On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:50:11 Carl Sorenson wrote: ... >Well, Marcus, Don explained that it drives away people interested in >metrication because the so-called "R&D" is not about metrication.
Well... if discussing, receiving posts that do not interest me would 'drive me away' from this list than I should have left this forum long time ago!... But the fact of the matter is people continue to discuss technical stuff here on occasion. I have no problem with that, even though some of them might annoy me. > It is >about reforming SI. It is not an appropriate topic for this list because we >are in absolutely no position to reform SI. I'm afraid you're mistaken. There are a lot of people in this forum that are quite influential with those bodies that DO have a say in these matters. Who is to guarantee that things discussed here would or could not influence their decision? > That should be left to >professionals in some other forum. Those kind of discussions here serve no >real purpose and are very counterproductive, for reasons that Don gave and >that I and others have given in the past. > Oh, and discussing Planckian units does, or how many Anglo-saxon scientists gave rise to SI units names and things of this nature do?... Hmm... >>Perhaps we should think this through and more >>thoroughly assess the consequences of such position. > >No, we shouldn't. Don is right. Please don't second-guess his decision. > I'm not 'second-guess(ing)' anyone's decision, just making the point that there are also a lot of topics discussed here that do not necessarily relate to *metrication*, but that are normally accepted. I just think that perhaps there should be a bit more tolerance and less confrontation when these things happen. >>For example, what message would this position send >>to metrology scientists? > >It sends no message to the people who define and revise SI because they >don't pay any attention to lists like this. My question was meant for the scientists OF US HERE! Those who think, act and love to be at the forefront of technology. > Or they shouldn't, because this >is not a list about SI revision and most of the proposals are impractical or >bad ideas anyway. > True, but I regard this as a forum of intelligent, thought-provoking individuals who would generally not be afraid or annoyed by such discussions. In addition, I respectfully disagree with you with regards to some of these proposals being 'impractical or bad ideas'! Perhaps from a practical point-of-view they MAY be, but *for the time being*. I feel that ultimately we WILL have to confront some fundamental problematic issues facing the system we so ardently defend! Therefore, I see no harm in advancing ideas that would be helpful towards finding SOLUTIONS to these issues, as opposed to being part of the problem. Again, I'm not defending that one makes this a *priority* or something, but that perhaps we could make room for such discussions *once in a while* when something pops up, especially in light of others not entirely related to metrication that get tolerated. Besides, where else could one find individuals that would bring these very practical challenges to bear in these discussions??? Certainly a forum of ONLY scientists or metrology authorities would NOT be sufficient or adequate to explore the practical implications of these academic proposals! The maximum of the SI system comes to mind when I say the above. Le systhme mitrique pour tous le temps, pour TOUT LE PEUPLE!!! >>Should we stop efforts towards improving the SI system... > >Yes. > 'Yes'???... :-( >Should the actual scientists who have the power to improve SI stop? Perhaps >not. 'Perhaps not'???... > But they probably won't be asking you for advice as they do so. > 'They wouldn't'? Are you sure? One of the scientists noble obligations is to develop technology that would be as USEFUL and PRODUCTIVE to ALL MANKIND as possible! So, evidently, the opinions of ALL individuals in a society should be relevant, no? Now, obviously, when the issue is purely technical and a matter of right and wrong, fine, people's opinions, like ours, may be indeed totally immaterial. But I don't think this is the case here. >I second everything Brian said: >[begin quote] >And I tell you....almost every one of those messages got deleted by >me.... Fine, and I respect that (really! I do!...). I just felt that I should bring up this "point of order" in order to help avoid radicalisms and antagonisms from some towards others among our colleagues here who I think have the best intentions. Regards, Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
