FAQ  •   Login  •   Register  •   Subscribe 

Welcome to the Forum for InventorSpot.com, the most popular invention related website in the world. Read our welcome message.

Skip to content

Moderators: Michelle, Scrupulous, Roger Brown, citizen

Postby bottleslingguy » Sat May 26, 2007 4:35 am

User avatar
Black Belt
Posts: 1753
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am

Maybe it's because your Caps Lock key is always on? :lol:

Postby bottleslingguy » Sat May 26, 2007 4:48 am

User avatar
Black Belt
Posts: 1753
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
Road said, "when you talk about big picture ideas and all you get excited about is baby bottles and ear plugs, maybe your vision is a bit distorted"

Are you referring to the "can't see the Trees for the Forest" thing? What I meant by saying exactly that is that they have these huge visions for something that may (or may not) happen aka "Forest", and overlook these ready to go products with huge marketability and unquestionably will get positive responses by consumers across the nation and which can be shipped and sold across the nation at a low cost (they are lightweight and small). AND they overlook those little tiny trees that don't cost alot to make and aren't complicated yet have broad claims in a field AND that is already protected by a US Patent. Thanks for finally being honest with your feelings. I know you've had it bottled up inside for a long time now. :cry:

That's all I got ta say about that! :D

Postby bottleslingguy » Sat May 26, 2007 5:11 am

User avatar
Black Belt
Posts: 1753
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
Ave said, "If the product is far enough along and the market is there then the inventor can get it off the ground with a little help from the forum or by reading how to do it from those who have."

AverageInventor I respect you for your pragmatic style and approach (oddly enough I consider myself quite the pragmatist), but this guy TJSolsberg came to US you idiot! :lol: (that was totally a joke and not a true insult. swear.)

He posted over at the Angel Investor thread and basically said "Hi, I'm TJ. The show kicked me off and I might get a second or two of airtime. Is anyone here interested in helping me? ".

See, and this is no indictment of you Ave, but many people are overlooking extremely important opportunities by wasting time explaining why they didn't want to offend anyone. Let's all grow up and get in synch. How long is it going to take to finally vote on which is the first project the group will undertake? Don't forget the name thing too... Season Two of AI is starting soon, ISpotTV is about to premier. This is amazing! :x

Forget I am the one who brought this up. I want no compensation. But please, someone out there has got to see this tiny little tree. (where is the "corny" emoticon when you need it?)

Postby DannyB » Sat May 26, 2007 8:37 am

Green Belt
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:02 am
Location: TX
Maybe I misunderstood something from the beginning. I thought the whole idea was to get a bunch of people together to “inventâ€

Postby Average Inventor » Sat May 26, 2007 8:46 am

User avatar
Average Inventor
Brown Belt
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

The naming of the group and the decision as to the first project will be done after the group is established and the groundwork has been completed. Please try to help us out in moving it along by sticking with the majority voiced time line. We are voting on the first 5 issues thus far and trying to solidify them so we are in agreement and can move forward. Scrupulous is trying to move things along and get things done so let's respect his initiative and structure and help him get things done so we can move on to seeing what the majority wants as far as names and projects (when all the groundwork is finished).

Well it was fun

Postby gbell » Sat May 26, 2007 9:34 am

White Belt
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Los Angeles,CA
Sorry folks, but you took my simple concept and have distorted it into something I am not interested in participating in. I don't like the tenor of the discussions, Hell, I don’t even like the idea that I brought a concept here and everyone decided that it was up for debate. It wasn't your concept to change; no one even offered me the courtesy of asking me weather I would consider re-evaluating my positions on these points.

In the beginning I pointed out that this discussion would turn into (if not nipped in the bud) an argument over ownership. My statement was negated, dismissed, and totally over ruled.

As far as the #5 item The Mandate. That was the only cornerstone of real value, the thing that would indeed make this a real success, not just another common poker game.

So if we continue along this vein, which it appears that, you already have. You will not have my support. I am not interested in bickering an I will not be involved in a coalition, assembled with the sole intent making mere junk, we don't NEED another board game our homes don't need another fad, to fill the hall closet once the newness has worn off.

Society needs what we can do if we are earnest, but it doesn't need us if we are in it purely for the game.

I will continue to watch, I will not debate this or any issue, it was evident from the earlier exchanges that people in here feel that I need them to do this, simply put I don't. As I said when I posted the idea, I was looking to do this in the real world. Not in a forum where people with a talent for the written word will always prevail. So regardless of how this works out in here, I will make it happen in the real world.

There people will not have the opportunity to debate the ground rules, they will either agree or they won't play. It's really that simple. What I proposed was the fairest shake any of us will ever see. Believe me, look at what NASA, JPL and our military complex does to people like us.

That’s enough

Postby mojo62 » Sat May 26, 2007 10:04 am

User avatar
Black Belt
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: Texas
Glenn, I thought you were gone after you and Scrup had it out and said "GOOD LUCK AND BYE BYE". An interesting concept you started here.
It was obvious that you were very profound in your starting this. You attracted many others to be interested in the idea. Inventors jumped in and started to ponder the idea and started to agree on some things and disagree on others. You obviously want to continue on your idea. I welcome you to have this thread for you to continue. I am going to kindly bow out. A list of guidlines would have been needed and agreed apon by all members. I would like you to stick to your guidlines and you and your group and keep on making great progress. I envy your persistance, but do not agree that it would all work like you insist in needs to. A group will have to hash everything out, agree on all aspects with a majority rule.
Good luck as you continue and I apoligze for breaking into your idea and trying to be a part. I also thank you for the concept as I am going to start a new thread call Inventor Web Co.tm. I hope you don't mind if
we continue to use your list as a base and change it to our agreement.
If you object to that , we can start with a fresh list of our own. Let me know. I respect your thoughts and your drive and want to end this on a friendly note. Anyone else, I will see you at Inventor Web Co. tm.

Postby Average Inventor » Sat May 26, 2007 10:08 am

User avatar
Average Inventor
Brown Belt
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

It would be very unfortunate if you would take an all or nothing attitude. I feel as I would assume others may feel that you provided a good starting point and we are trying to come up with some common framework. We are not suggesting going after the next pet rock or tinker toy or that type of thing we are just trying to allow a wide enough birth for ideas so that we can have a good assortment to pick from. I feel if we limit the scope to only "save the world" ideas we might be losing a lot of good talented members and we might miss out on some good ideas that also have great altruistic ramifications.

Postby Scrupulous » Sat May 26, 2007 11:06 am

User avatar
Black Belt
Posts: 2387
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:32 pm
Location: United States
People can be fine human beings until you get them into a group with no structure. There’s also no reason to expect someone with little or no people skills to do any better, once they find a group that they think belongs to them. This group belongs to no one, at least not yet. It never has. If you look back to how this thing got going, you’ll see that it was added to, by choice, based on the total input provided at any given point. At no time was it based on the efforts or thinking of a single person. Fantasizing that this would all be for you, would be your first challenge to overcome. Inasmuch as inventors are usually odd by nature, we’re also not interested in providing psychiatric care for anyone. Enough said on that.

If you don’t like the things that have developed, then LEEEEAVE. We wouldn’t want people that weren’t clever enough to recognize them anyway (please read that again). This obviously could not work without some ground rules. If that’s not good enough for you, then it shouldn’t matter to you what happens to this group. Just go off and start your own group, period. We’ll see you when you realize that you can’t just jump on the internet and expect people to do what you say, unless you’re Cindy Margolis.

I say this as a representative of the progress that has already been made. If you can’t acknowledge that, and if you fail to show that you’re able to honor ANY guidelines, then the group doesn’t want you here. Some of you are participating to the ‘discussion’ without even having entered the group. If this was a playground, you would be on the other side. Just enter the group and play along. Yes, it’s that simple.

I CAN say that we’d be looking for a minimum level of mental capacity (an MLMC tm, if you will). That wouldn’t be too much to ask IMHO. Let me give you some examples of what would NOT (knot, naught, gnawt, naw-tt) qualify as a minimum level of mental capacity, for the sake of the group…

1. Criticizing the very individuals that would be assisting you (a big-big no-no)
2. Criticizing the very individuals that would be assisting you
3. Criticizing the very individuals that would be assisting you
4. Assuming that a bunch of creative, headstrong individuals agree with you simply because you can type
5. Failing to recognize that this group still has the potential to be extremely (x-treemly) valuable
6. Taking for granted, that this group will always be here.
7. Criticizing the very individuals that would be assisting you

This whole time, I’ve never seen a need to constrain this under specific limitations. To do that would be to express a lack of understanding in the creative process. Once it gets going, and there are enough scratch inventors here, who possess more brainpower than you could imagine (or at least give credit for), then we would be able to branch off and ‘compartmentalize’ certain aspects. But, it wouldn’t happen until then anyway. So, to close people off, who have not yet considered one particular approach to society, without considering their potential to do so, when given enough of a reason, would almost belong on the list of Seven Examples of What Isn’t a Display of a Minimum Level of Mental Capacity tm.

People, I’m a big fan of setting something aside when you’ve reached a snag, because when you come back and pick it up again, the chances are that you will be able to tackle it. Why don’t we just give it a rest for now, enjoy the holiday, and come back with more productive attitudes? Yes-Yes?


Postby bottleslingguy » Sat May 26, 2007 7:36 pm

User avatar
Black Belt
Posts: 1753
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am

I said from the start it would be egos clashing that will grind this whole thing to a halt. We don't even have a cohesive idea of WHAT we're trying to accomplish. If everybody here, at the beginning of this discussion, was so important to the group and everyone's contribution would guarantee them some sort of equal share, then why are we all fighting and why were my suggestions justification for someone to insult not only me but my invention?

Maybe it's my style of writing? I'm much different in person, but this method of communication is preferable to me- there's no one talking over each other and everybody gets a chance to be heard (but not always read and not always understood). granted I don't always write my ideas clearly enough or concisely enough and someone can miss understand or misinterpret what I wrote. One letter can change the whole meaning to someone and an argument can ensue. Or someone may not like something else personally about me for some reason or another. I try to keep things lighthearted and usually when I don't respond to something it's because I may agree or just not have anything to say about it. I responded to G's rules. If anybody read that they'll know those were the things I had a problem with. The rest could either be worked out later or dropped due to irrelevance.

I thought Scrup was doing a great job shuffling the deck and keeping things in order. I want to respond to something he just said and then take a break.

"I’m a big fan of setting something aside when you’ve reached a snag, because when you come back and pick it up again, the chances are that you will be able to tackle it. Why don’t we just give it a rest for now, enjoy the holiday, and come back with more productive attitudes? Yes-Yes? "

Gosh and I recall a time when the sociocratic model could be just what this grioup needed. Out-of-the-box-thinking right? Not too constrictive or restrictive to a dynamic flow of ideas. Remember that time? Those were the good old days. We were all so happy back then... or were we just naive? :oops:

This snag Scrup mentioned is a fundamental flaw in this neo-entrepreneurial system. I want to work on projects that can be done within four months and showing returns within a year. Some people want to add components to the process and go through a lengthy voting process like any other inventor's mill with arbitrary ideas wasting valuable time, even postponing the process by going through the USPTO as an invention team. I see the group as peer mentors to people who need help in specific areas to get their product on the shelves and will work out a deal for compensation to the group. Some folks want to ignore them because the whole idea is too "cheesy" or the invention is uninspiring. They're acting like reality tv judges.

Just because I offered two suggestions for products to work with doesn't mean I was pirating the group. I even asked if anyone wanted to work on it separately. The only other project mentioned was the plastic recycling deal. I don't think there is any real reason for me to be perceived as someone who should be kicked out by majority vote aka lynch mob, but I don't think this is my cup of tea so I will humbly bow out.

Don't let this pathological blog-rage become part of the nuts and bolts of the discussion. It eventually turns the whole effort into a circus. I really don't even like to participate in mutual mind-masterbation. It is unproductive, but it is an important component of camraderie, good for morale and it's not as harmful as blog-rage.

How about this: everyone of you brilliant innovators come up with his/hers idea of how the think tank would work? Everybody read each others' and you can ask questions for clarification (not argumentation), or make suggestions. Then if everyone can agree on one well-defined group of bylaws and then come up with goals and then specific projects that can be done within a reasonable amount of time and don't forget- having a sh8tload of $ to work with, I think you have a winner here. It's too bad I quit, hope I don't regret it. :cry: