Neither of the patents that link mentions are now used or have ever been used, as far as I can tell… and in what language is “motor” a synonym for “refrigeration unit”?
I don’t know, I assumed it could have been some kind of motor for a cooling unit, but then again maybe not. Really, I’ve said multiple times you’re asking the wrong person. I posted the appropriate phone number if you want clarification.
BTW, in case my post #12 gave the wrong impression, I really don’t think the ad is that big a deal. It contains some pretty egregious exaggerations, but isn’t worth getting riled up about, IMO.
Why do you believe that she is a racist and if the smiley is supposed to convey that you’re aware there’s no evidence of it, why do I deserve an apology any more she does?
stpauler explained it in post #85:
Is it still over your head or would you like me to break it down even further for you?
You aplogized- i responded to some of your quotes with this:
In your next response to me you called me an argumentative prick.
How is what I said “not how it happened”?
Nevertheless, his mind is not responsible for “the motor,” or anything remotely like that. If they meant to say that an African American “held several patents …” why not just say so? What the hell is so hard about speaking the plain truth?
Nope. The ad says that a motor is an innovation and that it came from the mind of an African American. That’s bullshit.
OK, I happen to use a wooden comb [boxwood, got it at an SCA event and it reproduces one found at Birka] and a fuller brush where the handle is wooden and it is boars bristle. So mine wasn’t “innovated” by a black person?
Actually, ask me if I give a flying fuck what color anybody in particular is?:rolleyes:
we got geniuses and idiots that are black, white, yellow and brown [and every genetic combination between] so again, why should I give a fuck what race anybody is? They are all HUMAN. If I can crossbreed with them, they are human [if i wasnt unable to reproduce without a lot of medical assistance that is]
Asinine reasoning. By your logic, anyone who disagrees with Times on anything must be wrong. This is demonstrably untrue.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Honestly, I think the thrust of this thread is that a more honest ad - highlighting the numbers of people who have been helped by the College Fund and their subsequent accomplishments instead of spreading urban legends - would be more effective.
Well, it’s too late to call now. Anyone wanna call tomorrow?
stuthehistoryguy, I’m not sure how much of this thread you’ve actually read but I’m pretty sure that if the OP had been anything near as civil to what you just wrote we would not all be in the BBQ Pit now. Cisco didn’t, I think, expend all that energy by way of saying the ad is perfect. AFAICT his view is that the ad is defensible and shouldn’t be called lying. He sees the use of the word “innovation” as disclaiming a stronger title to invention and, still less, sole invention. Others disagree.
Editors do not ever look at ads before publication. The advertising and editorial departments of newspapers are completely separate for ethical reasons. The advertising managers might have scrutinized the text of the ad more carefully, and asked the advertiser to clarify and justify it, but the editorial staff has no more business looking at advertising than an advertising salesperson has writing a news story.
The quoted list uses the term “innovation” in a disengenuious way. An aluminium cooling system for an internal combustion engine to replace a rubber cooling system is an innovation. The internal combustion engine is an invention.
Mainly because it uses the word “innovation” to describe what are, for the most part, inventions, and uses the word “responsible” to describe the relationship of certain minds to said innovations, and does so when it would have been an act of purest simplicity to describe those things in plain language that left little room for doubt.
When an advertisement plays fast and loose with the truth it’s a safe bet that someone is trying to pad the stats, so to speak.
I read the whole thing. If you recall, the list of devices in the OP began with:
A mind is responsible for…
and concluded with:
*Indeed, it’s time to stop and celebrate the fact that each and every one of the wonderful innovations mentioned here came from the mind. The mind of an African American. *
The text does not specify innovations in the *design *of each device. The implication is that each device was in itself an innovation from the mind of an African American. Given the devices listed, this is patently absurd, and absolutely qualifies as lying, especially when printed in the Times. You might let a junior high student slide on this, but not a national organization. Indeed, the text as written actually **downplays **legitimate accomplishments by lumping them in with more specious claims. This cannot be denounced in strong enough terms.
I am picturing the marketing meeting where this stuff was discussed- the careful avoidance of the word “invented,” the assurances that words like “innovations” and “innovated” would ensure that no one could pin them down on anything…
Sweet.
This entire thread is…shrill. Deafeningly shrill. Ick.
Check out this postwhere I linked to the time where they did use “invented”. Whoops!
Cisco–Put down the shovel, dude.
The stupidest thing on that list: Food preservation.
Excuse me?
FOOD PRESERVATION???
Food preservation doesn’t just predate Americans. It predates Africans. It predates cavemen. It predates humans. Animals find ways to make their food last longer, for god’s sake.
“Food preservation” isn’t “an innovation.” There have been many innovations in food preservation over the years, but the concept and the practice of extending the time before food becomes inedible is not “an innovation.”
Yep – you mean like when my cats try to bury their food, to save it for later? Or squirrels storing nuts for winter?