No, I didn’t miss that part. It says innovations. I doesn’t say inventions.
Who invented movies, Rnatb?
Since that question is unanswerable in short form, would you object to movies being listed among a brief summary of Woodville Latham’s innovations? Especially a list paid for by the word (or space-restricted)? I wouldn’t. They certainly wouldn’t be the same without him. That’s all this list is saying.
Again, if you can prove that an African American had nothing to do with one of these items, I’ll change my mind.
What’s more Negroes invented people! In Africa! Whitey is a defective model adapted to poorer sunlight climates. Whitey is so not wanting to pay royalties that Whitey made up a fictitious Jew God as a “creator” and then charges Negroes royalties to worship this Jew God in order get elected to any political office.
The part I find funny is that some of the invented or innovated stuff is almost embarrassing to brag about. Yeah, clever or useful or somewhat better than what came before, but not the kind of of invention or innovation that makes you slap your head and say “wow, what a freaking genius this guy is !”
Least they left the pet rock and chea pet out of the list.
You skipped over my post. I’ll break it down for you again:
*"A mind is responsible for the traffic light…
hairbrush…
the fact that each and every one of the wonderful innovations mentioned here came from the mind. The mind of an African-American."*
A mind is responsible for the hairbrush. The hairbrush is a wonderful innovation. The wonderful innovation - “the hairbrush” - came from the mind of an African-American. An African American invented the hairbrush.
Also, the NYT is apparently violating their own advertising policy by publishing that ad.
“The Times may decline to accept advertising that is misleading, inaccurate or fraudulent; that makes unfair competitive claims; or that fails to comply with its standards of decency and dignity.”
Or maybe the editors of the New York Times, to whom I lend a lot more respect and authority than sdmb poster Carol Stream, did not find it to be fraudulent, etc.
Maybe they weren’t paying attention. Our esteemed mods get rid of anything that doesn’t fit the Dope’s policies, but sometimes they’re asleep and a reported thread stands for several hours until one wakes up. And certainly reports help speed up their work. I’ve seen many times people complaining “how can THIS not have been fixed yet?” when they hadn’t called Maintenance to fix it - perhaps the editors don’t really check every single ad unless someone says “isn’t this one strange?”
I seen a house fly. I seen a horse fly. Well I even seen a dragon fly. But I be done seen about everything, when I see someone claim the editors of the New York fucking Times don’t even look at the ads they place.
No, they aren’t. They just say that they have the option to do so if they want to. Apparently, this time they let it slide. Maybe because they felt the cause excused the bullshit. Or they didn’t want to look like racists if the UNCF threw a public fit over their refusal. Or maybe they just didn’t care - how many times have newspapers published stories debunked on Snopes ? They’ve got paper to sell, a deadline to meet, it’s a fast world !