Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

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...
It’s ironic that you should be whining about other’s ad hominem in this thread when that’s all you are able respond with.
…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.
Click to expand...
Oh please.
Everyone here can read the quote and the context.
 
Vixen said:
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'.
Click to expand...

How is "hushing up" information different from making it "classified", especially in the context of your assertion that you were being sarcastic when you said it was classified?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
How is "hushing up" information different from making it "classified", especially in the context of your assertion that you were being sarcastic when you said it was classified?
Click to expand...

<fx taps nose> That's classified information.










NB: This is sarcasm.

The context being, when I asked under the Freedom of Information Act what was the make model and year of the vehicle concerned, the response was it was exempt under so-and-so section of the Act. Hence, my comment about the make, model and year being classified information.

Do you now see the sarkiness?
 
You mischaracterised the actions described in this post:
Mojo said:
OK, over the last few weeks I've been in a couple of libraries with time to kill, and tracked down some sources for Scottish criminal law and legal history.

The major historical sources for Scottish criminal law seem to be MacKenzie: Law and customs of Scotland in matters criminal (1678) and Hume: Commentaries on the law of Scotland respecting crimes (1797 or 1819). Neither mentions a defence of fighting talk or anything similar as a defence to assault; Hume explicitly says that "no verbal provocation, how reproachful and contumelious soever, shall justify a violent invasion or battery of the person" (1797 edition, Vol 2 p 56). The section of MacKenzie on "injuries" mentions provocation as mitigation but not as a defence.

I also checked Walker: A Legal History of Scotland (1998-2005). The volumes covering up to 1286, the later Middle Ages, and the 16th century mention assault but not specific defences. The volume covering the 17th century mentions self-defence as a defence, but not provocation. The volumes covering the 18th and 19th centuries both specifically say that verbal provocation did not justify "a violent invasion or battery of the person".

Looking at current sources, Gordon's Criminal Law of Scotland (4th edition Vol 1 p 455) does discuss a case (Hillan v HM Advocate [1937] JC 53) in which provocation was used as a defence, but it was nothing to do with "fighting talk": the victim "made indecent suggestions" to the accused after the accused had "been induced to enter the cubicle of a public lavatory"; the case itself doesn't cite any sort of "fighting talk" defence to support this. The book goes on to say that the judge's comments suggest that "provocation may be a complete defence to assault provided that (a) the provocation is by violence and (b) the accused's retaliation does not amount to 'cruel excess'". It also suggests that in such a case self-defence, rather than provocation, would be the appropriate defence.

There's no sign in any of these of "an old Scottish law which provided for 'fighting talk' to be an acceptable defence for beating the crap out of someone ahem, taking necessary action to bring about its cessation."

I'm confident that either Vixen's "lovely elderly Scottish gentleman" was mistaken, or that Vixen is mistaken about what the "lovely elderly Scottish gentleman" said.
Click to expand...

As this:

Vixen said:
Mojo looking it up on a library catalogue and not finding it doesn't really cut the mustard as a definitive refutation.
Click to expand...

You lied about being a scientist. Repeatedly.

You lied about being a psychology postgraduate, later claiming that you had meant to say that you have a psychology undergrad degree and took some accounting courses that were equal to a post grad, therefore that entitled you to claim you are a psych postgrad.

You claimed to have been able to see the mortar attack on 10 Downing Street when from the location you gave this would be impossible.

You lied, repeatedly, when you claimed that our objections to citing Anders Bjorkman as an expert was due to a "personality issue" when in fact it was due to his incompetence and baseless conspiracy gibberish.

You lied about people mocking those who had died on the Estonia.

You lied about Jay disparaging Carol Vorderman, and when challenged you said you would only apologise when he did so for something you had made up.

You continually lie about your interlocutors using disparaging terms about you, including being sexist.

That's just some of them.
 
Vixen said:
For goodness sake, learn to spot the difference between vernacular and lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. When you first claimed the information was classified, you were asked whether that was meant literally or in some other way. You first posted information suggesting you meant it literally. When that didn't work, then you tried to say it was sarcasm. But then you inexplicably made up another story about private information in your possession that suggested a new way in which you could still be factually correct. So you can't seem to let go of the notion that there exists some place in Vixenworld where you're still right—sarcasm aside.

This is your common face-saving pattern: the Bluff, the Double Down, the Backpedal, and finally the Private Trump Card.

If something is classified it is hardly going to be announced with fanfare.
Click to expand...

Actually things that are classified are typically prominently marked with the classification so that you know to take care. And there has been considerable fanfare over the fuel type of the vehicle. If your argument is that the other minor details are being quietly classified, you have to explain the adjacent furor.

When I said the vehicle make, model and year was classified information it was obviously a sardonic use of the word.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. You were asked whether you were being serious and you doubled down before trying to backpedal. You can't claim something was "obvious" when there was an exercise to determine what you meant, and you gave conflicting answers.

But carry on, try to pretend it's because I don't understand language structure.
Click to expand...

Straw man. I carry on because you're following your typical dishonest pattern of trying to bluff your way along without knowing what you're talking about. And the investigation of accidents is something I take seriously enough to defend against the self-aggrandizing behavior of armchair detectives.

Vixen said:
NB: This is sarcasm.
Click to expand...

If you have to keep telling people when you're being sarcastic then you're not very good at it.

The context being, when I asked under the Freedom of Information Act what was the make model and year of the vehicle concerned, the response was it was exempt under so-and-so section of the Act. Hence, my comment about the make, model and year being classified information.
Click to expand...

And that's not the same as being classified. I gave you examples of different reasons not to disclose information, and you blew them off. But just to be sure, you were asked whether you meant that literally and you bluffed some more before trying to plead sarcasm. And then you bluffed some more. All your face-saving exercises are typically this inconsistent.

Do you now see the sarkiness?
Click to expand...

No. It wasn't obvious then and it's not obvious now. You're just provably wrong and refusing to admit it, as usual.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The report has to be read by government ministers before it is approved to be released to the public.
Click to expand...

"...because I say so."

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'.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. It has been officially announced that the initial vehicle was diesel powered and not any sort of electric or hybrid vehicle. This is the operative information, and it is extremely unlikely that the final report will contravene it in any way. You've been asked why you need to know the details of this vehicle in order for the reporting to be valid and all you can do is continue to wave your hands at "curiosity."

Vixen said:
Obviously, the report would have to be signed off by the Minister of State for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention.
Click to expand...

"Obviously" does quite a lot of heavy lifting in your posts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_State_for_Policing,_Fire_and_Crime_Prevention
Click to expand...

What passage in that source supports the claim that one or any other minister must approve a technical report, or that material is routinely "hushed up" in that process, as you claim will happen?
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
Just remembered another. You accused someone of lying about you, claiming that you had said you were in MENSA when you weren't despite someone else pointing out exactly where you had claimed to be a member of MENSA.
Click to expand...

And she is still avoiding the Carol Vorderman lie.

As Mojo noted earlier, Vixen has quite a knack for transforming what might be excused as honest mistakes into effective lies by delaying her answers and then doubling down on the initial gaffe. Regarding the Vorderman claim, she could have said immediately, "Oops, I'm sorry, I see now that you were being sarcastic and didn't actually make the claim I accused you of making." We would have moved on. Instead she avoided the issue for as long as possible and then came back with more accusations. Finally, as you note, she tried to condition taking responsibility for her actions on receiving a favorable rhetorical concession.

The belabored avoidance of responsibility for a counterfactual statement is what creates the lie. She did it then, and she continues to do it now—effectively continuing to double down on the lie. She asked for examples of her lies; they were given to her, and she's pretending they don't exist. It's easy to keep a spotless mind if you just don't look at the spots.

The dishonesty is a problem for her arguments because so much of them is predicated on what she claims to know, or insinuates she knows. If she is an unreliable reporter, then we do not trust the proffered foundation.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
What passage in that source supports the claim that one or any other minister must approve a technical report, or that material is routinely "hushed up" in that process, as you claim will happen?
Click to expand...

It's the passage hiding behind the hazardous material from the Estonia and beneath the submarine tracks.
 
zooterkin said:
So you have no evidence to support your statement that the report has to be read by government ministers before being approved?
Click to expand...
"Obviously" is an example of that Pratchett called 'wallpaper Words', intended to cover over a gaping hole in an argument.
 
Vixen said:
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'.
Click to expand...


No evidence of a cover-up, then.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
You mischaracterised the actions described in this post:

As this:



You lied about being a scientist. Repeatedly.

You lied about being a psychology postgraduate, later claiming that you had meant to say that you have a psychology undergrad degree and took some accounting courses that were equal to a post grad, therefore that entitled you to claim you are a psych postgrad.

You claimed to have been able to see the mortar attack on 10 Downing Street when from the location you gave this would be impossible.

You lied, repeatedly, when you claimed that our objections to citing Anders Bjorkman as an expert was due to a "personality issue" when in fact it was due to his incompetence and baseless conspiracy gibberish.

You lied about people mocking those who had died on the Estonia.

You lied about Jay disparaging Carol Vorderman, and when challenged you said you would only apologise when he did so for something you had made up.

You continually lie about your interlocutors using disparaging terms about you, including being sexist.

That's just some of them.
Click to expand...

To set the record straight, a chartered accountancy qualification (=US CPA equivalent does count as postgraduate) my STEM science degree did get me an exemption from the certified level, so it was postgraduate. I am sorry if you don't like it.

I did witness the Downing Street bombings. I did not say I saw the mortar bombs being fired from the van- so which one of us is the liar, here? Interesting you don't see Glenn B, who started the hazing, as the liar, who not only forced me to reveal my workplace address, but then went on to scurrilously claim that only people who saw the bomb physically land in Downing Street garden could claim to be a witness, not those nearby who saw the black smoke aftermath, and ditto from the second bomb that landed next door at the Foreign Office. He lied that he was the final arbiter on who witnessed the bombs and who did not even though he wasn't even in London at the time but claims to now be able to announce that I am a liar about being there. I know some people enjoy trying to distress other people on social media because they think it is fun. I personally think it is immoral to knowingly spread lies about other people. So please stop doing it. Fun for you. Not for me.

You are welcome to disagree with my opinions but I object to you spreading untrue claims about my professional qualifications. Please stop claiming making false claims about me. Consider how you would like it if someone persistently spread unpleasant stories about you.

Incidentally, David Hume, whom you quote via Mojo from another thread, was a philosopher and historian. So yes he would be writing about abstract issues.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Irrelevant. When you first claimed the information was classified, you were asked whether that was meant literally or in some other way. You first posted information suggesting you meant it literally. When that didn't work, then you tried to say it was sarcasm. But then you inexplicably made up another story about private information in your possession that suggested a new way in which you could still be factually correct. So you can't seem to let go of the notion that there exists some place in Vixenworld where you're still right—sarcasm aside.

This is your common face-saving pattern: the Bluff, the Double Down, the Backpedal, and finally the Private Trump Card.



Actually things that are classified are typically prominently marked with the classification so that you know to take care. And there has been considerable fanfare over the fuel type of the vehicle. If your argument is that the other minor details are being quietly classified, you have to explain the adjacent furor.



Irrelevant. You were asked whether you were being serious and you doubled down before trying to backpedal. You can't claim something was "obvious" when there was an exercise to determine what you meant, and you gave conflicting answers.



Straw man. I carry on because you're following your typical dishonest pattern of trying to bluff your way along without knowing what you're talking about. And the investigation of accidents is something I take seriously enough to defend against the self-aggrandizing behavior of armchair detectives.



If you have to keep telling people when you're being sarcastic then you're not very good at it.



And that's not the same as being classified. I gave you examples of different reasons not to disclose information, and you blew them off. But just to be sure, you were asked whether you meant that literally and you bluffed some more before trying to plead sarcasm. And then you bluffed some more. All your face-saving exercises are typically this inconsistent.



No. It wasn't obvious then and it's not obvious now. You're just provably wrong and refusing to admit it, as usual.
Click to expand...

If you wish to convince yourself I don't know the meaning of the word 'classified', that is your prerogative.
 
JayUtah said:
And she is still avoiding the Carol Vorderman lie.

As Mojo noted earlier, Vixen has quite a knack for transforming what might be excused as honest mistakes into effective lies by delaying her answers and then doubling down on the initial gaffe. Regarding the Vorderman claim, she could have said immediately, "Oops, I'm sorry, I see now that you were being sarcastic and didn't actually make the claim I accused you of making." We would have moved on. Instead she avoided the issue for as long as possible and then came back with more accusations. Finally, as you note, she tried to condition taking responsibility for her actions on receiving a favorable rhetorical concession.

The belabored avoidance of responsibility for a counterfactual statement is what creates the lie. She did it then, and she continues to do it now—effectively continuing to double down on the lie. She asked for examples of her lies; they were given to her, and she's pretending they don't exist. It's easy to keep a spotless mind if you just don't look at the spots.

The dishonesty is a problem for her arguments because so much of them is predicated on what she claims to know, or insinuates she knows. If she is an unreliable reporter, then we do not trust the proffered foundation.
Click to expand...

I will review the Carol Vorderman claim but as I recall my impression was your making a joke about the value of her engineering degree. So let me come back to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom