Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[LondonJohn]

Correct. For someone who claims a high degree of education, she seems very antithetical to the prospect that the judgment of a professor who has examined a candidate's work is not a valid determiner of the candidate's competence. That's literally how school works.

The evidence that Vixen has lied about her credentials in science is her utter inability to demonstrate any sort of scientific competence. Despite her denials, I am competent to judge that, and my judgment is suitable enough to have legal effect in binding the state to award degrees. Her insistence to the contrary that she has a STEM degree is thus not a very good example of her alleged high ethical principles.

Her extreme scientific illiteracy shouts itself loudly from so many of her posts in this thread and elsewhere. As do the lies and exaggerations. It's really rather sad.

 

[SpitfireIX]

It was my perception that you sneered at Carol Vorderman's engineering credentials.

Because the thread is closed, I can't link quote (link to first post), so I'm just going to cut and paste, but here is the conversation in question, condensed into one nested quotation:

From a couple of articles I skimmed, it appears that she, like you, doesn't understand the operation of a blind trust, although she at least has the excuse of not being an accountant.

Tsk, tsk. She might have only one "Master's equivalent."

Her (Carol's) degree is in Engineering, so if she can't hit it with a hammer...

First, how could Jay have been sneering at her engineering credentials when Steve hadn't even mentioned them yet?? That's a direct question; kindly answer.

Second, have you forgotten that you've claimed to have two masters' equivalents in accounting? It was clear to me, and, I'm sure most everyone else, that Jay was mocking that claim. More on that below.

You claim that in fact it was me that was the target of your insult which hardly paints you in a good light, if we are talking about honourable behaviour.

The problem is, you claimed to be an accountant, yet you had repeatedly demonstrated that you didn't understand the purpose or operation of a blind trust, and you couldn't even use the terminology correctly. Why wouldn't that lead people to question and mock your claim, especially when you've been caught pretending to be an expert in several other areas?

 

[Vixen]

Oh and another! You claimed whenever anyone used a (valid) hypothetical argument that you hate them and never use them, but you often attempt to use (usually invalid) hypotheticals frequently. Thus you are a liar and a hypocrite.

You have weird idea of what 'lying' is. I am guessing you do not give much thought to the meaning of words that you bandy about willy-nilly. Thus your word usage weakens whatever it is you want to say because it is all hyperbole.

When I said I didn't believe in answering hypothetical questions, it certainly does not equate to not believing in hypotheses or hypothetical reasoning.

Please think about what you are saying before committing it to bandwidth.

 

[Vixen]

You're not finished Vixen.

You have asserted that you operate according to "high ethical principles." When objected to, you demanded examples of unethical behavior. I have provided one, which you still have not addressed. To be specific.

1. You lied, claiming that I had questioned the credentials of a fellow engineer.

2. You subsequently sidestepped responsibility for that lie, pretending you had made some other accusation instead.

3. You have lately repeated that evasion, trying somehow to shift blame onto the victim of your false accusations.

You could have apologized immediately and convinced people it was just a sloppy error that you regretted. When you repeatedly doubled down on trying to cover up your lie, you exhibited unethical behavior. This is relevant to the thread because you raised the issue of your purported integrity apropos of nothing as the only defense to evidence offered by others that you had misrepresented the official statements of competent authority.

Here is what SteveAitch was referring to [excerpt]:

Quote:
From a couple of articles I skimmed, it appears that she, like you, doesn't understand the operation of a blind trust, although she at least has the excuse of not being an accountant.

Tsk, tsk. She might have only one "Master's equivalent." [you]


Firstly, you falsely claimed that I said Theleme was the trust of itself and then you disgracefully sneered that Carol Vorderman might have only one "Master's equivalent." Who is being the dunce, here? For the record, for something to be in Trust (in the UK, at least) technically, there has to be a Trustee appointed, so it is not possible for a company or an individual to be their own trust. Secondly, Carol Vorderman is no moron, either.

 

[JayUtah]

You have weird idea of what 'lying' is.

No, your critics have the appropriate and common understanding of lying.

Please think about what you are saying before committing it to bandwidth.

Do not talk down to your critics.

As a defense to the rebuttal of your claims, you have asserted that you follow "high ethical principles." Numerous examples of your unethical behavior have been provided, including some in which you have blatantly lied. You do not hold the high moral ground here.

 

[JayUtah]

Here is what Steve_Aitch...

None of that is relevant to my post. You are continuing to sidestep responsibility for lying about accusations you think I made. You are not displaying "high ethical principles."

 

[LondonJohn]

The problem is, you claimed to be an accountant, yet you had repeatedly demonstrated that you didn't understand the purpose or operation of a blind trust, and you couldn't even use the terminology correctly. Why wouldn't that lead people to question and mock your claim, especially when you've been caught pretending to be an expert in several other areas?

This. Exactly this.

It's truly pathetic (in both the original and contemporary definitions of the term).

 

[Vixen]

Even if this wasn't the case and she had never failed miserably at attempting science her own admissions, when we finally get them, show her to not be a scientist. She has admitted that she has a graduate degree in psychology but no further education in STEM and that she works as an accountant. That's not being a scientist.


Oh I've just remembered another lie you told Vixen! You claimed that our objections to you using the delusional, scientifically illiterate crank Anders Bjorkman were due to 'personality conflicts' and not the fact he's a scientifically illiterate crank.

He went to a prestigious Naval Academy in Sweden (around these parts these places are highly sought after) and qualified in Naval Architecture (or some such). He might be as mad as a box of frogs but that doesn't cancel out his expertise in vessel buoyancy and such matters.

ISTM with all due respect, you bandy words around as insults but they lose their effect because you are not being factual, you are just aiming to attack someone with a different view from yourself by claiming them to be a lesser person. This is comforting to the person weaponising words which are not based in fact but it doesn't make the words true.

 

[zooterkin]

You have weird idea of what 'lying' is.

Is the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service lying when they state, quite clearly and unequivocally, that the fire started in diesel-powered car?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You have weird idea of what 'lying' is. I am guessing you do not give much thought to the meaning of words that you bandy about willy-nilly. Thus your word usage weakens whatever it is you want to say because it is all hyperbole.

When I said I didn't believe in answering hypothetical questions, it certainly does not equate to not believing in hypotheses or hypothetical reasoning.

Please think about what you are saying before committing it to bandwidth.

Absolute gibberish.

If you see the value in (appropriate) hypotheticals you should answer hypotheticals. It is the height of hypocrisy to pose them yourself but refuse to answer those put to you.

 

[GlennB]

He went to a prestigious Naval Academy in Sweden (around these parts these places are highly sought after) and qualified in Naval Architecture (or some such). He might be as mad as a box of frogs but that doesn't cancel out his expertise in vessel buoyancy and such matters.

Bjorkman claims those things. His work was as a loss adjuster in maritime insurance. His 'Coulombi egg' oil tanker design was blacklisted by the US coastguard even before one had been built (which has never happened and never will).

Added: His 'European Agency for Safety at Sea' is not recognised by the EU but uses the EU flag without the permission of the EU. It runs from a one-bedroom apartment in the south of France (I forget the city).

 

[Vixen]

Is the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service lying when they state, quite clearly and unequivocally, that the fire started in diesel-powered car?

Do we really have to use words more appropriate to a children's playground?

 

[JayUtah]

He went to a prestigious Naval Academy in Sweden (around these parts these places are highly sought after) and qualified in Naval Architecture (or some such).

No. None of that is true. You just believed his claims to that effect.

He might be as mad as a box of frogs but that doesn't cancel out his expertise in vessel buoyancy and such matters.

He has no expertise, although he dishonestly claimed to have it. Neither do you have relevant expertise; you are not qualified to determine whether or not he does.

Further, you concealed him as the source of claims you subsequently made, which were directly traceable to him. Concealing your sources—whether you agree with your critics' assessment of their reliability—is unethical.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

He went to a prestigious Naval Academy in Sweden (around these parts these places are highly sought after) and qualified in Naval Architecture (or some such). He might be as mad as a box of frogs but that doesn't cancel out his expertise in vessel buoyancy and such matters.
.

Except that, as was pointed out to you repeatedly, his insanity was in the field of physics including shipbuilding.


You keep pretending that we disagree with him for reasons other than the actual one. He is a crank with no grasp of physics.

ISTM with all due respect, you bandy words around as insults but they lose their effect because you are not being factual, you are just aiming to attack someone with a different view from yourself by claiming them to be a lesser person. This is comforting to the person weaponising words which are not based in fact but it doesn't make the words true.

Again pure gibberish.

You flail about wildly attempting to smear your critics over and over again with the same tired claims and it's pathetic.

Why can you never admit to being wrong?

 

[JayUtah]

Do we really have to use words more appropriate to a children's playground?

Which words are childish? Your claims—taken as a whole—insinuate that you believe the fire services are lying and continue to lie about the power source of the initial vehicle in the Luton fire. You're being asked to state and defend your claim rather than childishly beating around the bush.

 

[zooterkin]

Is the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service lying when they state, quite clearly and unequivocally, that the fire started in diesel-powered car?

Do we really have to use words more appropriate to a children's playground?

Are you having problems with reading comprehension, again?

It's a straightforward question, with no childish language. Do you think you could answer it?

 

[JayUtah]

None of that is relevant to my post. You are continuing to sidestep responsibility for lying about accusations you think I made. You are not displaying "high ethical principles."

You're not finished, Vixen.

You wrongly claimed I had sneered at a fellow engineer's engineering credentials. That is not true. You were asked to account for that statement. After waiting for a day, you tried to sidestep and claim you had made some other accusation instead. That transforms your behavior from putatively erroneous to willfully dishonest. You are still evading responsibility for your initial accusation, which was flagrantly false.

You have claimed as a part of your rejoinder to a rebuttal that you follow "high ethical principles." You are not being at all forthcoming about your role in making a serious false accusation. You are not ethical. You continue to be evasive and dishonest.

 

[Oystein]

You see yourself as the final word on 'authoritative judgment' but that is still only YOUR opinion.

No. Your lie couldn't be more radically dishonest. It is literally EVERYONE's opinion that JayUtah's authority on matters discussed here VASTLY exceeds yours - as does literally EVERYONE's authority here in this thread. Have you read any part of the thread recently? Habe't you noticed how literally EVERYBODY is beating your ridiculous, lying claims into the ground, every single post, every single time? You are the least authoritative participant of this thread on account of every single one of your posts being inept, dishonest, free of supporting evidence, void of any shadow of competence.

Can you name a single person other than you who you think would not wholeheartedly agree with JayUtah?
After your anticipated failure to find even only one other person who is of a different opinion, will you retract the lie that "that is still only YOUR opinion"?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Are you having problems with reading comprehension, again?

It's a straightforward question, with no childish language. Do you think you could answer it?

I'm picturing children dancing around in a circle on the playground, mockingly chanting: "Unequivocally diesel-powered, unequivocally diesel-powered..."

 

[erwinl]

So tell me factually how many different press releases there have been.

NB: A press release issued once and then reworded several times, perhaps for clarification, does not count as a new press release.

I don’t need to.
MarkCorrigan was talking about press releases, while you were saying that he was talking about multiple press conferences.

That is the lie.