Comments on: Why it helps to know history

By: John Drake

John Drake — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 03:33:23 +0000

Would that someone would institutionalize Stephen Downes for his own good.

By: Bill Leonard

Bill Leonard — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:52:46 +0000

Those who have been following the general fate of newspapers of late, and who have watched want ad sections shrivel and vanish, understand that these days, newspapers will take any — ANY! — revenue-producer. Even the Tarot readers, seers generally, and traders in trusses and eneuresis remedies (‘Men past 40 bothered by bed-wetting?’ was a regular for years) have been looking elsewhere to advertise.

By: Clix

Clix — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:39:58 +0000

Also, this is a classified ad – the primary concern is typically to make sure it’s reproduced accurately. For the most part, it’s a job that requires clerical accuracy rather than an ability to understand allusions.

I could’ve caught this, but there probably would’ve been plenty of missed typos that got me fired before I got this far!

By: Dawn

Dawn — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:17:56 +0000

“Contrary to the tone of this post, I would say that the problem lies in the person who placed the ad, not the person who failed to spot it and remove it.”

Of course the person who placed the ad had a problem. I think most of us took it as a given. That just wasn’t the point of the post is all.

By: Bart

Bart — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:02:20 +0000

It had to have been a prank.

By: Collin Hitt

Collin Hitt — Sun, 31 May 2009 14:56:35 +0000

Garfield and McKinley are obscure – except for the fact that they were assassinated! Indeed, anyone who can appreciate (or even recognize)any meaningful reference to the iconic Lincoln and Kennedy would have to know, at the very least, that the other two were assassinated. Indeed, the supposed “oversight” of the “obscure” Garfield and McKinley suggests that the significance – any significance – of Lincoln and Kennedy escaped the advertisement editors, as well.

Given my recollection of Advertising majors from college, this is not surprising.

By: SuperSub

SuperSub — Sun, 31 May 2009 13:00:37 +0000

I wonder if the person placing the ad really had that sentiment or if they knew the staff at the paper would be clueless and wanted to play a prank.

As for it being heinous, I can remember similar sentiments being shared in various ways for the past three Presidents…

By: Ragnarok

Ragnarok — Sun, 31 May 2009 03:22:38 +0000

Stephen Downes said:

“Contrary to the tone of this post, I would say that the problem lies in the person who placed the ad, not the person who failed to spot it and remove it.”

Ah, Senor Downes, missin’ the forest fer the trees, as usual. Ain’t consistency great?

By: Dr. Weevil

Dr. Weevil — Sun, 31 May 2009 03:20:29 +0000

Tangentially related: when I mentioned Garfield in passing in a mostly-freshmen Latin class, the top student said (begin incredulous teen pronunciation) “There was a president Garfield? Like the CAT?!” Perhaps some day she will learn that Calvin and Hobbes were a theologian and a philosopher before they were cartoon characters.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 31 May 2009 02:01:31 +0000

Contrary to the tone of this post, I would say that the problem lies in the person who placed the ad, not the person who failed to spot it and remove it.

This is an education blog. The tone of the post is entirely appropriate.