On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:42:25 Jim Elwell wrote: ... >>I think that what John meant was that if you do not take a stand in favor >>of metrication you're actually being against it because the status quo >>continues!!! Who or how can anyone argue otherwise? > >This is exactly the point I think is so wrong, and so detrimental to our >efforts. And I find it hard to believe you would adopt this logic, Marcus. >Apply it to any of a jillion other questions: if someone has never heard of >the Christian gospel, and therefore does not actively proselytize it, is he >anti-Christian? Or, as my other email stated: if someone does not speak >French, is he automatically anti-French? > ?? I'm sorry, dear friend, but you seem to still miss the point of my argument. Let me try to restate it differently. If you do NOT move a muscle to even allow a change to take place you ARE in actual fact contributing towards the perpetration of the status quo, that was ALL I was referring to. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with adopting a false 'logic'. In essence, this is what even the Bible defends as a principle, which is stated thus: "If you know you should do good and don't you're actually committing a sin" (the sin of *ommission*!). Surely, I'm not charging that this is a case of sin here, I'm just talking about a very fundamental and simple principle.
In other words, unfortunately *due to the prevailing ifp circumstances* NOT contributing towards a change is actually *in practical terms* taking action (or inaction!...) to preserve what's there, the status quo, i.e. in favor of ifp. I honestly can't see any fault in such... 'logic' (I'm sorry, Jim). Now, please note that this is not the same as with the French example you cited, simply because noone would be trying to Frenchize your *environment*. And, to answer your question above: 'if someone has never heard of the Christian gospel, and therefore does not actively proselytize it, is he anti-Christian?' The answer is obviously no. The key here is your 'never heard of it'!!! I hope the above clarifications will have helped you understand where we're coming from better, Jim. ... >Sorry, Marcus, but I'm going to play a "John" here and accuse you of living >in an ivory tower. Do you have any idea how few people anywhere (not just >in the USA) give much thought to the measurement system they use? It simply >is not that big of deal to most people anywhere in the world! > True, but please note that the context of my observations was referring to those whose professional lives HAVE been impacted by a change of measurements. Hence, my argument was that *as far as THIS point in their lives is concerned*, they should take note and make a judgment about it. >To think that **anything** will get most people active in metrication (or >anti-metrication, for that matter) is just plain naive. Most people are far >more worried about paying their bills, cleaning their house, taking a >vacation, getting laid (sorry!), putting braces on their kid, and a million >other normal life activities. Measurement is just NOT a big part of most >people's lives, and anyone who thinks that will ever change is in for a >huge disappointment. > True, of course, but I was referring to taking a stand *on this issue* one way or another. We don't necessarily need that people start being 'active in metrication', as you put it, but that they do NOT oppose others who may be trying to do that very thing. >And, as noted above, I apply this to the anti-metricationists as well: if >they think they can get a large percentage of the American population >rising up in arms over metrication, they are going to be sorely >disappointed. It ain't going to happen! > And I hope you're right on this one. The last thing we need is for these folks to stir so much controversy as to cause this thing to happen. ... >Marcus, do you never deal with people who have limited education? People to >whom the word "math" sends them into spasms of fear? People with little or >no self-confidence in their own abilities? > Of course I do. But, first things first. I was mostly referring to your experience in bringing metric to your business, to people who would have been taught the SI system, therefore, my assumption was that we were dealing here mostly with the 'educated' part of your employees. Secondly, I don't know how you conducted your metrication project in your company, can one assume that these 'less educated' bunch were at least informed about this? I'll wait for your feedback before I proceed with this any further. But I can advance to you that my point will be that *even these folks* should be helped by telling them that adopting the SI system would be in their own best interests and that it was actually far easier to deal with, etc, etc. >Well, there are a lot of those people in the world, and they hold jobs such >as janitor, assembler, warehouse stock clerk, etc. And the metric system >scares a lot of them, because they think it is hard and it will make them >look stupid. It is a problem I have learned how to deal with to some >degree, but it will not go away as long as it is something they have to >learn as adults. > Granted, but then we need to adopt a separate more effective strategy to deal with these folks. And, honestly? I'd like to believe that we actually could do far better with these guys than with more 'educated' people! Why? Simple, since it's quite easy to demonstrate in simple terms the advantages of the SI system over the old crap they'd probably be more receptive to 'get the message'! More educated people having more 'brains' to waste could probably concoct all sorts of lame arguments not to support the SI. And BTW isn't this *precisely* what we see from the likes of journalists and 'pseudo-scientists' who have the galls to make a stand against the SI??? ;-) ... >Same as above, Marcus: a large part of the population (everywhere in the >world, not just the USA) spends their lives earning a paycheck so they can >go fishing or camping, or buy that new hot rod, or whatever... Please see my earlier comments; I was targetting those that were *directly* affected in their jobs and how they should 'make up their minds' on the subject. ... >I am as proactive as the circumstances call for. I KNOW I cannot get most >people to become active metricationists. If I can get them over their fear, >and get them comfortable with using metric when it appears in their life, >then I will have succeeded. > Fine, than what do you make of your sample stats then? Without wanting this to sound as a criticism I'd say that some important elements of this issue, such as 'getting through to people', seems to have been missed in the exercise. >The portion of society that can really get excited are the engineers, >scientists, academics maybe some in the medical profession (doctors, >nurses, technicians). Do not ever expect proselytizing from the masses -- >it is not in the cards. > Perhaps so, but I'd like to be more upbeat about this, if you please allow me to. Maybe we aren't doing enough to get this guys also on board. Maybe we should be more enthusiastic about extolling the virtues of the SI system *for the masses*, you know. Just a thought... :-) >But that does not have to be discouraging either: metrication will happen >because the people who do not care about it also are not the movers and >shakers who can make things happen. Those who "make things happen" (a far, >far smaller number) are the only ones we need to convert to active >pro-metricationists. > But then what about ifp goons? Why is it that they always seem to be more organized and to get things done while we seem to fail (DOT's, for example...)? What kind of people are they, how would you characterize them? I don't think that these are 'uneducated' bunch! ;-) Therefore, let's not forget those, either. ... >Most electrical measurements have always been metric, but the mechanical >aspects of electronics certainly have not until recently. > >Anyone who goes back to 0.1" spacing on PC boards is loony. Essentially all >new component packages are hard metric. Most new connectors are hard >metric. Pin spacings are now in 1.0 or 0.8 or 0.5 mm. Same goes for ball >grid arrays. Component drawings we get from essentially all non-American >companies, and a number of American companies, no longer have any >colloquial equivalents on them. > >This is all different from just 10 years ago. When we designed our largest >selling product in 1990 (still in production), we had to work hard to find >an appropriate 6-pin metric connector. We selected an import-only 2 mm >connector. Now, 2 mm is very common, and finer pin spacings are almost >exclusively metric. Also, 10 years ago most foreign companies provided >colloquial equivalents on their component drawings -- as noted above, that >is no longer the case. > Thanks for the technological update, much appreciated. >This is not to say that there have been no regressions in this field. I am >sure there have, although none come to mind. Overall, though, it is clear >that electronics manufacturing is metricating. >... Then why is it that we still see so much crap coming from these industries (like wire lengths, specs in ifp, etc)? Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
