Neither you (John P Schweisthall, 'kilopascal', 'ametrica', 'euric', other banned names) or "Ken" (Lee Roberts, 'Glenn', 'Berenger', andf other suspended names) are able to comment on my viewpoint or what opinion I hold. Though you both tried on this list you're wildly off the mark. Note that almost every post by 'Ken' involves an attack on me (some personal, check each one folks - he's said it's the reason why he joins forums) and almost all of yours likewise (between the very strange flood-spam posts) whereas I have simply answered calmly never needing to make such comments out of sheer frustration.
Once again I ask that you take the posts involving insults and claims of lies OFF THE LIST and to me privately. Why can't you do that? If there are any people on the list that are enjoying 'Jerry' and 'Ken's' messages and style of debate (as per this thread) then please say and I will apologise for suggesting they take those type of post off the list. Personally I don't see a demand here for such personalized rubbish. Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:30:35 -0700 From: [email protected] Subject: [USMA:43947] RE: EU Metric Directive To: [email protected] He doesn't. He opposes the laws requiring the use of metric scales in the markets and supports the use of imperial on the roads. So it looks like you will have a problem with his position. Jerry From: Bill Potts <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:47:29 PM Subject: [USMA:43933] RE: EU Metric Directive As long as Stephen's viewpoint regarding the display of Imperial measures in the UK is merely permissive and not mandatory, and as long as Stephen agrees that a single system of weights and measures (now and, one hopes, permanently SI) is necessary, in law, for the purposes of trade and contracts, I have no problem with his evidently-libertarian position. The earliest known manifestation of a statement regarding what should be legal for trade is Clause 35 of the Grand Charter of 1215 (Magna Carta), namely, "There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russett, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly." Presumably James Madison and the other Founding Fathers had this in mind when, in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, they stated that The Congress shall have "the Power to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." Congress succeeded in regulating the coinage long ago. Imagine if the current, shaky state of the US economy were compounded by having variations in currency from state to state. That they have failed to do as will with the standard of weights and measures would seem to be related to a point of view that is vastly more libertarian (and less fair) than with what I see Stephen as advocating. The current FPLA problem in the US relates, not to the fact that it is too permissive, but that is is not permissive enough. Until the two holdout states see the light and cooperate with the other forty-eight, manufacturers of products sold nationally are not permitted to omit the US customary measures from their labels. When they are permitted to omit them, I am assuming that they will not, in fact, be prohibited from including them. My hope, for both esthetic and, I hope, logical reasons, is that they all choose not to include them. However, as long as SI units are required, and as long as trade laws require pricing to be based on the SI measures, and as long as, in contract law, only transactions and valuations expressed in SI are enforceable, I think that supports the spirit of the Magna Carta and of the US Constitution (and of metric legislation passed in the 19th and 20th Centuries). My view is that, once the display of non-SI units (in addition to SI units) is merely permitted and not mandated, it will die out and will fairly soon be regarded as quaint. To reiterate, I hope that is very soon. Bill Bill Potts, FBCS WFP Consulting 1848 Hidden Hills Drive Roseville, CA 95661-5804 Phone: 916 773-3865 (preferred) Cell: 916 302-7176 Excellence matters From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 14:30 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:43924] RE: EU Metric Directive Ah yes - I see that Martin's 1st link refers to the public consultation. I also see that a few contributors to this site responded. Here's the response made by a well known UK anti-metrication activist. It speaks for itself. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/prepack/unitmeas/depot_anwers/a-priv-person/R67.pdf Subject : Metric directive I have been directed towards a link and this email regarding the subject matter above. "The people" are often ignored regarding matters like this. In the UK we prefer to use and see imperial measures but by and large believe in using the metric system for intra/international trade etc. Trying to ban imperial indications on a domestic market, where free trade is not affected, causes the people in that domestic market to (sometimes wrongly) blame the EU for "forcing unwanted laws" etc. My view is that a healthy Europe is a diverse one - and imperial measures marks us, in the UK, has having one such diversity. May I draw your attention to the fact that popularity of the EU and the metric system has declined since the early 70's in the UK. I believe that forcing the two issues together has harmed both subjects matters, regardless if the observer is pro or anti EU, or pro or anti metric. I believe that the perception that the EU "allows us to use some imperial" would be a lot less harmful to the EU as an institution than the perception that the EU wants to abolish something that many people here see as uniquely British. Kind Regards Steve Humphreys UK _________________________________________________________________ Free photo editing software from Windows Live . Try it now! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665240/direct/01/
