Yes, indeed, we have some very heavy-duty firepower on this list. I wonder if USMA could put together a "blue ribbon" panel to respond the objections of the FMI.
Ezra -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Scott Hudnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I don't think it will take a think-tank study. I would think that a good > critical analysis paper that debunks FMI's claims point-by-point, would > suffice. > Many of FMI's claims in their opposition statement are fallacies that most > students taking an introductory-level critical analysis course could easily > spot. > > Despite this, the paper would probably have more credibility with Congress if > it > came from an individual with the letters PhD after his/her name. (I believe > there are a few people that match that description on this listserve). > > > Scott > > > On Monday, June 04, 2007, at 03:54PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I found the list of objections presented by the FMI to NIST back in 2002: > > > >http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/fmicomments.pdf > > > >It seems to me that most (if not all) of these objections are spurious. Some > seem to imply a change to "rational" metric sizes, which the amendment would > not > require or even encourage in the law itself. > > > >Since NIST cannot take a partisan view of the matter, I wonder if there is > >any > sort of think tank or university that could be funded to undertake an > independent study that would analyze these issues and present solid > counter-arguments from an "independent" source. (Not sure where the money for > this study would come from ..... maybe USMA can hold a bake sale or something > ...) > > > >Ezra > > > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > >From: "Remek Kocz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I wonder if FMI is misinterpreting the "optional metric-only" part and > >> opposing it in a knee-jerk fashion, or are they truly dead-set against any > >> kind of "metric-only" labeling, even if just optional. As crazy as it > >> sounds, perhaps we should write an email to each and every member of > >> congress (all 535 of them) and ask them to a) amend the FPLA, and b) ignore > >> FMI because they don't (or choose not to) understand the word "optional." > >> I > >> don't claim to know how many members of USMA are out there, but if every > >> one > >> of us did this, and maybe recruited a like-minded friend or two, perhaps > >> this would get some notice on the Hill. Congressional aides read this > >> stuff, and many of them are young, brought up in the more modern era where > >> metric is more palatable. They talk to each other and their bosses. A > >> firestorm of emails, faxes, and letters asking for the FPLA amendment > >> during > >> a quiet period could kick-start something. If we all committed... > >> > >> Remek > >> > >> On 6/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > I agree with you, Paul. Having all 50 states allow metric-only labels > >> > (although there's still potentially the issue of Puerto Rico, US Virgin > >> > Islands, Guam, the Marianas, and any other overseas territories and > >> > possessions I've left out) is indeed a powerful pyschological step > >> > forward > >> > towards metrication. > >> > > >> > However, it seems that the critical (and long-standing) opposition to > >> > (even voluntary) metric-only labelling comes from the food industry in > >> > the > >> > form of the FMI (since it's the FPLR that regulates food packaging). > >> > > >> > I'm convinced we need to find a way to overcome (or at least neutralize) > >> > the objections of the FMI if we're ever going to see the FPLA amended. > :-( > >> > > >> > Ezra > >> > > >> > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > >> > From: "Paul Trusten, R.Ph." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > Two more states, and there will be a powerful argument to be made: if > >> > the > >> > > "states united" permit a metric-only labeling option, why not the > >> > > United > >> > > States? To have all 50 states agree on the UPLR metric-only labeling > >> > > regulation means that the metric system can be accepted as the everyday > >> > system > >> > > of measurement on a national basis. This could be quite a psychological > >> > barrier > >> > > to be breaking. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Paul Trusten, R.Ph. > >> > > Public Relations Director > >> > > U.S. Metric Association, Inc. > >> > > Phone (432)528-7724 > >> > > www.metric.org > >> > > 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122 > >> > > Midland TX 79707-2872 USA > >> > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > http://home.grandecom.net/~trusten > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >I wonder if FMI is misinterpreting the "optional metric-only" part > and opposing it in a knee-jerk fashion, or are they truly dead-set against > any > kind of "metric-only" labeling, even if just optional. As > crazy > as it sounds, perhaps we should write an email to each and every member of > congress (all 535 of them) and ask them to a) amend the FPLA, and b) ignore > FMI > because they don't (or choose not to) understand the word > "optional." I don't claim to know how many members of > USMA > are out there, but if every one of us did this, and maybe recruited a > like-minded friend or two, perhaps this would get some notice on the > Hill. > Congressional aides read this stuff, and many of them are young, brought up > in > the more modern era where metric is more palatable. They talk to each > other and their bosses. A firestorm of emails, faxes, and letters > asking > for the FPLA amendment during a quiet period could kick-start something! > . If we all committed... > ><br><br>Remek<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/4/07, <b > class="gmail_sendername"><a > href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</a></b> > <<a href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ></a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: > >1px > solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I > agree > with you, Paul. Having all 50 states allow metric-only labels (although > there's still potentially the issue of Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, > Guam, > the Marianas, and any other overseas territories and possessions I've > left > out) is indeed a powerful pyschological step forward towards metrication. > ><br><br>However, it seems that the critical (and long-standing) opposition > >to > (even voluntary) metric-only labelling comes from the food industry in the > form > of the FMI (since it's the FPLR that regulates food packaging). > ><br><br>I'm convinced we need to find a way to overcome (or at least > neutralize) the objections of the FMI if we're ever going to see the FPLA > amended. :-(<br><br>Ezra<br><br> -------------- Original message > ---------------------- > ><br>From: "Paul Trusten, R.Ph." <<a > href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</a>><br>> Two > more states, and there will be a powerful argument to be made: if the<br>> > "states united" permit a metric-only labeling option, why not the > United > ><br>> States? To have all 50 states agree on the UPLR > >metric-only > labeling<br>> regulation means that the metric system can be accepted as > the > everyday system<br>> of measurement on a national basis. This could be > quite > a psychological barrier > ><br>> to be breaking.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> --<br>> > Paul Trusten, R.Ph.<br>> Public Relations Director<br>> U.S. Metric > Association, Inc.<br>> Phone (432)528-7724<br>> <a > href="http://www.metric.org";> > >www.metric.org</a><br>> 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122<br>> > Midland TX 79707-2872 USA<br>> mailto:<a > href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</a><br>> <a > href="http://home.grandecom.net/~trusten";> > >http://home.grandecom.net/~trusten</a><br>><br>><br><br></blockquote></di > v><br> > > >
