• 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.
Stop twisting my words. In future please quote me accurately and in context.

Another single-sentence dismissal.

You can either cite to the actual parts of the Official Secrets Act that give authority to your claims, or you cannot. I guess it's about time to conclude that you cannot, but I'm sure we'll be hearing it again from you.
 
Are we back to ableist language again? I have close relatives who did suffer from illnesses such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and one a Brain Tumour and they are no lesser a person than you.

Wow, this has nothing to do with what was posted. You're just reaching out frantically to shame a poster according to some imaginary evil you've pasted on him.

You cannot demonstrate critical thinking commensurate with your claimed educational level. And you cannot demonstrate critical thinking regardless of educational level. The conclusion is that you cannot think critically, and vague allusions to vocational certificates are not a suitable proxy. This has nothing to do with ableism. It has only to do with you not being able to measure up.
 
Actually, my professional qualifications are considered superior to a masters, according to the webpages.

Which web pages? Show us.

Sorry if that upsets you. Simply stating a fact.

You keep straining to think I'm upset. I'm laughing at you frantically trying to hand-wave up yourself an academic degree you don't have. It's not a fact just because you say so.

As someone pointed out, this has zero to do with the topic at hand, except you seem to think it does.

Your claim regarding firefighters and the Official Secrets Act requires you to know something about (1) firefighting policy and (2) the Official Secrets Act. You didn't tell us how you knew about those things, leading to the perennial observation that you base your arguments on knowledge and expertise you don't have. You objected to that characterization and requested examples, which were provided. You are just as anxiously engaged now in relitigating them as you were when they were first discussed. I agree they are irrelevant, but they are the examples you asked for.

In the middle of that, you proffered a thorough study of business as the basis for your understanding of the Official Secrets Act. As I wrote, that's plausible on its face and allows us to proceed to the next stage of voir dire. Unfortunately for you, you are unable to wield that business education in a way that allows you to discuss the Official Secrets Act intelligently. What you propose as the foundation of your argument doesn't support it.
 
Wow, this has nothing to do with what was posted. You're just reaching out frantically to shame a poster according to some imaginary evil you've pasted on him.

You cannot demonstrate critical thinking commensurate with your claimed educational level. And you cannot demonstrate critical thinking regardless of educational level. The conclusion is that you cannot think critically, and vague allusions to vocational certificates are not a suitable proxy. This has nothing to do with ableism. It has only to do with you not being able to measure up.


It is not appropriate to use 'unsound mind' as a cheap jibe.
 
Which web pages? Show us.



You keep straining to think I'm upset. I'm laughing at you frantically trying to hand-wave up yourself an academic degree you don't have. It's not a fact just because you say so.



Your claim regarding firefighters and the Official Secrets Act requires you to know something about (1) firefighting policy and (2) the Official Secrets Act. You didn't tell us how you knew about those things, leading to the perennial observation that you base your arguments on knowledge and expertise you don't have. You objected to that characterization and requested examples, which were provided. You are just as anxiously engaged now in relitigating them as you were when they were first discussed. I agree they are irrelevant, but they are the examples you asked for.

In the middle of that, you proffered a thorough study of business as the basis for your understanding of the Official Secrets Act. As I wrote, that's plausible on its face and allows us to proceed to the next stage of voir dire. Unfortunately for you, you are unable to wield that business education in a way that allows you to discuss the Official Secrets Act intelligently. What you propose as the foundation of your argument doesn't support it.

All of this is 100% irrelevant and I stand by my claim that firefighters are not allowed to talk to the press. In fact, I'll state it again, all employees are governed by the implicit principle of trust.
 
I am quoting the official situation. Not asking whether you like it.

Like or dislike is irrelevant; he is disagreeing with the proposition that vocational certificates are, as you claim, the equivalent of academic degrees.

It isn't an "official situation" until you supply an objectively official authority for it. You claimed that your vocational certificates were equivalent to academic degrees, and I asked by what standard and by whom that adjudication was made. So far you've responded only with a vague reference to "web pages."

I have explained in detail how degree equivalents and degrees work in my academy and profession. This also disagrees with your proffered use of vocational certificates. You did not answer, except to assert presumptively that your vocational training was superior to academic training.

I also asked you what your certificates certified you to do. I already know the answer, so it's a rhetorical exercise to see whether you will concede that these certificates have nothing to do with the various fields in which you have claimed, insinuated, or implied expertise.
 
All of this is 100% irrelevant and I stand by my claim that firefighters are not allowed to talk to the press. In fact, I'll state it again, all employees are governed by the implicit principle of trust.

Restating a claim does not rehabilitate it. You gave the Official Secrets Act as the reason the allegedly true cause of the fire was being suppressed and lied about. You cannot support that claim. Allusions to "implicit principles of trust" is just backpedaling.
 
It is not appropriate to use 'unsound mind' as a cheap jibe.

It's not appropriate to assume that's how he intended it, or that he intended it to apply to anyone but you. You don't enjoy the presumption that you are operating with a sound mind, and it's not cheap or ad hominem to draw a contrary conclusion in your case when evidence is presented to support it.

You're not engaging the argument. You're just knee-jerkedly looking for whatever you think you can credibly object to.
 
Last edited:
Like or dislike is irrelevant; he is disagreeing with the proposition that vocational certificates are, as you claim, the equivalent of academic degrees.

It isn't an "official situation" until you supply an objectively official authority for it. You claimed that your vocational certificates were equivalent to academic degrees, and I asked by what standard and by whom that adjudication was made. So far you've responded only with a vague reference to "web pages."

I have explained in detail how degree equivalents and degrees work in my academy and profession. This also disagrees with your proffered use of vocational certificates. You did not answer, except to assert presumptively that your vocational training was superior to academic training.

I also asked you what your certificates certified you to do. I already know the answer, so it's a rhetorical exercise to see whether you will concede that these certificates have nothing to do with the various fields in which you have claimed, insinuated, or implied expertise.


Internationally recognised here https://www.enic-naric.net/page-qualifications-frameworks-level-qualifications
 
It's not appropriate to assume that's how he intended it, or that he intended it to apply to anyone but you. You don't enjoy the presumption that you are operating with a sound mind, and it's not cheap or ad hominem to draw a contrary conclusion in your case when evidence is presented to support it.

You're not engaging the argument. You're just knee-jerkedly looking for whatever you think you can credibly object to.

Why use the term 'unsound mind' then except to be offensive?
 
I have made no comment regarding disabled people.

Let me put it this way. If I trip on the stair and you call me a 'spastic', is that acceptable? Likewise, you should be conscious that just because you are able-bodied, doesn't mean you can assume those who are not are less worthy as people. It is outrageous that you think it okay to use 'unsound mind' as a cheap insult.
 

That wall of text describes a system by which academic credentials may be assessed from country to country according to meta-property estimate of equivalence. It does not support your claim that a vocational certificate is equivalent to a Master's degree.

Let's underscore the question. International collation aside, does the U.K. recognize your certificates as equivalent to a Master's degree? If so, by what criteria and authority?
 
Let me put it this way. If I trip on the stair and you call me a 'spastic', is that acceptable?

Straw man. Nobody has done that.

Likewise, you should be conscious that just because you are able-bodied, doesn't mean you can assume those who are not are less worthy as people. It is outrageous that you think it okay to use 'unsound mind' as a cheap insult.

No one has offered it as an insult, cheap or otherwise. It's being applied to you and only to you as a descriptive statement. You're the only one speaking about comparative worth.
 
That wall of text describes a system by which academic credentials may be assessed from country to country according to meta-property estimate of equivalence. It does not support your claim that a vocational certificate is equivalent to a Master's degree.

Let's underscore the question. International collation aside, does the U.K. recognize your certificates as equivalent to a Master's degree? If so, by what criteria and authority?

It's a level 7. https://www.gov.uk/what-different-qualification-levels-mean/list-of-qualification-levels
 
Straw man. Nobody has done that.



No one has offered it as an insult, cheap or otherwise. It's being applied to you and only to you as a descriptive statement. You're the only one speaking about comparative worth.

Oh, it is applied to me is it, when I am perfectly healthy. How disgusting to apply the term 'unsound mind' as a cheapo jibe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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