2002-08-10 Han,
I don't think you will have to worry to much about the EU in 2010. Things will be a lot different then they are now. The influence of both the US and UK will be much weaker as the EU absorbs at least 12 more countries in the east. And who knows, maybe even Norway and der Schweiz too? We are talking about an additional 200 million people who will by far outweigh the whining of both the US and UK combined. Excuses from the UK and the US that were heard in 1999 will not be taken as seriously in 2009. Also, from an American perspective, Gene Mechtly in USMA21556 reposted a message from Kenneth Butcher, the new head of the NIST Laws and Metric group. The message stated that packagers have been "nagging" him about a change to the FPLA to allow metric only labelling. If there are enough voices to drown out the TABD on this side of the Atlantic, and we do in fact get that law amended, it removes a conflict between the FPLA and the EU directive. Thus any pressure from the TABD on the EU becomes moot. I don't see the danger of FFU creep on the EU in the next 8 years, but more of a wiping out of FFU influences stemming from the US and UK. The danger point now becomes the US FFU influence in South America. The South American economies heavily tolerate FFU, especially in the industrial sectors. If South America becomes the main importer of US goods, and South America does not reject those goods being in FFU, then the pressure on the US to convert for export reasons will also be a moot issue. I'm not really sure where Asia and Africa stand on the issue. But, the only thing that will jump start the conversion of the US will be total world-wide pressure. Without it, the US will continue to find areas where it can export its FFU products. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2002-08-10 04:19 Subject: [USMA:21623] Re: Reciprocal quantities (was: L/100 km) > We may indeed be in serious danger of loosing the battle if the EU once > again allows a delay or even worse, cancels the directive on units, that is > what the TABD wants. That will be as awful as the dark days of 1812 in > France were. I am sure that metric hearts were very, very sore in that year. > I shudder with the thought that I may experience another '1812'. > > However, I think that infiltration of FFU will sooner or later lead to a > reaction which will repel it. In a way, an immune system will kick in. In > the fifties and early sixties the inferior SAE standard of gross hp almost > overwhelmed the global car industry, as it was great for marketing purposes. > Using this standard also implied the adoption of the FFU horse power and > other ifp practices. Even French car builders like Renault and Simca had > adopted it. Yet, in some way or other, the inferior standard bit the dust in > the end and had to make way for DIN, SAE net and now ISO power. > I remain convinced that we will win in the future. Trash like ifp cannot win > in the end. Only this battle is now in a phase that does not favour us. I > cannot see how the EU can accept another humiliation of this kind. When the > craven act had been done, the rapporteur on the issue, the Tory MEP > Chichester, spouted anti-European garbage, ranting and raving about Brussels > Bureaucrats (the very category that had already approved the delay about 10 > months earlier!), and he pretended that the delay was all his work. HE was > the person who convinced the EU parliament to grant it. All lies. We know > that the > EU Commission had already allowed the delay in February 1999 and that the > appointment of the rapporteur in the EP was a set-up to facilitate this > decision. > > Han > Historian of Dutch Metrication, Nijmegen, The Netherlands > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, 2002-07-02 0:15 > Subject: [USMA:20754] Re: Reciprocal quantities (was: L/100 km) > > > > 2002-07-01 > > > > You just don't understand the American way of doing things. Let me > explain: > > > > First, you find out what way everyone else is doing it. > > > > Second, just to be different, you do it the exact opposite. And make a > big effort to force your way on the world. > > > > When the world rejects American methods, America responds with spite and > nastiness, insisting the world is full of anti-American ingrates who hate > America, who hate freedom and democracy, and want to force the great America > to follow their inferior practices. > > > > Americans believe that America became great because of American methods > and the world is jealous of American greatness. Get the point! > > > > It is the matter of the US wanting to be different, so it can brag that > its difference is the right way and everyone else is wrong. This is why the > metric battle is being lost. > > > John > > > > There seems to be a tradition in the US marketing world, to use > reciprocal units in order to ensure that a higher number means better. I > would be curious if you have any reference for where/when this practice > originated historically. > > > >
