John,

I have deleted the 'boycott' sentence, included the FPLA issue and pointed
at the cluttering of labels which FFU units cause. The placement of units
was already part of the original message. EL also sells products for men
anyway,

Han

----- Original Message -----
From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, 2002-03-31 19:58
Subject: [USMA:19176] Re: Another assault on the once liquide


> 2002-03-31
>
> If I would have written her, I would not have gone beyond the topic of the
first paragraph.  After 18 months, why hasn't she petitioned the US congress
to amend the FPLA so that the US and not the EU would   "...demonstrate
similar regulatory flexibility so that manufacturers have the option to use
either metric only..."
>
> It is obvious from her statement that you have quoted here, that the EU is
flexible in allowing metric only and metric/FFU at least for the next 7.75
years.  It is the US that is not flexible.  I think you need to dwell on
this aspect as a priority.
>
> And as for the "once liquide" or what ever other FFU unit is placed on the
label, why does it have to appear first?   Why not in last place?  Doesn't
it strike her funny that FFU is inferior and nasty looking when you have to
include a different language version of the same unit?  What a clutter it
adds to the label!  If she is going to put the once liquide on her products,
why not put the Spanish and Italian and German words for it too?  And why
not include the equivalent of floozy ozes in every language?   I would think
an intelligent person who see that there is something to metric when a term
like 150 mL means the same thing in ALL LANGUAGES, and thus needs only be
written once.   Doesn't making the label less cluttered with all that FFU
garble removed?
>
>
> On another note, telling her your going to boycott her products is more
likely to make her trash your e-mail.  And seeing that you are a man, she is
less likely to think of you as a customer anyway, unless you have a secret
life we don't know about?
>
> John


Reply via email to