At 01:34 PM 12 July 2002 -0700, Ma Be wrote: >On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 08:52:23 > Jim Elwell wrote: > >...Europeans are hardly the only people using or promoting the metric > system, > >and hardly deserve sole credit for its spread. > > >Perhaps so. However, Anglo-saxons in general are *certainly* the ones >(maybe even the ONLY ones) fighting it!!!
Interesting that someone from Brazil and Canada does not take firmer exception to Madan's giving credit for metrication to Europeans. I agree with your second statement. > >In general (aside from the metric issue) European standards are no "better" > >than American ones -- there are some that are better, some that are not, > >and some that Americans have that Europeans don't, and vice versa. Aside > >from the metric issue, I challenge you to defend your claim here. > > >You may be right, Jim. However, defining standards which are *ifp-based*, >no matter how you look at it, is an extremely serious handicap! So, to >the extent that such "superior" standards are not measurement-related, >fine, I may go along with that. I excepted the metric aspect in my first sentence. In that regards, clearly non-US (as opposed to European) standards are generally better. But since Madam itemized three issues (metric, standards, ecology) I responded separately. In terms of the non-metric aspect of standards, I see nothing to suggest that America's are particularly better or worse than anyone else's. > >And if you consider "environment[al] consciousness" to mean "believing the > >Litany of the environmental crisis hysterics regardless of scientific > >merit," then I will grant you that Europe leads the world in that -- a > >rather dubious accolade. > > >I'd like to believe that 'ec' is NOT a European... "phenomenon". The >entire planet is involved in this. The environment affects us ALL! Couldn't agree more. > >To me, at least, "Europeanization" is nearly the equivalent of > >"socialization" and is hardly something of which to be proud. > >? I honestly fail to see the connection, Jim. Do you or have you lived >in Europe or have had extensive contact with Europeans? Well... I have, >practically all my life and that is certainly NOT the perception I have >about them. Perhaps I used the word confusingly; by "socialization" I mean "degree of government-forced socialism." One does not have to live in Europe to know that, politically, most European countries are substantially more socialist than the USA. >Nonetheless I also see nothing wrong in "socialization". But I take a >much less... "political" view about this word than probably you do, so... Again, I think I used the word in a confusing manner. > > That is not > >to say I am proud of all "Americanization" -- I deplore some of it -- but > >McDonald's does not ask for laws forcing Europeans to buy Big Macs, whereas > >plenty of you folks would love to have laws forcing Americans to use the > >metric system. > >Now, well... you're going overboard with your libertarian views, Jim >(which I've always indicated I respect, BTW). So, I'll refrain from >discussing this again here as we've done it to death. I know perfectly well that my views are somewhat "radical" or "overboard" to many list members. I still wonder why so many members of this listserver have what are, to me, such radical socialist views (again, using "socialist" in its political meaning). >But, I guess the main point that Madan was perhaps trying to make was that >Americans DO push their way of life onto others, under the auspices of (or >under the hideous umbrella of) marketing gimmickery! Here is where I think you go overboard, Marcus: -- blaming the success of American companies in other countries on their "marketing gimmickery." Marketing can get someone to buy a product, but it cannot keep them coming back. McDonalds, et. al. are successful because PEOPLE LIKE THEIR PRODUCT!! If the French did not like Big Macs, they wouldn't buy them and McDonalds would sell something else or go out of business in France. To presume otherwise is to put oneself in a position of judging what is best for others, and criticizing them when they behave different from that judgement. You don't have to like McDonalds yourself, but I think it is incorrect to claim their success is due to marketing rather than the fact that people like what they sell. >By and large the vision of globalization vehicled by NA corporations is a >"one product fits all", basically (and guess what that product is, >usually... ;-) ). And this, as I've demonstrated sometime earlier is a >huge mistake, *as a single/universal/only philosophy* of >selling products! Please, notice that I'm not discussing measurements >here, BTW, but a skewed perverse concept of disallowing cultural variations!!! Pretty much the same comment: if everyone in a country does not like the "one size fits all" product from a differing country/culture, then it would fail as a product. That it succeeds means some portion of the population DOES like it. Why do those who don't then proceed to castigate the companies that provide these products? Jim Elwell, CAMS Electrical Engineer Industrial manufacturing manager Salt Lake City, Utah, USA www.qsicorp.com
