Jim, I think you took me too seriously.  Heck, I sure don't want to
prosecute! And I, of all people, like to see metric out in plain sight.

On the other hand, I have to answer your traffic analogy. Perhaps the law
sets a standard of conduct in order to act as a kind of behavioral
insurance. In other words, it provides, at the very least, good advice to
follow. I sure found out!

About a year ago, I made the same assumption about the absence of traffic at
a wee hour. I went through a YIELD sign here in  sleepy Midland, TX, at
06:00, not expecting to see another car until one was heading towards me at
what would have been literally breakneck (for me!) speed. I think we missed
each other by about a meter. I'm very grateful to be here to tell about it.
>From that day on, I have stopped at ALL intersections, regardless of the
presence or absence of traffic controls. Several times, I have avoided
accidents by stopping.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 13:29
Subject: [USMA:36449] Re: Metric product package in USA


> At 2 04 06, 12:12 PM, Paul Trusten, R.Ph. wrote:
> >Pro-metric as I may be, I'm also pro-legal.  Doesn't this make Milton's a
> >scofflaw? Isn't it a violation of the current FPLA to omit WOMBAT units
on
> >U.S. packaging?
>
> I must be feeling ornery today, because I have to take issue with
> this. Some laws prohibit stuff that is always wrong (rape, murder,
> etc.). Most, however, arise to prevent things that, under some
> conditions, are perfectly fine.
>
> For example, do you run a red light at 3:00 a.m. in a small town with
> nary another vehicle in sight? It might be technically illegal, but
> it certainly does not endanger anyone, and a reasonable, mature adult
> can decide to move along without displaying moral failure.
>
> Ditto for leaving off UCS units -- as long as the metric is accurate,
> and as long as no one complains, I say "leave it alone!"
>
> I'm not saying we should actively encourage FPLA violations, but
> where a label is not fraudulent, I certainly think we should spend
> our efforts elsewhere.
>
> Jim
>
> P.S. Blame Stan for me being ornery -- he pointed out my error in a
> prior thread!
>
>
> Jim Elwell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 801-466-8770
> www.qsicorp.com
>
>

Reply via email to