> > >
> > >New Mexico decided to revert on July 2000, State dot decision). They
were
> 45.0% metric in 1999.
> > >
> > >Utah is the most troubling to me being 100% converted and now going
back
> to IP.
> > >
> > >Howard Ressel, Metric Manager
> > >New York State Department of Transportation, Region 4
> > >
> > >>>> "Hu, Alfred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/27/01 02:06pm >>>
> > >I thought Connecticut, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico are all SI.
> > >
> > >alfred
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Howard Ressel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 10:45 AM
> > >To: U.S. Metric Association
> > >Subject: [USMA:15011] States reversion to English
> > >
> > >
> > >Jut got an update on States reversion (or perversion as the case may
be)
> > >back to English. I'm not sure who produced it.
> > >
> > >States Still SI as of 5/30/01:
> > >
> > >Alaska, California, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
> York,
> > >Oregon.
> > >
> > >States still dual as of 5/30/01:
> > >
> > >Delaware, Louisiana, Vermont, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico,
> > >Washington
> > >
> > >Seems to me these dual States are headed back to English even though
they
> > >are not officially SI.
> > >
> > >The rest either never converted, have reverted or are in the reversion
> > >process.
> > >
> > >The sad part is I counted 22 States that revered by orders of the State
> DOT
> > >or their commissioner. Only three were due to "State Legislature"
> although
> > >I'm sure with the others there was significant political pressure which
> is
> > >not apparent in this listing.
> > >
> > >Four States are 100% metric based on 1999 % construction (maybe its
> higher
> > >for other SI states by now.)
> > >
> > >New Jersey (dual), Oregon (SI), New York (SI), Utah (SI but recently
> > >announced reversion).
> > >
> > >Sorry the news is so grim.
> > >
> > >Howard Ressel, Metric Manager
> > >New York State Department of Transportation, Region 4
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
> > http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
> >
>
