Split Thread Conspiracy theories about unconventional usage of notation

[JayUtah]

It doesn't change the truth of the matter of the convention of my Middlesex County Council schooling and how we notated time duration, albeit in full wording in formal reports.

It is not truth until you provide evidence for it. It is not truth until you address the many ways presented to you to show that it cannot be true. The operative claim is not that you used that notation at school, formally or informally. Your claim is that contextually using ″ to indicate minutes of time (rather than seconds of anything or inches) should have been understood as a standard, conventional notation for minutes of time because others used it that way.

You cannot change the truth by repeating a refutation any number of times.

I will repeat the refutation as many times as it takes you to address it instead of sidestepping it. You cannot establish truth by ignoring the evidence that the proposition isn't, and cannot be, true.

Your assertion doesn't negate the reality of my experience.

Your improbable belief is not reality.

You expected that others would understand what you meant. You claim there is no circumstance under which you could have been fairly misunderstood. None of that is substantiated by your latest version of the story: that your quaint little school allowed you misuse a notation without academic consequence.

You're not trying to fix anything. You're simply changing your story as needed to place it, as you believe, ever farther from the possibility of refutation.

″ does not mean minutes of time.
″ never has meant minutes of time.
″ cannot properly mean minutes of time.

That is reality. If you used it that way, your usage was wrong. If you have evidence to challenge that, present it. If you expected that others would have understood your usage the way you intended it, you were wrong.

 

[MBDK]

Your paradoxical and illogical mannerisms are displayed yet again.

under no circumstance can it be interpreted as meaning that I was claiming the Estonia vessel sank in 35 inches of water

Yet, you then contradict that part of your sentence and list specific circumstances, which you immediately dismiss.

just because 99% of posters here have never heard of " being used for duration of time (or so they claim). That is hardly something I have control over.

I entered this thread with no prejudiced opinion, and under that circumstance, I honestly concur that I have never heard of such a confusion of symbols being seriously considered, let alone used, and read it, as it is written, to be 35 inches, presumably of water (being at sea, you know). Also, for the sake of accuracy, your lone claim for your own nonsense is actually about 0.003% of the total posters/members on this forum.

Finally, are you going to admit that port and starboard apply within a ship's hull/structure?

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

I am sorry my writing 35" caused you great anger

Dear god that I don't believe in. You made a mistake. Own it, and do that for future mistakes, and you will move toward rehabilitating your reputation. And will take much less flak for any mistakes.

 

[JayUtah]

Your paradoxical and illogical mannerisms are displayed yet again.

Indeed. The trend I documented a page or two back shows that Vixen continues to narrow the visibility of using ″ to mean either minutes or seconds of time so that she can remove it farther and farther from criticism and review. As she now asserts that it was ever only used in her school, and there only ever informally, it becomes more difficult to refute. Evidence of its usage under those representations would indeed be difficult to come by, and therefore less reasonable to demand.

But it cuts both ways. The farther removed from the mainstream and the more vernacular she claims her usage is, the less she can expect anyone but her to have understood it. And I don't mean simply using primes to annotate time, but her specific vernacular of allowing ″ to mean either minutes or seconds depending on context. If that usage was so very limited, then no one has a prayer of figuring it out. And at that point it's proper to say the usage is just wrong.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The accusation that Jay is a sexist is especially hilarious because Vixen has recently thrown a MASSIVE tantrum over someone else "assuming" that she is female.

 

[jimbob]

Edit:Misposted

 

[Vixen]

Your paradoxical and illogical mannerisms are displayed yet again.





Yet, you then contradict that part of your sentence and list specific circumstances, which you immediately dismiss.





I entered this thread with no prejudiced opinion, and under that circumstance, I honestly concur that I have never heard of such a confusion of symbols being seriously considered, let alone used, and read it, as it is written, to be 35 inches, presumably of water (being at sea, you know). Also, for the sake of accuracy, your lone claim for your own nonsense is actually about 0.003% of the total posters/members on this forum.

Finally, are you going to admit that port and starboard apply within a ship's hull/structure?

As the hull is technically that watertight part of a vessel that is designed to lie beneath the water level, I fail to see what this has to do with the issue of a vessel at a 45° list to starboard and at what point does it lose equilibrium to capsize.

Perhaps take your sophistry question to the person who introduced the non-sequitur, or are we moving into the realms of 'all parts of the boat matter'?

 

[Vixen]

Dear god that I don't believe in. You made a mistake. Own it, and do that for future mistakes, and you will move toward rehabilitating your reputation. And will take much less flak for any mistakes.

It was not a mistake.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Oh, yeah, I can definitely use " to mean minutes but you wouldn't know it because it came from a different school.

I can no longer tell whether all this twisting and turning to deny admitting having made an obvious error is some kind of game, in the manner of Monty Python's cheese shop sketch, or if it's a strange quirk of character where the possibility of error is too excruciating to confront.

 

[Vixen]

The accusation that Jay is a sexist is especially hilarious because Vixen has recently thrown a MASSIVE tantrum over someone else "assuming" that she is female.

I didn't say JayUtah was sexist. I was trying to tease out where he gets his preconceptions from and to reevaluate whether they are accurate.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It was not a mistake.

It was wrong. Whether it was deliberately or accidentally wrong is open to question.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I didn't say JayUtah was sexist. I was trying to tease out where he gets his preconceptions from and to reevaluate whether they are accurate.

You indirectly accused him of being sexist by suggesting it as a possible reason he keeps telling you that you're wrong. The real reason of course is that you're wrong.

ETA: We've been down this road before Vixen and everyone pointed out the obvious and you still tried desperately to pretend you weren't doing what you were doing.

If I said that maybe the reason you're disagreeing with Jay so vehemently is because you're a misandrist, would I be accusing you of misandry?

 

[Vixen]

You indirectly accused him of being sexist by suggesting it as a possible reason he keeps telling you that you're wrong. The real reason of course is that you're wrong.

ETA: We've been down this road before Vixen and everyone pointed out the obvious and you still tried desperately to pretend you weren't doing what you were doing.

If I said that maybe the reason you're disagreeing with Jay so vehemently is because you're a misandrist, would I be accusing you of misandry?

You know as well as I do that if anybody else were to have mentioned Sutton Coldfield's postcode, or a ball hitting a goal post (instead of the bar), or the phrase 'an historical event' or some typographical issue such as a ° in a cut and paste copy coming out as " (and this some years ago?) there would not be the same pile of people piling on them demanding they apologise for 'being wrong'. It is hilarious that - OK so I wrote 'hit the bar' instead the goal post - I wasn't even wrong for anything to merit my needing to apologise to anybody.

 

[JayUtah]

I didn't say JayUtah was sexist. I was trying to tease out where he gets his preconceptions from and to reevaluate whether they are accurate.

I've told you many times upon what grounds I've criticized your claims regarding MS Estonia. You don't seem to want to hear the real reasons, so you're trying to invent new ones—in this case, personal reasons that make you seem more like a victim. Among those fanciful reasons, you insinuated my criticism might be motivated by sexist bias. Whether you're suspecting me or accusing me of sexism matters little. You're grasping at straws to avoid dealing with the merits of the arguments.

It's a further straw man to presume my reasons for opposing you in debate are preconceived. They are conclusions drawn on my observations of your behavior and methods. I've stated them as such numerous times. You may wish you consider that your debate troubles arise from your dishonesty and presumption, not because your critics somehow have it out for you.

If you wish to determine whether the premises of my criticism are accurate, you can begin by getting the premises right in the first place and stop making up ones that suit your ego better. I've helpfully stated them for you many times.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You know as well as I do that if anybody else were to have mentioned Sutton Coldfield's postcode, or a ball hitting a goal post (instead of the bar), or the phrase 'an historical event' or some typographical issue such as a ° in a cut and paste copy coming out as " (and this some years ago?) there would not be the same pile of people piling on them demanding they apologise for 'being wrong'. It is hilarious that - OK so I wrote 'hit the bar' instead the goal post - I wasn't even wrong for anything to merit my needing to apologise to anybody.

It's the fact that you keep getting everything wrong and double down on it though.

If you had said initially "oh yea, sorry my bad I misremembered proper time notation" or even "Huh, I guess I was taught wrong, no worries" no one would have "piled on" you. It's the fact that you always, always double down on your nonsense, insisting that everyone else is wrong and assigning them nefarious motives for arguing with you.

If I said that Glasgow postcodes started GW and someone pointed out that no, they're just G, I'd say "huh, you're right" and nothing more would be said. If I insisted that no, I was right and that maybe the reason you're arguing is because you're a racist? then people would rightly point out that I'm doubling down on my error.

The problems you are facing aren't because you got something wrong, it's because you stubbornly insist that no, you're right.

 

[Vixen]

It's the fact that you keep getting everything wrong and double down on it though.

If you had said initially "oh yea, sorry my bad I misremembered proper time notation" or even "Huh, I guess I was taught wrong, no worries" no one would have "piled on" you. It's the fact that you always, always double down on your nonsense, insisting that everyone else is wrong and assigning them nefarious motives for arguing with you.

If I said that Glasgow postcodes started GW and someone pointed out that no, they're just G, I'd say "huh, you're right" and nothing more would be said. If I insisted that no, I was right and that maybe the reason you're arguing is because you're a racist? then people would rightly point out that I'm doubling down on my error.

The problems you are facing aren't because you got something wrong, it's because you stubbornly insist that no, you're right.

I have zero problems admitting I am wrong when I am wrong or admitting mistakes. I of all people don't believe in believing - or pretending to believe - in something that is not true. If I say my mother-in-law had an issue with her postcode, who are you to determine that she never did?

It's a game to you but it is very irritating to be on the receiving end of it.

 

[JayUtah]

I have zero problems admitting I am wrong when I am wrong or admitting mistakes.

That's a facile tautology. You rarely if ever believe you're wrong, or even that you can be wrong. That's the problem most of your debate opponents have with you.

It's a game to you but it is very irritating to be on the receiving end of it.

Yet you keep coming back for more.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

So why don't you admit you were wrong about prime notation for time?

 

[Vixen]

So why don't you admit you were wrong about prime notation for time?

If you are one of the 99% of posters here who has never in their life heard of time notation by primes, then you are hardly going to be in a position to tell me I am wrong.

I expect you or someone else will now go to Grammerly via Google to let me know the 'correct' way to express time is to state hours, mins and secs.

 

[Vixen]

That's a facile tautology. You rarely if ever believe you're wrong, or even that you can be wrong. That's the problem most of your debate opponents have with you.



Yet you keep coming back for more.

The problem with most of what you call my 'debate opponents' (excluding yourself, I have to admit) have is that they have trouble knowing the difference between their being ignorant of a thing and mistaking that ignorance as proof that the thing does not exist.