Re: Seaming Flats

"David Lee" <davidlee_malvern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in news:ueKdnSpsb6rIN0beRVnyrQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

>
> Bollocks Christopher - it is entirely up to you to make sure
> that statements you wish pass off as factual are properly
> supported.

Which I have done.

Sure, the first reference was the easiest to find - and it
was poorly referenced. I had read the story in INVENTION AND
TECHNOLOGY last year; unfortunately, their archives are not
searchable. It's only when you slammed the reference that I
took the time to go through all the back issues to find the
article.

http://www.inventionandtechnology.com/xml/2003/1/it_2003_1_dept_objlessons.xml

I have presented an article from a research organization with
credibility.

The article and the magazine AND the museum that produces the
magazine have references proving the veracity of the argument.

It is a FACT that "Duct" tape was not developed for use with
ducts; that is according to the original maufacturer itself,
Johnson & Johnson's Permacel division, and summed up by the
article:

"The original olive-drab version of the tape was developed
during World War II for a specific purpose: The military needed
a tough, waterproof adhesive tape to seal ammunition cases and
other containers."

Since we know that it wasn't developed for ducts, and since
three reasonable theories are offered that actually FIT THE
FACTS.

Interestingly, you omitted those theories when you quoted that
sentence. So I provide the sentence in its entirety:

"According to an undocumented tradition, military personnel
called the stuff duck tape, _either because water rolled off it
or because of the layer of cotton "duck" cloth that formed its
base_."

Hey, that was some important information you skipped over!

Let's summarize the undisputable facts we have:
- It was NOT developed for ductwork.
- It DID use a layer of cotton DUCK to form its base.
- It WAS designed to be water proof, or to repel water.

I just don't feel you are making any valid points with the OED
reference. In fact, it has only bolstered my original point that
it's DUCK and not DUCT.

BTW, I don't know why you're bringing up Gaffer tape; I haven't
made any comments on the subject.




--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html

FIVE TONS OF FLAX!
.

Loading