On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 20:31:57 Carl Sorenson wrote: >kilopascal said: >>I really wish all of the TABD companies would go bankrupt. > >The TABD publication at http://www.tabd.org/recommendations/matrix02.pdf >seems to indicate that many of the companies involved with TABD are in fact >European. I thought you were in favor of a strong Europe? > Unfortunately true. However, how many of the above are actually "American" in disguise? With so many mergers and acquisitions taking place can we honestely claim that some of these companies are *truly European*?...
However, in case some of them are, shame, SHAME on them!!! It's appalling that some of them would condone TABD's actions of stifling metrication. In any case, it wouldn't change the fact that we should remind them of their responsibility towards their own domestic market and commitment towards truly global issues. >Marcus wrote: >>In any case, perhaps the ONLY *EFFECTIVE* safeguard we have is to simply >boycott TABD members' products in the marketplace. > >Calling for a boycott would accomplish nothing, even if it were possible. >The companies honestly couldn't care less if two dozen people boycotted >their products for being part of an organization that helps them sell their >products... This would not be as much a case of 'accomplish(ing) (something)' as it would be to send a message. Evidently, the 'message' should be laid out to them in a rational manner! Perhaps you haven't read the spirit of my message completely! I just "summarized" what it boiled down to for *our consumption* here. Once again, I do NOT present my case before companies in a Hitleristic manner, so to speak. I *always* behave in a fashion that would command respect for the position I defend! Not doing so would be indeed irresponsible of my part. I'd NEVER jeopardize the cause I so deeply love, Carl!!! On the other hand with clearly known "ifp goons" I have absolutely no mercy on them, but even so I usually disarm them with powerful witty statements (at least so I think... :-) ) as opposed to just being argumentative. >To bring pressure to bear on corporations, you need more than just a few >people not buying their products. You would need to gain a heck of a lot >more influence than that. There are two things you can do: 1) get a *lot* >more people, or 2) get the attention of some very important people. > You're absolutely right, of course. And believe me, I already try doing all of the above. However, if #1 is not entirely successful, my argument was that still our only recourse would be to be true to ourselves and put our money where our mouth is! >Either of these requires us to be realistic and appeal to the mainstream. >The average consumer is not going to join some quixotic boycott of half the >companies they buy from just because some other organization isn't >supporting metrication the way you want them to. True, obviously. However, we can still raise people's awareness to the issue in a well-reasoned manner and hope that it would at least be at the "backburner of their minds". > Marcus, I think Bill >Potts' earlier statement applies to the tone of some of your proposals, >"Beware of proposals that will make us look like a bunch of crazy zealots." Dear Carl, you're clearly overreacting. Being protective of principles can hardly be stigmatized as zealotry! I'm sorry. But when principles are involved we must be firm and unswerving. Would an individual be a zealot if he didn't lie under ANY circumstances??? If he preached that lies are utterly unacceptable as a matter of principle??? I don't think so! On the other hand, please consider that many achievements in history have been the result of very active outspoken words and deeds of activists in defense of their causes. It was like this with slavery, women's rights (that you alluded to in this post), and many, many other causes for things we now take for granted! It should be no different with metrication, my friend! >Let me give an example of what I am talking about. > >The environmental movement has a lot of support. People understand why they >have an interest in being environmentally conscious. Recently, some >eco-activists began targeting SUV drivers because the cars burn too much >fuel. I welcome this example of yours actually. Indeed, you're absolutely right, however, please notice that this misuse on the part of environmentalists could *clearly* be argued as being indeed a grave strategic mistake! But not so with boycotting non-metric products though!!! Would you agree with it this much? Especially in light of the presence of alternative metric products? Evidently when we have no alternatives it doesn't make much sense to do boycotting does it??? We should indeed be careful about the tactics we use to achieve a strategic goal, but boycotting of non-metric products is *clearly* a kosher, legitimate, effective one! It even satisfies the aspirations of those among us here who defend the idea of "free markets" i.e. without governmental intervention!... ;-) >... >You can't get people on your side by making enemies of everyone else. You >have to try to appeal to a broad constituency and act reasonable. Agreed. And who's advocating otherwise? On the other hand we have a duty to warn ifp companies that their behavior is striking a nerve with large segments of the market they portray to serve, and that there are ultimate consequences for their actions/choices. I, as a consumer, serve them notice that if they do not comply with certain reasonable global demands on them they will certainly lose a consumer, and that many, many would ultimately follow! > I think >many in the women's movement made the same mistake that these anti-SUV >people are making. In the end, they marginalize their own movement. > True, but only of certain people within that movement. You cannot generalize it, Carl, and "condemn" the entire movement due to the misbehavior of some. Unfortunately another fact of life is that within EVERY movement there will always be "bad apples" or "black sheep". >A company doesn't care about a metric boycott because they know that it >won't get enough support to make one bit of difference. Not necessarily, especially if you argue from the perspective of consumers in metric countries! > On the other hand, >they would pay attention to a customer who expresses a preference in a >normal and reasonable way, because there could well be many customers with >that preference. ? I sense you're assuming that the above would NOT be my preferred approach! I'm sad to see that perhaps you haven't seen such preference of mine in all the years I've been a member of this forum. Oh, well, perhaps it's my own fault that sometimes I let my "passion" for the cause and my talk "among brothers of arms" here hide my modus operandi in the outside world... You must however understand that it's not easy to leave my frustrations "bottled up" like I have to when dealing with the outside/real world. In the end, I feel relieved when I'm able to "let go" of such frustrations and disappointments *here* and be a little more... outspoken among friends... This is called "stress relief"! Physicians say that it's not good for the heart to keep stress bottled up, that we need a vehicle to "let it go" and I confess I routinely use this one (this forum) for that purpose! ;-) Sorry... > I would rather have one person who prefers metric usage >but is a part of mainstream society than ten who are outraged and stridently >protest non-metric usage. > I read you. On the other hand, like Christ in the episode of the merchants in the synagogue, there are times when strong actions or 'outrage' may be justifi-ed/able. Elsewhere it's also written that "there is a time for every thing under the sun... a time to love and a time to hate". But we should indeed choose very carefully when to use such expediencies. Thanks, Carl, for your well-reasoned, well-balanced contribution and remarks. Best regards, Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
