Please stop lying about even the most trivial things. You are not the teacher. You are not the mother. You are a conspiracy theorist with delusions of grandeur pretending you can sit in infallible judgment over your betters. It's arrogant and rude. You've made the mistake of doing so in a skeptics forum among people with both the skills and the motivation to test your judgment. You're not really the adult in the room here, so keep your condescension to yourself.
No, it wasn't. I tested your claim. The evidence is against you, as usual. I did find out exactly what caused the glyphs to be rewritten. That's because I was justly chagrined at being unable to reproduce the º-becomes-"" experiment and having to withdraw the claim out of an abundance of fairness. I learned from it and resolved to be more diligent in testing your claims, because I'm interested in being right even if I have to change my mind in order to accommodate new evidence.
The only products that produce that exact pattern of wrong glyphs are Microsoft editors: Word, and the HTML markup editor in the Windows-native Outlook. Copying and pasting do not produce the results you claim. Again you seem to think that no one can find out that you're lying.
Regardless, a "maths PhD" will have considerable experience producing uncommon symbols in writing, as do I, and a desire to be correct as matter of second-nature effort. You get very attuned to when your tools are doing the wrong thing in an effort to "help" you do something else. We don't type ' followed by " to get a triple prime, because it looks wrong and (as you saw) often gets rewritten and therefore is wrong. We type three single quotes, ''', if you can't get the right glyph, ‴.
A lay person, however, would be more inclined to enter the easiest thing to type and—when his editor rewrites it to be more pretty—say, "Meh, good enough." It's not good enough; it's wrong. And you're telling us a highly educated mathematician is okay with that, who also has experience in physics. That's not credible. It's more consistent with a layperson who cobbled up something in a hurry.
At first you told us ″ for minutes of time was a standard, and insinuated that the U.S. must use a stricter standard that confused the issue. Then you said it was accepted in your school, as long as the examiners could tell what you meant from context. Then you said it was only informal usage, although no one from your neck of the woods agrees. And now you're telling us some anonymous person whom you think we should consider an expert is hearsayishy confirming your usage is correct, contrary to the explanations of people whose credentials and experience actually relevant and not in question.
Do you think we can't see that you keep changing your story to make it harder to refute? You're trying to find a bluff that works, not trying to ascertain the truth or prove your claim with testable evidence.
I was speaking of the MS Estonia thread, where you do nothing except challenge the mainstream. To do that, you rely on a palette of incoherent and incompatible conspiracy theories whose only unifying principle is that they dispute the JAIC methods or findings.
But on the topic at hand, you're still challenging the mainstream. I'll let others focus on your misuse of port and starboard. On the point of what ″ means for time, you are fine with the mainstream convention for distance. ′ always means feet and ″ always means inches. The system works because those meanings never change. And you're okay with the mainstream angular measurements. ′ always means arcminutes and ″ always means arcseconds. The system works for this measurement too, because the meanings of the marks never change. You don't have to specify yd or º because ′ and ″ are unambiguous.
Everyone else in the world who knows primes notation for time knows to use ′ for minutes and ″ for seconds. And because it's part of the same system, it works because the meanings of those marks never changes. We have examples where the base unit, h, is omitted, and the meaning remains unambiguous. This is the mainstream, and you're happy with it up to now.
But now you—and only you—tell us that ″ can mean either minutes or seconds of time according your brain-canon of "context." Every real scientist who hears something like that throws up a little inside. You have no evidence for your claim. You have no other examples of ″ meaning minutes. You have no explanation for why this particular application of primes notation—and this one only—is allowed to violate what you concede are rules for disambiguation.
You don't seem to realize that in your haste to pile bluff upon bluff, you're very much admitting to challenging the mainstream. Your first story was that only the U.S. required ″ to mean only seconds of time, and that your usage was, in fact, more mainstream. But then you had to walk that back and say it was a convention that was accepted only at your school, so long as the examiners could tell what you meant. So not mainstream usage, but something understood only at your school. Then you backpedaled even further: you didn't actually use ″ to mean minutes of time for anything you handed in for grading. It was just what you used informally in your notes and such. So even less mainstream. You even insinuate that knowing not to use ″ for minutes in homework meant you knew it wasn't acceptable.
You literally can't keep narrowing the acceptable usage of ″ for minutes without arguing that it's against the mainstream. "I used it informally at school, but we knew it wasn't correct," is as narrow as usage can get. You're literally admitting the mainstream is correct to insist that ″ should mean only seconds, but you are excused for doing it privately while somehow expecting that everyone here should have unmistakably known what you mean. That is literally a challenge to the mainstream in order to safe face.
No. The whole purpose for this thread is your claim that using ″ for minutes of time is not a typo, but is instead something you wrote on purpose, and that you're so much smarter than everyone else for knowing that you could do that. It is that your use of "port" and "starboard" are not mistakes, but correct designations, and everyone else is obtuse for not seeing how.
You're in a forum whose stated purpose is to challenge claims. No one "happens" to post anything. You're either posting something with the expectation that it will be challenged, or you're posting a challenge to something you think isn't right. If you're whining just because people are challenging your claims, you're very much in the wrong place. And especially if you're posting conspiracy theories expecting to be praised for your erudition and integrity instead of mercilessly debunked, you're very much not in the right place.
In this thread we're deliberately focusing on your minor, inconsequential mistakes. We know they're mistakes. Dropping the bluff and admitting you originally made a mistake would actually improve your credibility here, as we measure it. These mistakes really have nothing to do with your major theories in any of the threads you contribute to. Saying, "Oops, I thought ″ could also mean minutes and you can see where I corrected myself," doesn't mean you have to let up pressure on the JAIC.
This is how we determine whether your objection to something is due to your having thought critically about it, or to your just wanting to appear infallible and authoritative. Sticking to your guns on even the most trivial errors and deploying one absurd, incompatible story after another helps us draw a conclusion in your case. And that in turn helps us determine whether claims you make on your own authority should be given credence. They shouldn't; you're just trying to look smart, not actually discover the truth. You're incapable of admitting even tiniest mistake, and therefore utterly impervious to evidence that disputes a belief you hold
And this why we, who are properly qualified and experienced, correctly do not respect you armchair detectives. You, personally, are neither knowledgeable enough or honest enough to adjudicate the investigative work of the JAIC, Meyer Weft, or anyone else investigating a transportation accident.
The fact that you silently dropped the ″ usage and started using the correct ′ for minutes tells us you knew you were wrong, but that you hoped no one would press the issue and require you to admit it. Only later did you start making stuff up to say you were really right all along by using both. You went back and saw that you first used ″ wrongly and then switched to the correct ′ and realized you had to invent a story that accounted for both usages, hence the unscientific invocation of "context." You painted yourself into a corner to begin with, and you just can't stop. You'd rather keep bluffing your way farther into a self-soothing delusion than live in reality where others are smarter and more credible than you.
No, we observe that you think you're the smartest person in the room, and won't let anyone forget that you think so. But you really just aren't smart enough to make the claims you're making on your own authority. You don't know what you're talking about, and you think all your absurd bluffs are working. It's hard to interpret these remarks as anything but an admission that all you're doing here is stroking your own ego.
I'm fully qualified and licensed in my field, and have practiced it successfully now for decades. Your claims here and in the other threads where you and I both participate are well within my field of expertise. I'm very capable of knowing as a matter of fact whether you're right or wrong on any of those points.
But in your fantasy kingdom, I and others must be "insecure," while you crown yourself with crackpot conspiracy theories and pretend you're competent to judge the work of experts. Then you tell lie upon transparent lie to protect your fantasy-kingdom sovereignty, like a child with crumbs on her face claiming that invisible nargles must've raided the cookie jar. But sure, we're the immature ones...
Pathetic.
