Replies

1. 
   Ralph_Wicklund | Nov 10, 1999 11:14am | #1

   *
   Sounds like our political pencilpushers have a little too much free time on their hands again. Do you know the rationale behind this move? Some of my suppliers are already pricing by the square foot but I think this is just marketing so at first glance the customer thinks he is getting a deal. Sort of like saying $2.97, where the consumer is conditioned to see the two ($2) and not really paying attention to the fact that he should be calculating three ($3). Ralph

2. 
   Guest_ | Nov 10, 1999 11:18am | #2

   *
   Now
   b that
   will
   b really
   save the customer won't it!

   Grumble, grumble, grumble...

1. 
   Guest_ | Nov 10, 1999 12:02pm | #3

   *Just another law on the books to save the consumer the hassle of using their head.It is a sad state of affairs when we need the government to keep us from learning basic math.BTW: I always thought Buddy was lying when I heard him on television spouting off about some $2.00.......what he say Fern?.....2.00 a what????We already had Uncle Sam step in and limit the amount of water we use to flush the projectile.Next, before you know it, they will be limiting the size of the projectile and taxing for overages.Next, they will be pass a law against the turlet manufacturers claiming they don't "adequately" inform the consumer how to "squint and aim".I suppose there are some people in this world who don't know how many feet are in a square yard.Of course, we should appropriate a couple million or so to set up a "program" protect those folks, and another 100 million or so to administrate that package, eh?And we bitch about what the government spends on a toilet seat?Signed,Anonymous

1. 
   Guest_ | Nov 10, 1999 03:58pm | #4

   *Sounds like a good time for a price increase that we can blae on washington. Do you tink old George would still want his name on that city?

1. 
   Guest_ | Nov 10, 1999 04:45pm | #5

   *Now, now, at a stroke the Commerce Dept. has slashed the price of flooring nearly 90%!I do favor consistent units of measure. The English system is bizarre enough without shifting between its even nuttier subcomponents. Quick, how many square feet in an acre? Square yards? How many square rods? (Yes, I know the answers, they're in my dictionary.) Volumetric stuff is even worse, and we actually use it every time we go to the supermarket -- tsp, tbsp., fluid oz., cups, pints, quarts, etc.Did everyone here hear (hear hear!) about the $125 million Mars probe Lockheed lost because one team was working in metric and another in English? Boy, that's gotta hurt.

1. 
   Guest_ | Nov 11, 1999 08:28am | #6

   *When it comes to measurement, we're as bad as the French are regarding their language - heaven forbid that we should actually use something that makes as much sense as the metric system - I mean, just because it is our legal system of measure.And, Andrew, it gets worse. Take the gallon - but which one. There is US dry, US liquid, and Imperial. Oh, and ounces - Troy, Avoirdupois, British fluid, and US fluid. And with tons, there is the long and the short (and even the metric systems gets into the confusion act with a "metric ton"). Fortunately, with miles the Nautical Mile is usually called a Knot which distinguishes it from the Statute Mile... So here is one for you - how many pinches to a peck?

2. 
   Guest_ | Nov 11, 1999 04:16pm | #7

   *Lockheed just bumped up the price to the government(Aka us), probably. The only cost to then was a couple of congressmen, They are cheaper by the peck(or is that decaliter, or pint or...).Rick Tuk(yes I did get a tax bill today, just venting)

3. 
   Guest_ | Jan 04, 2000 11:30pm | #8

   *
   Hello everyone,

   I was wondering if the new law, set to go into effect Jan 1, 2000 about the new way floor coverings are to be sold will have a direct impact on your business.

   The Department of Commerce, Division of Weights and Measures has issued a new law that states all floor coverings are to be sold by the square foot, versus the square yard (effective 01/01/2000)

   James DuHamel