Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

Vixen said:
What lies?
Click to expand...


Here's a random one that I just stumbled upon while looking for something else:
Vixen said:
Yes, because the BBC report I was quoting from is dated 10 April 2024 and in the interim you produced one dated way back in October 2023 saying the same thing! So the 'latest update' was just a rehash in effect. Like all the rest of the stuff since 11 October 2023.
Click to expand...
 
Carrot Flower King said:
In that instance it was Murphy's.

A later incident, involving half of the Irish navy, a bunch of students down from Cork and the singing of a whole lot of rebel songs, saw free pints of both Guinness and Murphy's donated to us.

Beamish wasn't available in the area at that time.
Click to expand...
Well no, not in Cork.
 
Vixen said:
For goodness sake, don't you recognise sarcasm? In future, please quote me in full and in context (to include what I was replying to, together with thread title, so we know the topic).

(Sorry if you are going through a hard time - I hope you feel happier soon.)
Click to expand...
I can assure you that I laugh uproariously at most of your posts.
The fact that you can only respond with ad hominems merely underlines the fragility of your “factual” assertions here.
 
Vixen said:
Sounds like you have a childish concept of how that is a lie.

Someone contradicting you or with a differing opinion does not make them a wrongdoer.
Click to expand...


You offered a characterization of the source that was counterfactual. That’s not merely a difference of opinions.
 
Vixen said:
I was referring to the make, model and year of the vehicle.
Click to expand...

Yes, but your concern was that the fire started with an EV or hybrid. You now know that is not that case and have for some time. The information you seek is unrelated to your concern.
 
JayUtah said:
You offered a characterization of the source that was counterfactual. That’s not merely a difference of opinions.
Click to expand...

My assertion that the various press releases were simply repeating what Mr Hopkinson said 11 Oct 2023 is my opinion, which I stand by.

Mojo calling me names just because he has a different opinion from me is incredibly childish.
 
EHocking said:
I can assure you that I laugh uproariously at most of your posts.
The fact that you can only respond with ad hominems merely underlines the fragility of your “factual” assertions here.
Click to expand...

I am glad to hear it because you gave the distinct impression you were targetting me because you were angry, as you thought I claimed to be the 'smartest guy in the room' so now that you have found the correct quote and discovered you were mistaken perhaps you can tone it down.
 
Vixen said:
My assertion that the various press releases were simply repeating what Mr Hopkinson said 11 Oct 2023 is my opinion, which I stand by.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. You mischaracterized the reporter's framing of the story and then doubled down on it. That is not a difference of opinion.

Mojo calling me names just because he has a different opinion from me is incredibly childish.
Click to expand...

So you've said. If you think Mojo's post is a cheap shot, then you can turn your attention to the lie regarding Carol Vorderman.
 
Vixen said:
I am glad to hear it because you gave the distinct impression you were targetting me because you were angry...
Click to expand...

You know this never works. Every time you're caught in a lie you turn it around and try to shame everyone for what lies you imagine they are telling about you and others. Then you accuse your critics of being angry and therefore presumably irrational. None of that is true and none of that is relevant and all of it is ad hominem.

You claimed the details of the initiating vehicle were "classified." When asked if you were claiming that literally, you doubled down and then tried to backpedal when you were shown to be wrong—you tried to dismiss it too late as mere sarcasm. Then you claimed you had papers from your father that showed classification markings you think are inconsistent with the well-established system, and therefore presumably you might still somehow be right.

As usual, your face-saving boils down to information only you have access to, that somehow proves you right despite all practice, convention, and evidence to the contrary. You have papers that prove you're right about classification. You have a book that's unavailable outside Finland that proves you're right about metallurgy lab reports. You have a anonymous maths boffin who proves you were right all along about primes notation. And all my gay male friends have a girlfriend in Canada.

You have no new information regarding the Luton fire. You noted that a report was expected in summer. But rather than take the Curious Turkey approach and actually ask the responsible agencies where the report is—like your betters did—you extended your conspiracy theory to provide a reason for the absence or delay. You don't display any sort of actual curiosity in the cause of the Luton fire. You're clearly just trying to stir up a controversy so you can pat yourself on the back for being the one to uncover it.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
You offered a characterization of the source that was counterfactual.
Click to expand...


And then repeated it after it was explained that it was counterfactual, which is what made it a lie rather than, perhaps, a misunderstanding of what the source said.
 
Incidentally, if the make and model of the vehicle was being hushed up to protect Sunak's secret investments, why is it still being hushed up?
 
Vixen said:
My assertion that the various press releases were simply repeating what Mr Hopkinson said 11 Oct 2023 is my opinion, which I stand by.
Click to expand...


Your claim that it was the "latest update" is a factual claim contradicted by your source for it, which clearly states that it was a statement made "at the time of the blaze".
 
JayUtah said:
You know this never works. Every time you're caught in a lie you turn it around and try to shame everyone for what lies you imagine they are telling about you and others. Then you accuse your critics of being angry and therefore presumably irrational. None of that is true and none of that is relevant and all of it is ad hominem.

You claimed the details of the initiating vehicle were "classified." When asked if you were claiming that literally, you doubled down and then tried to backpedal when you were shown to be wrong—you tried to dismiss it too late as mere sarcasm. Then you claimed you had papers from your father that showed classification markings you think are inconsistent with the well-established system, and therefore presumably you might still somehow be right.

<snip invective>
Click to expand...

For goodness sake, learn to spot the difference between vernacular and lack of knowledge. If something is classified it is hardly going to be announced with fanfare. When I said the vehicle make, model and year was classified information it was obviously a sardonic use of the word.

But carry on, try to pretend it's because I don't understand language structure.
 
Mojo said:
Incidentally, if the make and model of the vehicle was being hushed up to protect Sunak's secret investments, why is it still being hushed up?
Click to expand...

The report has to be read by government ministers before it is approved to be released to the public. You can't know at this stage whether it is hushed up or not. The comms guys at Beds F&R Services aren't authorised to give out info off their own bats. That's not the same as 'being hushed up'.
 
Amazing (or perhaps not) how sometimes a "vernacular" usage is more important than a more specific and official usage and yet at other times a highly specific - as in only applying in one very particular circumstance -usage takes precedence over a more widely used and well-established definition, let alone vernacular...

Odd, that. I wonder why it could be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom