When did Jim Elwell change his name to Bill? Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >Behalf Of Stephen Davis >Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:49 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:22504] Fw: Re: metrication > > >I assume we are talking about the Metric Martyr's here?? > >If so, there is a basic hypocrisy at work here!! Neil Herron >knows fine well he would have to obey UK weights and measures law >whether it be metric OR imperial. There has NEVER been a choice >in the matter, as he likes to imply!! > >Publicans MUST serve draught beer in pint measures....in the same >way, all traders now MUST use metric or dual-purpose scales as >they were once required to use imperial scales and NOTHING else!! > >This is all about how fine you want to split a hair!! As a >trader, he is allowed to price in pounds, his customers can ask >for a pound and, Guess what Bill......they can GET a pound as well!! > >It's whether or not you call it 454g or 1lb........it's exactly >the same!! The customer has asked for what they want and Mr >Herron has been able to furnish him with EXACTLY what he/she requires!! > >So, what exactly do you see as the problem, Bill?? > >Regards, > >Steve. >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 6:17 PM >Subject: [USMA:22502] Re: metrication > > >> At 05:41 PM 7 October 2002 +0100, Tom Wade VMS Systems wrote: >> >He was not punished for using pounds, he was punished for not >providing the >> >approved units AS WELL. ... >> >Isn't it the case that packaged goods in the US must be labelled >> >in *both* metric and colonial ? So the UK situation is slightly less >> >bureaucratic and heavy handed, isn't it ? >> >> (a) We're dealing at two levels here. From a fundamental moral >level, the >> guy was NOT trying to rip anyone off. He wanted to deal in >pounds and only >> pounds. He was subjected to legal action because he did not want to have >> anything to do with metric. He was not prosecuted for fraud >because he was >> not committing fraud. He was prosecuted for not providing metric units. >> That is fundamentally the case, and it is, in my opinion, a travesty. >> >> (b) That the USA has rules that impinge on the freedom to conduct one's >> business in whatever non-fraudulent way one chooses is hardly a >> justification for other countries to do so. I don't agree with >any law that >> makes specific labeling requirements, other than "It had better be >> accurate." In other words, colloquial only, metric only, mixed, I don't >> care. But if you say 1 kg it had better be one 1 kg; if you say 1 lb, it >> had better be 1 lb. >> >> > >This certainly says it correctly, as in "If you wish to >engage in commerce, >> > >you will do so in metric (albeit with an ifp facade) or we >will destroy >> > you." >> > >> >If you engage in commerce, you must fulfill certain laws and >requirements, >> >which are enacted to protect the consumer from being defrauded, >and the good >> >name of the vendor. These laws range from fire safety, through >guarantees of >> >merchantable quality, to labelling. >> >> The "protect the consumer" justification for requiring metrication is a >> fraud in and of itself. You can "protect the consumer" just as easily by >> requiring ONLY colloquial units. >> >> In fact, forcing people to switch measurement systems opens up a whole >> world of opportunity for fraud due to consumer confusion. The >best that can >> be said for forced metrication is that it minimizes the time >such fraud can >> be perpetrated. >> >> On the other hand, allowing metrication to proceed as industry and >> consumers demand will give people time to adjust to it. For >example, most >> people in the US know instinctively how much a pound of hamburger should >> cost, but they also know what a 2 liter bottle of pop should cost. They >> have had plenty of time to learn this. If you ask them to buy 1 >kg of meat >> tomorrow, few will know what it should cost. >> >> >The law is not onerous. You can sell in pounds/pints/quarts, >you can label in >> >pounds/pints/quarts, .... >> >> Whether or not the law is onerous is immaterial to the >fundamental question. >> >> > As for jailing people, if you break the >> >law repeatedly, and ignore all warnings, then you must be >liable to sanctions. >> >As with many non-violent crimes, I would prefer to see a court >confiscate >> >property rather than confiscate your liberty, as the latter costs the >> >taxpayer, >> >and allows the lawbreaker to make a martyr of himself, but that >is a wider >> >issue. >> >> At a fundamental level, confiscating your property IS confiscating your >> liberty. But, as you say, that is a wider issue. >> >> > >I think the headline is easy, but the pro-force >metricationists won't like >> > >it: "Trader Punished for Not Supporting Metric." >> > >> >At least this is closer to the truth than the usual tirade about "trader >> >punished for using imperial". How about "Trader punished for failing to >> >fulfil basic requirements to ensure fair and enforceable measurements" ? >> >> Can't agree to that. The Trader has fulfilled the basic requirements for >> fair and enforceable measurements by accurately using pounds. In fact, >> since most people in England are more familiar with pounds than >kilograms, >> a more accurate headline would be ""Trader punished for failing to use >> unfamiliar measurements." >> >> > >For numerous reasons, there is NOT going to be any forced >metrication in >> > >the USA, at least until the country has already become 95% >metric. If we >> > >want to speed up metrication in this country, we need to use >our efforts to: >> > > >> > >(a) continue to educate the public-at-large as to its >benefits, so they ask >> > >for metric >> > >(b) continue to apply what pressure we can on companies to metricate >> > >(c) do our best to get the government to metricate -- a step that will >> > >*tremendously* accelerate metrication in the USA. >> > >> >Here, I am in complete agreement with you. Not because the US >government >> >isn't >> >empowered to force metrication on trade (it is in the constitution) but >> >because >> >(a) it wouldn't work, as it would provoke more opposition. >> >(b) getting the government to metricate fully would drag >everybody else along >> >eventually. >> >> Your comment that the US Government is empowered by the Constitution to >> enforce metrication is debatable. However, since it has been debated on >> this forum before, and is an issue far removed from anything >practical we >> can do, we can just forget it for now. >> >> Thank you for the agreement with the more practical steps, and I agree >> wholeheartedly with your (b). >> >> >Note that in Europe, attitudes to government regulation is very >different. >> >People expect the government to regulate these issues of trade, >and expect >> >that traders be made to fulfill their legal obligations to the consumer. >> >> People in the USA certainly expect the government to make >traders fulfill >> their legal obligations. We just have a more constricted view of >what their >> "legal obligations" should include. >> >> >> I'm going to try and dig up a list of practical things we can do >to promote >> metrication that I posted a year or two ago to this forum. To >remind myself >> as much as anyone else to stay on target here. >> >> Jim Elwell, CAMS >> Electrical Engineer >> Industrial manufacturing manager >> Salt Lake City, Utah, USA >> www.qsicorp.com >> >
