Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[catsmate]

See this guy here. From 1:43.



https://youtu.be/kEuE1e4IQhg?si=vW5SvN3E3Y0fN6UX

Wow, the hypocrisy, it burns.

 

[wollery]

So if a train that is invariably late literally means a train that is absolutely ALWAYS late, then by what baseline do you know what time the train usually arrives?


Logic not your strong point.

One could very easily tell what time the train should arrive by looking at the timetable.

If it always arrives after the scheduled arrival time then it is perfectly valid to state that it is invariably late.

What was that you were saying about logic?

 

[Vixen]

Liquid fuelled fires spread quickly.

The fire fighters - which are attached to every airport - were there within four minutes of the 'accidental ignition' of the Tesla. Yet the shooting flames were rapidly intense and explosive enough destroy the surrounding vehicles, despite the prompt presence of the firefighters.

 

[GlennB]

So if a train that is invariably late literally means a train that is absolutely ALWAYS late, then by what baseline do you know what time the train usually arrives?

We don't, because there are degrees of lateness. The scheduled time will be on a timetable.

Logic not your strong point.

Disturbing.

 

[Vixen]

One could very easily tell what time the train should arrive by looking at the timetable.

If it always arrives after the scheduled arrival time then it is perfectly valid to state that it is invariably late.

What was that you were saying about logic?

Except that the train companies keep tabs on train lateness. So if a particular train was 100% late from the outset then it is clear it is a timetable error and not a case of the train being always late, when it never did once turn up at the stated time.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. That is what they mean. They mean exactly the same thing as if they said "always".

If they do not intend their remark to be taken entirely literally that must be inferred from context, e.g. "this is literally the least convincing argument you have ever made".

The use of language in my circles seems to be more nuanced and subtle than in yours.

 

[JayUtah]

Stop spreading lies about me.

That is not a lie.

You claimed you had studied physics "for 12 years." In contrast, we discovered that you had merely passed the O-level exam.

You claimed to be a "psychology post-grad." You finally conceded that you were equivocating on the concept of post-grad[uate] study and merely claimed to have studied it as an undergraduate.

I was kind enough to address all the points you brought up from my previous posts. In return, from you I get a one-sentence dismissal. We can add "evasive" and "dismissive" to the list of your objectionable qualities I included above.

 

[Vixen]

That is not a lie.

You claimed you had studied physics "for 12 years." In contrast, we discovered that you had merely passed the O-level exam.

You claimed to be a "psychology post-grad." You finally conceded that you were equivocating on the concept of post-grad[uate] study and merely claimed to have studied it as an undergraduate.

I was kind enough to address all the points you brought up from my previous posts. In return, from you I get a one-sentence dismissal. We can add "evasive" and "dismissive" to the list of your objectionable qualities I included above.

Stop falsely accusing me of wrongdoing.

Citation please of where I said I studied physics for twelve years, when this specific subject doesn't normally start until one is eleven or twelve.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Wow! RICH coming from the person who replicated my every post with the claim, 'they have confirmed it was a diesel car'.

Sudden amnesia now that the full fact is that it was 'a diesel-fuelled car, but not a full EV or a plug in EV', yet failing to confirm it was not a mild hybrid vehicle either. That changes everything. It means it was a hybrid and it was a lithium battery fire.

No wonder you appeared to pick up the ball and stomp off.

Admitting gracious defeat is not your forte, I see.

Let's now pretend you never claimed what you claimed because of your need to wait until you are told by your betters what to believe because 'I know my place'.

<fx tugs forelock>

Cue: massive strop coming up.

It has been confirmed it was a diesel car.
Nowhere has it been said it was any kind of hybrid.
It was confirmed by the fire service months ago and just recently by the police.

You know this and continue to ignore it, lie about it and invent your own fiction

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Except that the train companies keep tabs on train lateness. So if a particular train was 100% late from the outset then it is clear it is a timetable error and not a case of the train being always late, when it never did once turn up at the stated time.

Did you work for Southern rail?

Seriously, this is loony tunes stuff now. If a particular train is never on time then whenever it does turn up is the scheduled time? This is not how railways work.

You are making the clever people sad. They saw you impy you were one of them.

 

[Disbelief]

See this guy here. From 1:43.



https://youtu.be/kEuE1e4IQhg?si=vW5SvN3E3Y0fN6UX

So some dude on the internet. Color me underwhelmed again.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The fire fighters - which are attached to every airport - were there within four minutes of the 'accidental ignition' of the Tesla. Yet the shooting flames were rapidly intense and explosive enough destroy the surrounding vehicles, despite the prompt presence of the firefighters.

Airport firefighters are specialized units, they are equipped with specialist equipment to rapidly respond to aircraft fires and crashes.
They do not attend parking garage fires.

No vehicles were destroyed by anything explosive.
Once again, the firefighters could not drive up to the burning vehicle.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The use of language in my circles seems to be more nuanced and subtle than in yours.

You and Humpty Dumpty are never wrong, you're just nuanced and subtle.


No. You were just wrong about the meaning of the word "invariably". Jumping through hoops to try to find a way to look less wrong is a curious spectacle but it doesn't change the basic fact.

 

[LondonJohn]

So if a train that is invariably late literally means a train that is absolutely ALWAYS late, then by what baseline do you know what time the train usually arrives?


Logic not your strong point.

Uhmmm........ the published timetable. Of course.

And it wouldn't be a question of what time the train "usually" arrives. It's a question of what time the train is supposed (per the timetable) to arrive.

Logic not your strong point.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Since I have signed the Official Secrets Act in a civil service job and in a job overseen by the Insolvency Service, I assumed it was the case for everyone in such jobs. Just because you have never signed it and nor does your employment contract mention confidentiality, doesn't mean it is not a reason for disciplinary action. Say you are a cop at a demo or a firefighter at a massive blaze affecting the public at large, your opinion on the scene given to a nearby reporter might well land you in hot water.

The statement given by Mr. Hodgkinson was very clearly a prepared and carefully worded one. Each word chosen for a reason: he knew this is the statement that would be published in the national press and is the authorized one.

Read what I said in both of my posts responding to your idiocy about signing the Official Secrets Act.

In both I note that T&Cs, specific rules, professional codes of conduct and other things, including Acts of Parliament other than the OSA, cover confidentiality.

The Official Secrets Act does NOT cover the kinds of confidentiality I dealt with, nor most of the rest of the public sector. It is a very specific Act.

Data Protection Act covered more of what I did, not to mention various bits and bobs concerning patient confidentiality or things to do with my employer. These are not official secrets.

And trying to hide behind "figure of speech" will not wash.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

According to the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service:

At this time, we can confirm the vehicle involved was a diesel-powered vehicle. To further clarify it was neither a fully electric vehicle (EV) nor a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV).​

According to Vixen:

Wow! RICH coming from the person who replicated my every post with the claim, 'they have confirmed it was a diesel car'.

Sudden amnesia now that the full fact is that it was 'a diesel-fuelled car, but not a full EV or a plug in EV', yet failing to confirm it was not a mild hybrid vehicle either. That changes everything. It means it was a hybrid and it was a lithium battery fire.

That is a truly stupid misinterpretation of what the Fire & Rescue Service wrote in plain English.

It was a diesel-powered vehicle.

The Fire & Rescue Service went on to say it was neither of the things being alleged by a small cadre of loony conspiracy theorists. Explicitly refuting those two specific things is not at all the same as confirming yet another form of loony conspiracy theory.

The use of language in my circles seems to be more nuanced and subtle than in yours.

In Vixen-world, radical failures of English comprehension count as "more nuanced and subtle" than the ordinary meanings of simple sentences written in plain English.

 

[JayUtah]

[duplicate]

 

[Agatha]

Except that the train companies keep tabs on train lateness. So if a particular train was 100% late from the outset then it is clear it is a timetable error and not a case of the train being always late, when it never did once turn up at the stated time.

TOCs may well make timetabling errors, but if a train always arrives after the scheduled time it is correct to say that it is invariably late. The actual arrival time compared with the scheduled arrival time is how the lateness is measured, and in turn whether Delay Repay claims are successful.

If the TOC revises the timetable later, it would still be correct to describe the train as being invariably late up until the implementation of the timetable revision.

You were wrong in your usage of the word "invariably" and doubling down on that error is not helping your case.

 

[LondonJohn]

He did indeed anticipate so many of your posts as such. Spooky.

Re my post #1548 (as above)

I'd erroneously thought that I was replying to a post of Vixen's when in fact it was a post of Steve's (Vixen's and Steve's profile pictures look similar at a glance....)

I in no way intended to malign you, Steve. Apologies for the confusion!

(I am now outside the edit window for that post - hence this post by way of explanation and apology)

 

[JayUtah]

Citation please of where I said I studied physics for twelve years...

In the MS Estonia thread, but you said in fact that you had five years. You started when you were twelve. Your evasion on that point has been discussed many times previously, and is within the memory of everyone posting in this thread.

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13591024&postcount=3514
https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13590869#post13590869

...when this specific subject doesn't normally start until one is eleven or twelve.

That's ironically how we caught you. You were making claims that didn't fit the facts of how physics is taught. You insinuated that these were college-level courses, originally. Then in the linked posts and the thread that surrounds it, you came clean and admitted you merely took high school physics the same as many other students.