John wrote

'I'm not really sure where Asia and Africa stand on
the issue.  '

China and 10 nation ASEAN have already signed upt a
Free Trade Agreement that will start by year 2010.
China is already the leading consumer of
steel, 2-wheelers, TV's, telephones, etc. And this

Meanwhile Japan has signed such agreement with
Singapore and planned to sign with Korea.

Hope they will accept goods with metric only labels.

Madan


--- kilopascal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [USMA:21624] Re: Reciprocal quantities
> (was: L/100 km)
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 09:55:38 -0400
> 
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com

Reply via email to