Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
It's exactly that. JayUtah gets very very angry if he thinks someone is queering his pitch. He thinks this is HIS pitch. Hence the mockery on his part. He's defending his pitch by loudly wailing.
Click to expand...

Jesus! The irony.
 
Vixen said:
As I have stated multiple times by now, Jeremifer, in charge of a webpage, has nothing at all to do with the investigation into the fire. They just bang up whatever the Fire Chief said at his press conference. The Fire Chief has had just one such Press briefing, and as of that time, had not seen the Romanian lady's video, nor the one from the front. Jeremifer simply put it into 'plain English' and being an eco-warrior thought it 'kinda' amusing to sock one in the eye to the anti-EV mob. They probably go chucking orange paint over famous paintings at weekends.
Click to expand...

Answer the question, please.
 
junkshop said:
Answer the question, please.
Click to expand...

What's really funny is that Vixen is using the same sort of evasive ambiguity she accuses the fire service of using in order to obfuscate the fact that she can't demonstrate how the fire service statement is in any way ambiguous.
 
Vixen said:
It's exactly that. JayUtah gets very very angry if he thinks someone is queering his pitch. He thinks this is HIS pitch. Hence the mockery on his part.
Click to expand...

What a fertile imagination you have.

He's defending his pitch by loudly wailing.
Click to expand...

No. You blatantly lied.

You claimed I had been "contemptuously scornful of Carol Vorderman having a degree in Engineering." I did no such thing, and you know it. Furthermore, your false accusation came on the heels of your latest evasion from substantive argument by accusing me of spreading false personal information about you. Someone as apparently concerned as you are about spreading false information should not do so herself, and should hasten to correct it when she has.

As usual, you resisted all the initial attempts to hold you accountable for that lie. When you decided to address it, it was to add additional accusations. You continue to cover up being caught lying by amplifying your personal attacks. You aren't at all sorry. You have no regard for what is obviously true.

Keep that in mind as you facetiously try to challenge your betters regarding the Luton fire. We certainly will.
 
Vixen said:
Oh dear. Thank you for admitting you are prejudiced by thinking this has anything whatsoever to do with 9/11, Apollo or JFK.
Click to expand...

How is it biased to note that the flawed reasoning in your conspiracy theory mimics the false reasoning in more popular conspiracy theories? Your implied rejection of those theories should result in the rejection of your own conspiracy theory.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Am I reading this right: Vixen is misreading your mockery of *her* (Vixen's) way of tracking credentials as mockery of Voldemort Vordeman's actual credentials?
Click to expand...

At the time I made the statement, I had no idea what Vorderman's credentials were. I don't know who she is. I don't care who she is. I was simply responding to Spitfire IX's estimate that Vorderman didn't know what a blind trust was.

And yes, "Master's equivalent" is a reference to Vixen's idiom for her accounting credentials. It has nothing to do with engineering. It has nothing to do with anyone but Vixen. Hence my consistent application of the cautionary quotes when I use it.

As to whether I was "scoring points," that depends. It was a throwaway quip, meant to elicit nothing more than a chuckle. For the humor-impaired, I will explain that I insincerely thought Vorderman's apparent confusion over blind trusts could be explained by her having only one "Master's equivalent" (i.e., Vixen's dubious credential), whereas Vixen has two, and is thus "properly" qualified. If you didn't get the joke or don't appreciate the humor, don't award me the points. I promise my ego won't suffer too badly, and I vow to be more liberal with the smilies in future.

SteveAitch offered a more accessible bit of humor: that Vorderman was qualified as an engineer, and something all too true about a hammer. That was the first time I'd been told what Vorderman's field of expertise actually was. As was said: this is what we on Planet Earth call a "joke."

The matter would have been lost to the torrent of the thread but for Vixen's untruthful accusation. Unfortunately this requires me to take action, because—as an engineer myself—I have a professional responsibility not to question the relevant qualifications of others in my profession without cause. It doesn't matter that my actual comments were about some unrelated matter and in ignorance of her qualifications; if Vixen's accusation could be reasonably believed, I would stand in violation of my professional ethics. Hence my vigor in holding Vixen to account, and the belabor in establishing its falsehood.
 
Vixen said:
It's enshrined in many facets of law. Spouse has joint rights in many areas. Considered so close they are excused from giving evidence against each other in a criminal trial. Unless there is a specific will the spouse gets everything should one of them die (in the UK). A spouse has the right to carry on living in the spousal home should the other half die, ceteris parabus. So the idea of passing one's wealth over to the spouse and then claiming not to have an interest is nonsense.
Click to expand...
A mix of outright lies and irrelevant nonsense.
 
Vixen said:
It's exactly that. JayUtah gets very very angry if he thinks someone is queering his pitch. He thinks this is HIS pitch. Hence the mockery on his part. He's defending his pitch by loudly wailing.
Click to expand...
Childish nonsense.

 
Vixen said:
As I have stated multiple times by now, ...
Click to expand...

Or, more accurately, you have refused multiple times to address a direct statement by competent authority by this same made-up belief for how it arose and why. Your Jenny story seems to exist only to absolve you from having to admit that you are accusing the investigating authority of lying, and of doing so by orders from on high to unlawfully protect individual financial interest.

Again we find the hair split that so often decorates your arguments, and is further characteristic of conspiracy reasoning. You walk right up to the desired conclusion without actually drawing it. Phiwum has provided a detailed an referenced analysis of this. But without actually drawing the only conclusion your argument points to, you think you can escape responsibility for it and shift the moral disapprobation for allegedly jumping to it onto your critics. This lets you berate them for their apparent animus.

"I never claimed this or that," gets you another ten pages of attention every time, while your critics continually reconstruct your argument for you to show that this-or-that fairly is what you're claiming. Your reluctance to draw the conclusion your arguments inevitably lead to—and which you ostensibly intend—doesn't protect your virtue; it stains it with the colors of dishonesty.

Further, your well-worn fairy tale about how you think the authoritative statement regarding the initial vehicle in the Luton fire came about further illustrates what I've said multiple times: arguments made solely on the basis of your own purported authority lack foundation and are thereby unconvincing. The only foundation for this fantasy is your insinuation that you know how things work—a skill you've amply demonstrated you don't have. When that purported knowledge the only basis for your argument, it is the only appropriate subject of rebuttal. When you complain that those rebuttals hurt your feelings, you are only reaping the fruits of your own decisions.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I'm amazed that this whole thing hasn't been blamed on the CIA for some reason.
 
Vixen said:
It said on Day One that it was subject to verification.
Click to expand...

That verification came later. Your unwillingness to regard it doesn't make it go away for everyone else or make your subsequent arguments valid by omitting it. Your desire to limit your examination of the evidence to only what was said on Day One does not evince better judgement.

Nothing has been confirmed in the press...
Click to expand...

Straw man. It was confirmed by competent authority in their customary way.

...except that people are unable to make out that the whole thing is conditional on the outcome of the investigation.
Click to expand...

No. You are not an authority on investigations. I am, and I will correct you. That certain interim conclusions may be reliably drawn early in an investigation and published by competent official authority before a final report is entered does not compromise either the authority of the early statements or the comprehension of the final report. In fact, it is common these days to publish preliminary findings that include reliable factual findings thus far, as well as less sure developments in the ongoing investigation. The issue of the final report marks the determination of the last relevant and discoverable detail, not all of them en masse.

The notion that no information may be considered reliable until the conclusion of the investigation and the publication of the final report exists in your imagination alone.

The guy who was arrested was not even cleared until six month's later, so what makes you think 'the case is closed' as of Day One even?
Click to expand...

Straw man. The determination of which vehicle caused the fire is not tantamount to "case closed."

Let's see if the make, model and year and power train type is ever revealed in the final report.
Click to expand...

Straw man. You seem to be hedging your eventual rejection of the official findings if they does not comport to your arbitrary and uninformed imagination. You have yet to put any faith in any official findings in all your various conspiracy theories at this forum. There is no reason to believe you'll accept this one regardless of what it says.
 
Hah

Never trusted TFL after that Sunak guy took charge or should that be Sadiq Khan. I think we'll have to ask vixen for her experttise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom