Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[Andy_Ross]

Meanwhile the fire service have confirmed it wasn't an electric or hybrid vehicle an it was diesel powered.

 

[Vixen]

And it turned out that he was correct, and you were not actually a post grad in psychology.

My STEM degree was what got me an exemption from the entire certificate level so I got in as a postgraduate like almost all of my course mates, most of them Maths or Economics graduates.

 

[JayUtah]

Not being funny but we are all equal on a chat forum.

No.

I am a qualified engineer. You are not. When the discussion is about whether something in engineering is being done properly, I am an authority. You are not. There is nothing magical about online forums that erases actual knowledge and expertise. But the fact that you're arguing as much speaks volumes. You really do seem to want your ignorance to be as welcome as others' knowledge.

 

[JayUtah]

My STEM degree was what got me an exemption from the entire certificate level so I got in as a postgraduate like almost all of my course mates, most of them Maths or Economics graduates.

Asked and answered. You do not have a post-graduate education in science.

 

[Vixen]

Just so it's clear: you are stating you earned a BSc(Hon) in the field of psychology. Correct?

That is correct.

I quizzed you myself on the memory factors for eyewitness testimony. You were unable to name the practitioners in the field. You did not recognize the names of the practitioners I named. You were unable to describe their theories. Although you disagreed with their theories once I taught them to you, you remained unfamiliar with the objections and criticisms from opponents in the field—your personal objection was based simply on pooh-poohing without addressing the substance.

Since you cannot demonstrate proficiency in the field, your claim to academic achievement in it seems to ring as hollow as all your other claims to expertise.

You were way out of your depth, quoting a psychologist specialising in false memory. But you didn't realise she was talking about mostly things that happened in the past and which the mind fills in gaps; also she was a 'gun for hire' for defendants claiming false memory confessions. Little to do with eye witnesses to an accident that happened recently.

Because your postgraduate education was in accounting.



Yes. You claim you have always clearly stated any claims to academic qualifications. The evidence shows this is not true.

That is your opinion.

 

[JayUtah]

That is correct.

From my untimely edit to the previous post :—

If so, then I agree that is a STEM degree. I understood you previously to have been referring to your accounting certification as STEM. My assumption, and therefore my error.

You were way out of your depth, quoting a psychologist specialising in false memory.

Asked and answered. You are not familiar with her relevant work. You keep citing her irrelevant, later work.

Initially you were not familiar with her at all, which is odd considering she has been one of the foremost researchers on the subject of memory for the past five decades.

But you didn't realise she was talking about mostly things that happened in the past and which the mind fills in gaps; also she was a 'gun for hire' for defendants claiming false memory confessions.

You still don't realize you're relying upon summaries of her other work that isn't relevant, and complaining because it isn't relevant. The fact that you are unaware of her relevant work is the basis of my claim that you are generally unfamiliar with the field.

Little to do with eye witnesses to an accident that happened recently.

Her other work with eyewitnesses is relevant. She wrote the textbook on the subject. It went through two editions, the second of which is still used today. I have both editions, and sometimes still have to use the current one in my work.

To be sure, there are noted practitioners in neuroscience who have disputed some of her findings. I can name them. Can you? If I'm so out of my depth, why am I the one having constantly to bring you up to speed? By the way, the basis of their objection doesn't have anything to do with your homemade objections.

That is your opinion.

No, it's your admission. If you're now admitting you should have worded your answers more carefully, then they weren't clearly worded before—just as your critics have pointed out.

 

[LondonJohn]

May I remind everyone - again - that any discussion of Vixen's academic history is somewhat irrelevant. The important issue, as it pertains to this thread, is that Vixen clearly does not even have a competent high school student's understanding of physics (and the physical sciences in general). This much is self-evidence on account of her multiple egregious and embarrassing errors & ignorance within this thread. Whatever education Vixen did or did not receive, it's manifestly clear that she presently has almost no grasp of scientific matters or the scientific method. And ultimately this is all that matters.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Not being funny but we are all equal on a chat forum.

No, we're not. Just being on a chat forum doesn't make your ignorant ramblings about technical matters in which you have no training equal to someone with actual professional credentials.

I am not sure hero-worship is a great sign of maturity but anyway it's not something in my value system.

Is it hero worship to simply point out that, unlike you, Jay knows a good deal about this subject? Hell, you claimed that diesel car fires were "benign", and that diesel oil can't be ignited unless it's subjected to high pressure.

Did your psychology training ever cover narcissistic personality disorder?

 

[LondonJohn]

<fx faints with shock!>

Ah, I see why you fainted. Y'see, when one poster (me) makes a factual error, another better-informed poster points out the error and the poster who made the error (me) accepts that they were wrong. I can understand why that would be an alien concept to you.

(And "faints with shock" is not a stage/screen effect. Maybe get some education in script/screenplay terminology, eh?)

 

[GlennB]

No, we're not. Just being on a chat forum doesn't make your ignorant ramblings about technical matters in which you have no training equal to someone with actual professional credentials.


Is it hero worship to simply point out that, unlike you, Jay knows a good deal about this subject? Hell, you claimed that diesel car fires were "benign", and that diesel oil can't be ignited unless it's subjected to high pressure.

Did your psychology training ever cover narcissistic personality disorder?

Harsh, but totally accurate.

 

[LondonJohn]

Wrong again. The very reason the Labour government of the day abolished the tripartite system, or to put it in Anthony Crosland's words: "If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every ******* Grammar School in England. And Wales", is precisely because of a perceived 'elite meritocracy' (his words) as pupils WERE getting selective education with most of the pupils being put forward for the standard 5-O-levels ticket to a decent job/course were coming from the grammar school band which was seen as unfair towards the other 80% who didn't even get to study various subjects. The CSE was brought in to bridge that gap and then it was amalgamated into GCSE and a broad curriculum. Again, to claim this is untrue and a lie, is most improper.

I have never embellished my qualifications. I was asked a direct question and I replied. It is hardly my fault of the poster didn't like the answer.

Yes, I was wrong (but not "again", note). A few better-informed people corrected me and I immediately acknowledged my error (you might learn something from that). In my defence (as I said in my error acknowledgement), I did not receive a state-funded secondary education, so it turned out I was ignorant of how the state system worked.

As I also said, the point about your embarrassing claim to have received some sort of special intensive schooling in physics still stands. A physics O Level is a basic test of basic physics for Year 11 students (16 years of age). And ironically you can't even demonstrate competence to O Level standard.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not being funny but we are all equal on a chat forum.

Not being funny, but whatever gave you that idea? On a chat forum there are usually people who are well-qualified, well-read, well-educated and experienced in the topic under discussion. This usually becomes evident by way of those people's posts, and clever participants/readers are usually able to identify (and pay attention to) such people.

On the other hand, in some threads there are people who are way out of their depth, who like to think they can "talk the talk" but who self-evidently cannot "walk the walk". Clever participants/readers are usually able to identify (and disregard the contributions of) such people.

I am not sure hero-worship is a great sign of maturity but anyway it's not something in my value system.

The amusing thing is that here you've helpfully pointed out one of the (many) fundamental errors in your approach to forum participation. Well done!

 

[Wudang]

When I was at secondary school (1971-1977 Scotland) the first 2 years was general science. It wasn't split into physics, chemistry etc until 3rd year choosing our O levels. The same was true of my daughter (born 2005) going into GCSEs.
Further postgraduate does not necessarily mean advanced. I have a postgraduate diploma in Computer science. It's the 3 year BSc non-honours compressed into 1 year. So I have a postgraduate qualification in CS but have not studied CS at a postgraduate level and never claim to have done so as I have ethical standards.

 

[LondonJohn]

Meanwhile the fire service have confirmed it wasn't an electric or hybrid vehicle an it was diesel powered.

Yes. And in official press releases and official responses to FOI requests as well. Who'd'a thunk it?

 

[junkshop]

While all this...stuff has given us something to row about while we wait for the report on the investigation, focus seems to have slipped somewhat.

FACTS:

There was a big old fire in a parking structure at Luton Airport.

The Fire Service that dealt with said fire, and were a party to the investigation of it's cause have stated repeatedly (and evermore specifically) )that the fire started in a diesel powered vehicle.

That's it.

The report will be released soon. Until then, I can't see that there's anything more to say.


Vixen's many and varied fanciful, fantastical, and fallacious claims are unsupported and irrelevant.

 

[Craig4]

JayUtah made that claim. You are welcome to weigh up what makes something a science or a scientist but it is improper to call me a liar when it is 100% truthful that I did five years of Physics, which was what the poster demanded to know. Years,1,2,3,4 and 5. There is zero misrepresentation.

A lie of omission is still a lie.

 

[LondonJohn]

While all this...stuff has given us something to row about while we wait for the report on the investigation, focus seems to have slipped somewhat.

FACTS:

There was a big old fire in a parking structure at Luton Airport.

The Fire Service that dealt with said fire, and were a party to the investigation of it's cause have stated repeatedly (and evermore specifically) )that the fire started in a diesel powered vehicle.

That's it.


Vixen's many and varied fanciful, fantastical, and fallacious claims are unsupported and irrelevant.

Yep.

Those of us with even basic reading comprehension skills (coupled perhaps with even a basic understanding of how official incident investigations by public bodies proceed and report) can of course be 100% certain that when the final report is released it will explicitly state that Car Zero was a pure ICE diesel vehicle, and not a hybrid or EV of any flavour.

In the meantime, Vixen's continued fatuous CT claims, and her continued twisting to try to deny the obvious veracity of BF&RS's official press releases and responses to FOI requests, are nothing but mildly irritating white noise.

 

[JayUtah]

...be 100% certain that when the final report is released it will explicitly state that Car Zero was a pure ICE diesel vehicle, and not a hybrid or EV of any flavour.

Vixen is already priming to reject the final report unless it explains why the video on YouTube looks like a lithium ion battery fire. Conspiracy theorists really never warm up to the idea that they don't matter.

 

[gabeygoat]

Vixen is already priming to reject the final report unless it explains why the video on YouTube looks like a lithium ion battery fire. Conspiracy theorists really never warm up to the idea that they don't matter.

so, let's focus on that, rather than Vixen's academic standing. That stuff has all been discussed before and doesn't add much to the current thread. The last few pages have basically devolved into piling on Vixen and not really anything about the science and imagined conspiracies and weird stuff in general that usually make this thread interesting.

 

[jeremyp]

That is correct, it looks like a lithium battery fire to me.

What are the characteristics of a fire that make it a lithium battery fire? I've never seen a lithium battery fire before, except occasionally in YouTube videos and I'm not confident I could tell the difference between a lithium four and a diesel fire if I didn't already know the type of propulsion the car in question used.