Re: Seaming Flats

Christopher Jahn wrote...

>> 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.

NO YOU HAVEN'T!

> 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.

Quote them then.

> 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."

No, it is only a fact that the information appears on a manufacturer's
website, which is not at all the same thing. All manufacturers like an
interesting story that adds to product interest and its veracity is
generally of little or no no importance. A recent UK example of this was
the derivation of the name of a British Ice Cream product - the '99' (Ice
Cream Cone with a chocolate flake stuck in it), which has recently been
investigated by the editors of the OED, with the assistance of the British
public, via the BBC. An article on the Chocolate manufacturer's website
still gives an "authoritative" explanation of why and when the company chose
the name "99" for the chocolate product and this had actually been quoted
(with some reservations) in the previous OED entry for the word. However,
early examples of usage revealed by the recent research has led to the
conclusion that the word is apparently an arbitrary marketing name and the
fanciful story promoted by the manufacturer is without foundation so that
the dictionary entry has just been ammended accordingly.

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

Just because a story "fits the facts" doesn't make it true! It's just as
likely that a product was developed specifically for ductwork that was based
upon a wartime adhesive tape, in exactly the same way as the development of
that product may have been based upon a pre-existing surgical product. It
would seem obvious that there has been a confusion between "Duct Tape" and
"Duck Tape" but no unequivocal evidence which way the metamorphosis actually
occurred. Unless you can provide dated documentary evidence of the usage of
these two words pre-dating the earliest examples in the latest edition of
the OED (1965 & 1971) then I remain totally unconvinced about the authority
of your suggested derivation.

> 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!

No it was of no importance at all (you had already stated that
information) - the important part of the article that YOU totally ignore is
that the writer made it very clear that this was mere speculation based on
hearsay evidence - "UNDOCUMENTED TRADITION" - if you ever try to rely on
undocumented tradition as evidence in a legal defence then I wouldn't care
to bet on your chances of "getting off"! Apart from that, after suggesting
the two possible derivations that you quote, the writer goes on to admit to
yet another, unrelated, possibility - "something to do with an amphibious
DUKW".

> 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.

Actually NONE of these assertions are undisputable
There is quite likely to have been such a wartime product but apparently
absolutely no DOCUMENTED evidence that proves it was called Duck Tape at the
time and so all your blustering is irrelevant.

> 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.

The point of introducing the OED references is that they are the only
authoritative sources that I am aware of that have researched the etymology
of these words and present earliest examples of their usage. OED covers the
international usage of the English language but if you can point me at an
equivalent US resource then I will be glad to read it - the only readily
available American resource I am aware of is Merriam-Webster, which does not
give derivation or examples for "DUCT TAPE" ("a wide silvery cloth adhesive
tape designed for sealing joints in heating or air-conditioning ducts") and
does not acknowledge the existence of "DUCK TAPE" at all. Why you should
assume in a debate about the etymology of English words that the principal
reference work on the subject is irrelevant is arrogance beyond my
comprehension.

The point of my strong objection is not that your explanation is necessarily
wrong - it may well be correct. The problem is that there is really no
evidence one way or the other. To claim otherwise and state such theories
as though they are proven facts is what leads to the enormous amount of
erroneous rubbish that pervades the www, multiplies accross inumerable
websites and finds its way into the belief systems of countless readers.
The Duck/Duct controversy is trivial of course - just like many
"urban-myths", but much information asserted in exactly the same
non-rigorous manner is misleading in ways that are positively dangerous and
it's a habit that should be deprecated wherever it is encountered.



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

I know YOU haven't but this was a reply to the group and not a personal
email to you. The derivation of the term "GAFFER TAPE" has been a recurring
topic of interest and discussion in the past and is of general relevance to
this thread. If you bother to read what I wrote you will notice that I said
'Out of interest I also add the OED entry for "GAFFER TAPE"'. If this turns
out to have been of no interest to anyone at all then I apologise for
contributing this unwanted information!

David


.

Loading