It would appear that the US government will not use any form of compulsion to further metrication. Therefore, the cause can ONLY be furthered by convincing people. That requires a compelling argument to people who aren't already convinced. We may not actually convert Steve, but we should welcome dissenters so we have someone to practice on and try to sharpen the effectiveness of our arguments.
Preaching to the choir really doesn't sharpen one's preaching skills. It is certainly reasonable to expect everyone on the board to behave civilly towards each other, but if we can't counter dissenter's arguments with stronger, better arguments, we are not of much use to the metrication movement, are we? Obviously, I do NOT favor kicking dissenters off the board, I favor converting them. Now, whether my argument is strong enough is a whole other matter. But that is why athletes exercise; this is mental exercise. The real game is when we make arguments to people who actually control metrication decisions in the US. ________________________________ From: John Frewen-Lord <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 2:18:14 AM Subject: [USMA:47478] Re: Opponents of metrication change I fully endorse free speech. However, having said that, you have to put that principle in the context of the forum concerned. Yes, let's have lots of debate on HOW to metricate, WHO to metricate, even WHY to metricate. But a discussion on WHETHER to metricate? Doesn't make sense to me on this forum. Surely whether to metricate is a given, else why bother with the USMA? Or is the USMA itself so unsure about whether the US should metricate it needs to allow (even encourage?) opponents of metrication free access to post their anti-metric views? If the USMA is in fact fully convinced that the US needs to metricate (and presumably it is, else why would it even exist?), then any postings (and subsequent discussions) that are anti-metric in nature are at the very least 'off-topic' and a waste of everyone's time. Stephen Humphreys, as has been pointed out in the past, is a 'wind-up' merchant. He posts here just to cause mayhem. The best thing is, if he is to be continued to be allowed to post here, is for everyone of us to simply ignore him. John F-L ----- Original Message ----- >From: Paul Trusten >To: U.S. Metric Association >Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 6:50 AM >Subject: [USMA:47477] Re: Opponents of metrication change > > >Ametrica, > >The USMA Listserver is a forum on metrication, not an executive body for its >enforcement. > >I think you are confusing freedom of speech with enforcement. Perhaps this is >why the U.S. Constitution was crafted to divide power among three branches of >government:, to separate discourse from enforcement. The legislatures are >deliberative bodies. They give voice to both supporters and opponents of an >idea, and then hold votes to arrive (or not arrive) at a plan. But. once a >plan is approved, and then endorsed by the executive, the process must be >carried out with total unity. In Constitutional terms, once the Congress has >fixed the standard of weights and measures (Article I, Sec.8) and gives the >go-ahead for the changeover, all else folllows. Metrication is like the >central nervous system. It starts in the brain. > >The 1970s U.S. Metric Board (USMB)was a toothless and divided body. It was >born of watered-down legislation, was premised upon a vague mission >("coordinate the increasing use of the metric system) and it died due to a >lack of national leadership on metrication and also due to disunity from >within. I certainly agree with you that there should be no anti-metric >members on the USMB. To appoint such people to that board is absurd. But to >include opposing views in a discussion group is just that: to allow free >speech, and not necessarily to endorse the contents of the speech. > >I have been a subscriber to the USMA Listserver since 1997. It has been one of >the most useful tools I've had for advancing the national goal of U.S. >metrication. As a private citizen, as editor of USMA's newsletter Metric >Today, and now as the organization's public relations director, I could not >have done without the list. It has been a very rich source of both background >information and late-breaking news on metric that has helped supply the >newsletter with articles of interest, and it has been an invaluable source for >keeping USMA and its members welcome in the circles of government and industry >that will make metrication a fact in America. In that spirit, our Web site >has been honored with a place on the International Bureau of Weights and >Measures' list of "useful links," and has made USMA a primary metric source >for journalists across the country. Over the years, the list has given voice >to the opposition, but almost all of that opposition was of the disruptive variety. On a few occasions, we have had to ban some subscribers who were nothing less than would-be saboteurs. > >I believe that one of the worst images USMA could project is that of a >monolithic insurgency bent upon squelching debate and acting with a kind of >brute force. Given the sight of such a group, U.S. industry would run the >other way. In the Australian government booklet Metrication In Australia, >the point is rammed home that metrication is a complex event, requiring the >assent of many different sectors of a society. Using this approach, Australia >succeeded brilliantly in metricating itself at every level. I know, because I >visited that country in 2007 and saw it for myself, right down to kilonewtons >of force on a sewer cover and 700-gram portions of steak in a restaurant. To >accomplish that change required the widest possible cooperation among indusry, >academia, goverment, and the communications media. The booklet noted that no >penalties were established to enforce metrication. Everybody measures things, >so once the decision was made to go metric, there was little to impede the process, because the path had been well designed. But the path requires talk. If we are to do this thing, we have to talk to each other. > >The best outline for U.S. metrication I have seen came in the form of the >cover letter on the 1971 report to the Congress on metric >(http://www.metric.org/laws/metric-study-1968.html) .Now, that's the spirit! > > >Paul Trusten >Public Relations Director, USMA > >> >>Paul, >>> >>>Can you provide by example where offering the opposition a say on any matter >>>has actually helped in promoting that particular matter? Didn't metrication >>>fail in the '70s~80s because the US Metric Board was required to include >>>persons opposed to metrication? You don't promote metrication by giving >>>those who oppose your ideals a voice. If you do, then you guarantee your >>>ideal will NEVER bear fruit. As for the statement below where ....The >>>Listserver is meant to promote communication between USMA members and others >>>interested in metrication, I would take it to mean something quite >>>different. Persons opposed to metrication are not interested in metrication. >>>The whole concept of the existence of the USMA is to PROMOTE metrication. If >>>you allow those who oppose metrication to be apart of your group (even under >>>the false belief that they will change their beliefs) your are assuring its >>>failure. >>>I believe the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:30 apply to this situation: >>> >>>"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me >>>scatters. Think of how these words apply to the issue at hand. If the people >>>whom you allow to be apart of your group do not back you 100 % then your >>>goals will fail. Case and point; the fate of the US Metric Board. In order >>>for the Listserver to be successful and meet its goal, it must only contain >>>members who support metrication, otherwise metrication will continue to fail >>>and people like your self will see your frustrations increase. Discussions >>>and debates should be tailored to finding ways to formulate a workable plan >>>that can be presented to the government in the name of the USMA. I've have >>>yet to see anything even close to this happening. By allowing those with >>>opposing viewpoints, you have caused the potential supporters of metrication >>>to scatter, not gather. The result is a failure of the nation to metricate. >>>Metrication needs strong leadership and that only comes from surrounding yourself with true and loyal supporters. If you really want to see metrication happen in the US you will do what it takes to assure the USMA is a group of supporters. Otherwise you might as well give up and concede defeat. Opposing viewpoints may be an excellent source of lively discussion, but it is a terrible source for promoting metrication. The opposition is using you to divide your efforts and conquer you. It is up to you as an officer in the USMA to determine if that is in the USMA's best interests. Truthfully, I doubt you will do what is right and continue along the wrong path. So, don't be surprised when your frustration with going nowhere increases. Actually, I think it is somewhat exciting to watch the metric world progress at America's expense. Maybe helping keep the metric system out of the US isn't such a bad thing, if it gives other the power to move ahead. >>>Ametrica >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>[USMA:47463] Purpose of USMA Listserver (was Re: Re: Bespoke tailoring) >>>Paul Trusten >>>Mon, 31 May 2010 21:56:03 -0700 >>> >>>Ametrica, >>> >>>The description of the USMA Listserver is stated on our Web site at >>>www.metric.org/listserver.htm , in part, as follows: >>> >>>The Listserver is meant to promote communication between USMA members and >>>others interested in metrication. The subscribers alone determine the volume >>>and content of messages. >>>I would interpret this to mean that, since metrication is a measurement >>>issue, any discussion of related measurement issues is welcome. While the >>>majority of subscribers to our Listserver support U.S. metrication, opposing >>>viewpoints are always welcome. Indeed, opposing viewpoints are excellent >>>sources of lively >>>discussion of the issue. >>> >>>Paul Trusten, R.Ph. >>>Public Relations Director >>>U.S. Metric Association, Inc. >>>[email protected] >>>www.metric.org >>>www.twitter.com/usmetric >>>+1(432)528-7724 >>> >>> >>>, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.comfor more >>>metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected] >>>or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: >>>http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
