As an objective bystander concerned about the well being of my fellow students, I feel that it is my duty to share my views on the alleged M&M counting dispute. Please do not interpret the following suggestion as a reflection of weak-minded thought, intended to please both parties, but rather a new look at the situation and the effectiveness of both proposed counting methods. First, I ask you to consider the tasty chocolate treats contained in a bag. On the package, one may note that they are measured by WEIGHT. Thus, we can infer that the manufacturers have no intention of maintaining a consistent number of candies in the bag, but simply the same amount of chocolately goodness. Such is the same with almost all packaged food products. However, we must then question the real reasoning behind this; the packages are measured by weight simply as a matter of convenience. As we all know, the American system of manufacturing (first initiated by Eli Whitney in 1798 with interchangeable gun parts) is based heavily upon mass production; counting each M&M individually would be much too tedious a task. Although, I must note that this practice could be performed rather quickly by having a machine that automatically counts candies based on their weight, as are commonly used in banks to count coins. Because the M&M's are produced to be the same size, one can assume that their individual masses would vary only slightly. This is the same principle applied to the coin counting machines; the uncertainty in the average mass of a certain type of coin is so small that it can effectively be ignored. Thus, the mass of the candies is considered to be directly proportional to the number of M&M's. If this assumption can be made in an institution where precision and accuracy are vital, why then can it not be applied to a private study for the frugal consumer? Both of you do have valid arguments, but I think you may be losing sight of the fact that there is so little difference between the relationship of the M&M's to their weight and their count that BOTH methods would be equally as effective. Even in practical application, counting may take more time, but because we do not have electronic balances readily available, there would be a delay in obtaining results (plus the added trauma of keeping the M&M's without eating them, and making sure they did not melt).

Second, one must also consider the machine in the downstairs lounge that charges one quarter per serving of M&M's. In this device, servings are measured by volume, and are independent of the mass. However, servings vary from 9 to 12 pieces, and therefore also would demand 2 forms of counting, because both a different mass and different number of candies come out each time.