I'm very happy to read Brian and Ezra's excellent contributions to this ongoing debate. Very well said, both of you! :-)
Marcus On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:49:55 Brian J White wrote: >>Yea, I'm making a big deal out of what, to most of you, is probably a >>technicality. However, it WAS the issue to this guy. It WAS the >reason he >>refused to give in. Shouldn't we at least try to understand what >motivated >>the guy? > >Oh I understand. But truthfully it seems like misguided energy. >Almost approaching whining. > >>And it certainly was NOTHING related to fraud -- he wasn't trying >to rip >>anyone off! > >I don't beleive anyone made that comparison...but if the scales weren't >certified, there would be no way to know for sure. I would never >claim the guy was actively trying to rip anyone off, yet the fact >is eventually his scales became obsolete. Plain and simple. > >I equate this to car racing for example. Helmets have safety ratings >by Snell. SA90 helmets conform to the rules of 1990....SA95 to 1995. >Every 5 years, the helmets conform to differing rules. Eventually, >racing sactioning bodies update their rules to reflect the changes >in the safety systems being developed. > >So if I had an SA85 helmet then I could not participate in an event >with this helmet. Nothing is technically wrong with it, and it's >protected my head for the past 15 years but yet it's illegal for >use. One COULD argue the SA85 helmet's capability to protect your >head...but in the end, it's deemed antiquated by safety standards >and thus not approved for use. You wanna race, get a new helmet. >Plain and simple. > >In the end, I see his beef....but it's thin. > >I do understand it's nothing about fraud, I was just explaining >WHY the government has to be involved. Along the line the government >said they would not re-certify non-metric scales. They gave a conversion >date....and ample notice. I say the government did a good job to >not back down. Wish the United States would do the same. I say >give people enough time to prepare and make any changes...but then >stick to your damn promised dates. > >>He refused to use a NEW approved scale system. He had a perfectly >good one >>that the government had approved in the past. > >Exactly...his old scale became antiquated by policy. > >>>Simple as that. Quit trying to read more into it than has already >>>been read into it...wayyyy too much I say. >> >>I know what you are saying here. However, I would suggest that one >should >>"know thy enemy." >> >>The anti-metricationists in the USA are going to parade this guy >through >>the streets of New York if we ever get mandatory metric laws, and >there are >>going to be (anti)-Metric Martyrs in the USA. >> >>If this is viewed as "oh, it's just because he wouldn't buy a dual- >label >>scale," then you have no idea what motivates people such as this, >and will >>not be able to as effectively counter them. And I think such people >will be >>MUCH more effective in the USA, due to our national temperament. > >I agree with you here....but I think people see through his rallying >argument and understand the government's position on approval of >the scales. That's why his case didn't rally more support than he >had. > >I do agree we should understand what motivates people like the metric >martyr...if at the very least to prepare valid, logical arguments >to the contrary. > >B > > > > > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
