• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Yes, but not absolutely always. It allows for exceptions.
Click to expand...

Not so. Invariably is invariably used to mean "not variably, without exception". It's not conditional, it's an absolute.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, but not absolutely always. It allows for exceptions.
Click to expand...

No. If something allows for exceptions, it is not invariable.

The Oxford Dictionary defines it as "never changing". Merriam-Webster defines it as "not changing or capable of change". And it's right there in the Latin prefix 'in', meaning 'not'. So that should be a clue that it means "not variable".

It's funny how many conspiracy theories end up trying to redefine the meanings of words. You may have your own personal understanding of what a word means to you, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is obliged to replace the correct definition of a word just so you can avoid admitting error.
 
Vixen said:
....you'll note none of the mainstream papers will touch it as they have a team of lawyers advising when some types of 'news' are embargoed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Fox News Network is a lot more hesitant to touch bonkers conspiracy theories now than they were a few years ago.

Vixen said:
It is used in the same sense as 'hardly' or 'quite'. In effect, its use is ironic or imprecise, and not absolute, or one wouldn't need to qualify a statement with it.
Click to expand...
Vixen's definitions are invariably imprecise.
 
Memorandum

To all stakeholders

Re: The Fire at Luton Airport Car Park (“the Fire”)

It has come to our notice that we appear to have misled the public and the press about the cause of the Fire. We take these all such matters incredibly seriously. We are really sorry to have deceived the aforementioned and we must do better. We hate ourselves. We throw ourselves abjectly at your feet begging your forgiveness and forbearance.

With immediate effect, we are changing the name of our organization to, ‘Not Quite True’ until we have thoroughly researched the meaning of the words, “full” and ‘fact”.

By order of the management.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Yes, and as a factual example of how rapidly a lithium-ion fire spreads, it is confirmed that the recent fire at Gatwick North Terminal and which took out eleven vehicles was an EV. Any car within a few metres of such an 'accidental ignition' is also likely to ignite owing to the sheer outward force of the lithium-ion flames.
Click to expand...

This is something else you've made up.
 
Vixen said:
Memorandum

To all stakeholders

Re: The Fire at Luton Airport Car Park (“the Fire”)

It has come to our notice that we appear to have misled the public and the press about the cause of the Fire. We take these all such matters incredibly seriously. We are really sorry to have deceived the aforementioned and we must do better. We hate ourselves. We throw ourselves abjectly at your feet begging your forgiveness and forbearance.
With immediate effect, we are changing the name of our organization to, ‘Not Quite True’ until we have thoroughly researched the meaning of the words, “full” and ‘fact”.

By order of the management.
Click to expand...


Risibly pathetic. Your posts are merely polluting the thread and wasting everyone's time (including yours). What on earth do you mean to convey with this post?
 
Vixen said:
Stop falsely accusing me of wrongdoing. It is immoral behaviour, even if you think it fun.
Click to expand...


It's not a false accusation though is it, Vixen Mitty?

Anyhow, for those people who have signed a notification that their work falls under the ambit of the Act (not you), do you still think that this includes any or all of those who work for Beds Fire & Rescue Service? And do you still think that the circumstances around the Luton Airport car park fire fall under the ambit of the Act?
 
LondonJohn said:
Risibly pathetic. Your posts are merely polluting the thread and wasting everyone's time (including yours). What on earth do you mean to convey with this post?
Click to expand...

Er, you do know that people have been constantly pointing to the statement by a 'fact-finding' organization that looks into the veracity of claims going about, who said categorically that absolutley no electric vehicle of any sort was involved. Yet the government is now saying the vehicle was diesel-fuelled and not a fully electric or plug-in model.

Do you see the glaring misinformation?
 
LondonJohn said:
It's not a false accusation though is it, Vixen Mitty?

Anyhow, for those people who have signed a notification that their work falls under the ambit of the Act (not you), do you still think that this includes any or all of those who work for Beds Fire & Rescue Service? And do you still think that the circumstances around the Luton Airport car park fire fall under the ambit of the Act?
Click to expand...

The context was my explaining why the chap was anonymous. What I actually said was that they are not allowed to speak to the press.

Do let me have your objections.
 
Vixen said:
Er, you do know that people have been constantly pointing to the statement by a 'fact-finding' organization that looks into the veracity of claims going about, who said categorically that absolutley no electric vehicle of any sort was involved. Yet the government is now saying the vehicle was diesel-fuelled and not a fully electric or plug-in model.

Do you see the glaring misinformation?
Click to expand...


No I don't. Only CT advocates see that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom