Dear
Mrs. Young:
Thank
you for your letter in answer to my posting "Answer from MT editors". I was
indeed surprised to receive a letter from you criticizing my comments and
therefore I took the time to re-read and analyze my writings, and
postings.
Before
I start, I have to say that I am sure that Valerie is a very nice lady and I
truly respect her and I regret if my comments have caused her
grief.
Upon
re-reading my letter to the Editor and my listserv postings, I sincerely do no
understand in which portion they were rude, thoughtless and mostly where they
were inaccurate. The cause may be my understanding of the English
language but I see no place where I have done more than criticize what was
written in MT and the answer that I got to my letter.
I have
spent hours trying to find the justification for my letter, then to translate
the text from German and finally to put it in the finished format. I was
sincerely working in the hope it will be published and that my
letter will put an end to this mythos which wrongly says that since the ISO
216 standard for printing format has odd format sizes then it's not metric
and we can as well use the current US format with the sizes converted to
millimeters.
I have
also tried to show why I consider the statement "we do not promote international
standards" incompatible with USMA's mission.
Finally, I have offered to cover the cost difference from using A3 paper
instead of 11x17.
In my opinion
such discussion is somewhat more important than metric cooking recipes don't
you?
As an answer, I received a
blueprint of all the standard answers I get for letters supporting metrication.
And this is exactly what I named this message. I did not call Valerie
an enemy nor did I imply that. I just said: "similar to what
we get from all enemies of the metric system". And this is exactly what it was.
Similar.
Could
her note be just a slip of the tongue and I overreacted? Maybe. Was it harsh
criticism provided her long term devotion to metrication? Most likely. But
if, like you say in your message, USMA has been considering switching to
A3, than the Note From the Editor should have said just that, since this
was the truth.
Bottom
line is, that this is a regrettable situation that has caused both, myself and
Valerie grief and I hope that we will both find the strength to continue our
support for USMA and it's efforts.
What saddens me more is that you call my comments and postings:
"inaccurate pronouncements regarding standards". I have always based my writings on real standard texts, or if
the posting is an opinion of mine I just say so. Therefore, I don't understand
the basis of this affirmation and most importantly, I don't understand why you
deny me the courtesy of a counter-argument or documentation that my
statements are inaccurate.
I take
much pride in my work as USMA member as much as anyone in this movement. I am
not here just to chat on the listserv. I want to bring my experience and
expertise to the cause.
You
say that others on the list have effectively addressed my
opinions:
1. If you refer to my recent postings about the
necessity of adopting metric hence ISO/IEC standards, I must tell you that I do
not consider that the people that came with counter-arguments on the listserv
have really understood my point. Proof for that is that many more others support
my position and really understand the meaning of my words.
The
statement: "We do not promote international standards" is equivalent with: "We
want to use the metric system but we don't want the metric screws, bearings,
etc.". So, if we still want to be incompatible with more than 90% of the world
why do we promote metrication to begin with?
The SI system is just a metrology standard and by all
means the US has fully recognized it as the ONLY standards for W&M in the
world. So saying that we only promote the SI system is redundant because it's
already here. However, achieving a broad usage of the metric units in the
country can only be achieved by implementing HARD metric standards for
industrial and consumer use. (And) Implementing HARD metric standards that
are incompatible with what more than 90% of the world uses (ISO/IEC) defeats the
purpose of the metrication effort.
2. If you refer to my translation of the DIN 475 which
is the base for ISO 216 and the original standard for printing media most
commonly known as the A series, I will be happy to provide you with the original
text so you can have it translated by someone else. I am sure that the results
will be similar if not identical to my writing mostly since the large part of it
is comprised of mathematic calculations.
These
are the only pronouncements I made recently and I am still wholeheartedly
convinced that I am right. I sincerely hope that after you read this letter you
will be too. Be assured that my devotion to US metrication is genuine and like
you and many others I also hope that, in a near future, the USA will choose
to finally be rid of this last trace of American
isolationism.
Sincerely,
Adrian Jadic
PS:
Jim Ellwell accused me on the listserv that I am one of those who want "to cram "pure metric" into every corner of American life". This is the
best proof that he did not understand my position.
Many countries have some internal standards that are "flavors" of ISO/IEC
but this is made in such a way to preserve compatibility with ISO/IEC. I fully
support that as much as I support promoting any HARD metric US standard that we
consider is better than any existing ISO/IEC one and advocate making the US
standard an ISO/IEC standard. However, I don't agree to promoting US
standards in spite of ISO/IEC ones. This is against globalization ethics and
will only bring adversity toward our
country.
CC:
USMA listserv
BCC:
Lorelle Young
Original Message follows:
Dear Adrian,
My time was consumed helping my dearest neighbor whose husband died yesterday, or I would have written to you sooner.
I was aghast at your inaccurate, rude, and thoughtless comments about Valerie that you posted on the List. I realize that you are a very avid supporter of metrication, and I appreciate that. However, you need to get your facts straight.
There is no person more devoted to metrication than Valerie. And, she has proven that for the last 36 years in her service to USMA. For the past 30 years she has not only held a 40-hour/week job as an engineer at Litton, but also has spent most of her time away from Litton handling the actual operations of USMA, plus putting out the newsletter. This has been unpaid work that she did because she is totally committed to U.S. metrication. Further, she has spent thousands of dollars of her own money to further the work of USMA. Because of her known reputation as a knowledgeable metric advocate, she was appointed to the U.S. Metric Board by President Ford. This did not come to fruition because of a change in Administration, resulting in all new appointments to Board by the succeeding president.
I have worked with Valerie for the past 22 years and I can personally attest to her expert knowledge about metric matters and to her dedication to our cause.
I will not deal here with your inaccurate pronouncements regarding standards as that has been effectively addressed by others on the List.
For your further information, we at USMA have been for some time evaluating using A series paper for Metric Today. Many things must be considered, like the increased cost, and these must be balanced against spending members funds for other purposes, including travel to Washington to work with and keep members of Congress and federal agency personnel informed. Whether we use A series paper or not will have little, if any, influence on advancing the U.S. transition. We have almost decided to go ahead with this initiative but in no way did your letter to the editor influence our decision.
I would appreciate your not posting my email address on the List as the work that I already do for USMA precludes my having enough time to respond to volumes of email. My mailing address is on our Website and people can contact me that way, should they desire. In fact, many already do.
I believe, as do so many others, that an apology to Valerie is required.
Sincerely,
Lorelle Young, President
U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
My time was consumed helping my dearest neighbor whose husband died yesterday, or I would have written to you sooner.
I was aghast at your inaccurate, rude, and thoughtless comments about Valerie that you posted on the List. I realize that you are a very avid supporter of metrication, and I appreciate that. However, you need to get your facts straight.
There is no person more devoted to metrication than Valerie. And, she has proven that for the last 36 years in her service to USMA. For the past 30 years she has not only held a 40-hour/week job as an engineer at Litton, but also has spent most of her time away from Litton handling the actual operations of USMA, plus putting out the newsletter. This has been unpaid work that she did because she is totally committed to U.S. metrication. Further, she has spent thousands of dollars of her own money to further the work of USMA. Because of her known reputation as a knowledgeable metric advocate, she was appointed to the U.S. Metric Board by President Ford. This did not come to fruition because of a change in Administration, resulting in all new appointments to Board by the succeeding president.
I have worked with Valerie for the past 22 years and I can personally attest to her expert knowledge about metric matters and to her dedication to our cause.
I will not deal here with your inaccurate pronouncements regarding standards as that has been effectively addressed by others on the List.
For your further information, we at USMA have been for some time evaluating using A series paper for Metric Today. Many things must be considered, like the increased cost, and these must be balanced against spending members funds for other purposes, including travel to Washington to work with and keep members of Congress and federal agency personnel informed. Whether we use A series paper or not will have little, if any, influence on advancing the U.S. transition. We have almost decided to go ahead with this initiative but in no way did your letter to the editor influence our decision.
I would appreciate your not posting my email address on the List as the work that I already do for USMA precludes my having enough time to respond to volumes of email. My mailing address is on our Website and people can contact me that way, should they desire. In fact, many already do.
I believe, as do so many others, that an apology to Valerie is required.
Sincerely,
Lorelle Young, President
U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
