Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[MarkCorrigan]

Not only that, she has outright demonstrated utter incompetence in every science subject raised, from claiming that you can't reach certain temperatures outside lab conditions to claiming that welding doesn't involve melting the metal.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

So, I did lab work, a bunch of work out in the field, work in a hydroponic growing room, even a lab at another university. Does that make my science degree a super-special ultra-cool honours degree?

And I got pissed with my course leader on a few occasions...

 

[Mojo]

Indeed, the coursework she describes is roughly equivalent to the standard undergraduate requirement for a lab science in any large American university. Every graduate, regardless of declared major, would be expected to complete such work. But the notion that "being in a laboratory" is equivalent to "honors" is hysterical.

In English universities, "honours" just means you've completed the course and achieved high enough marks for at least third class honours. Temperatures above 700°C are not required.

 

[GlennB]

Indeed, the coursework she describes is roughly equivalent to the standard undergraduate requirement for a lab science in any large American university. Every graduate, regardless of declared major, would be expected to complete such work. But the notion that "being in a laboratory" is equivalent to "honors" is hysterical.

Of course, those studying for a BA(Hons) in History, English Lit. etc have to go to a very special 'laboratory' to earn the (Hons) part.

 

[JayUtah]

I couldn't care less if you don't regard me as postgraduate, you are free to think what you like, that was merely a quibble by another poster.

No, it was not. You cannot demonstrate a working understanding of the problems posed by witness testimony. That shortcoming often affects the credibility of your various conspiracy theories that rely upon witness testimony being taken invariably at face value. When this was pointed out to you, you responded with a claim to expertise which turned out to be embellished at best and outright false at worst. If you don't like being fact-checked about your background and claimed qualifications, do not make them part of your argument.

Similarly, when you badly botch the description of a blind trust, you cannot expect to rehabilitate that by saying it's ludicrous to think you got it wrong after all the unverifiable expert things you claim to have done elsewhere. You don't get to start from a presumption of expertise. If you cannot actually lay an appropriate foundation for those claims, they are properly rejected and you should learn that bluffing doesn't work.

What I do object to is people circulating posts falsely accusing me of wrongdoing.

As previously discussed, "wrongdoing" is a straw man.

You have been unable to prove that any of the challenges to your claims to authority are false or poorly reasoned. As usual, it comes down to a decision whether to believe your unverifiable and equivocal claims to academic and profession prowess over your patent inability to demonstrate any of that purported prowess when required. You seem to think you can bluff your way along infinitely without consequence and still expect to be regarded as the smartest turkey in the barnyard.

Finally, your indignance is frankly insulting. Your whole schtick at this forum is to pretend you know more than everyone else and to accuse people of wrongdoing in the form of conspiracy theories supported on no stronger a foundation than stuff you ignorantly make up. Cry us a river. If you believe that turnabout is fair play, you're getting just desserts for your behavior.

 

[JayUtah]

Of course, those studying for a BA(Hons) in History, English Lit. etc have to go to a very special 'laboratory' to earn the (Hons) part.

Indeed, that was the gist of my post. Work in a laboratory is not the sine qua non of academic honors, even in science. (Pyschology, for example, doesn't usually rely on traditional laboratories.) And yes, it may be instructive to learn which what degree of honors—first, second, or third—Vixen is claiming. It doesn't seem inappropriate to suspect that Vixen is trying to bamboozle a mostly American audience into thinking she achieved very high academic distinction.

 

[malbui]

Of course, those studying for a BA(Hons) in History, English Lit. etc have to go to a very special 'laboratory' to earn the (Hons) part.

The BA (Hons) crowd when I was a student spent so much time drinking and indulging in naughty chemicals that they ended up doing a lot of lavatory work. Is that the same thing?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Indeed, that was the gist of my post. Work in a laboratory is not the sine qua non of academic honors, even in science. (Pyschology, for example, doesn't usually rely on traditional laboratories.) And yes, it may be instructive to learn which what degree of honors—first, second, or third—Vixen is claiming. It doesn't seem inappropriate to suspect that Vixen is trying to bamboozle a mostly American audience into thinking she achieved very high academic distinction.

For the sake of total transparency, I achieved a lower second, commonly known as a 2:2 or a Desmond.

 

[Vixen]

So, I did lab work, a bunch of work out in the field, work in a hydroponic growing room, even a lab at another university. Does that make my science degree a super-special ultra-cool honours degree?

And I got pissed with my course leader on a few occasions...

I didn't say it was special. I was responding to novaphile who claimed I had a non-science degree. Novaphile also claimed I was a fat old tragic man living in a basement, a data entry clerk, and when I critiqued anyone female, that I was supposedly jealous of [what novaphile considered] their good looks. For example, when I critiqued Bryan Kohberger's psychology professor's works, he degraded my comment as my supposedly being jealous of her looks.

So my response was to correct novaphile and to politely ask him to stop spreading lies about me.

Ultimately, I couldn't care less what people think of it. It was only mentioned because I was asked a direct question which I answered. That person who asked me the direct question is now framing it as my somehow bragging and claiming special status.

 

[Steve]

There is a fascinating pattern here. Vixen threads always start out as a ridiculous unevidenced conspiracy fantasy, with no evidence ever forthcoming, and end up being all about Vixen. Every. Single. Time.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You're still lying about what happened Vixen.

Further you indicated that the "honours" part of your claimed "honours degree" was to do with lab work. I'm certainly curious what kind of lab work you did for a psychology degree.

 

[JayUtah]

I didn't say it was special. I was responding to novaphile who claimed I had a non-science degree.

First, you are demonstrably not at all competent in science, so it doesn't matter what degree you say you have. It cannot overcome your demonstrable ignorance. You seem to think the argument, "I can't possibly be wrong because I'm so smart," works.

Second, it's still unclear what degree you claim to have and what relevance it has to any of your various claims to expertise. You tell us you have an honors baccalaureate degree in a science, which you sometimes claim is psychology. But then you claim considerable laboratory experience, which is not very consistent with a psychology undergraduate program. Until you stop equivocating, there will be questions.

Ultimately, I couldn't care less what people think of it. It was only mentioned because I was asked a direct question which I answered. That person who asked me the direct question is now framing it as my somehow bragging and claiming special status.

Whether people accept you as an authority seems to be all you care about. Your conspiracy theories have no actual explanatory power. But they all seem aimed at showing your proficiency in a way you expect others to respect.

You keep claiming one kind of special status or another, usually in response to someone pointing out some mistake or another. You have constantly embellished your achievements as a way of trying to cover up errors: you can't possibly be wrong because you're so well qualified.

There is a fascinating pattern here. Vixen threads always start out as a ridiculous unevidenced conspiracy fantasy, with no evidence ever forthcoming, and end up being all about Vixen. Every. Single. Time.

Because every single Vixen tries to show Vixen is the smartest person in the room.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Er, wait a minute. I was giving a straight answer to a straight question. I have never claimed that what I do at work has anything whatsoever to do with a chat forum.

Non sequitur. This has nothing to do with my and others' correction of your misapprehensions about multiple accounting topics.

Having worked side by side with Trust Fund specialists at a top 50 firm of accountants in the City, and attending their seminars for CPD, it is laughable to claim I have zero idea of how a 'blind' trust management works or why people choose to register their companies in the Cayman Islands. Heck, I was part of a team that recouped hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer funds from such a place.

And yet, as Jay noted, you couldn't even demonstrate correct understanding of those topics. So why should we simply accept your claim that you're a competent professional at face value?

Nothing to do with this thread but the claim I have no idea what Sunak's Cayman Island firm is all about is hilarious. I know exactly what it is about and why he has claimed it was under 'blind management' in the register of MP interests. It doesn't mean he has given up his share in the partnership agreement as he would like people to believe so that he doesn't have to declare his gains and conflicts of interests (such as the Moderna vaccine).

It's not "Sunak's firm," and he no longer has any interest in it. You've been corrected on these points several times, yet you can't resist continuing to lie about them in order to smear him.

It is perfectly OK to raise the question of what is in it for him to protect the Tata Range Rover brand, if that was indeed the vehicle involved (and from photos, it would seem to be the case!).

It is not "perfectly OK" when you have no evidence to support your silly conspiracy theory.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You're still lying about what happened Vixen.

Further you indicated that the "honours" part of your claimed "honours degree" was to do with lab work. I'm certainly curious what kind of lab work you did for a psychology degree.

Cosmo's "Are you a narcissist?" quiz?

 

[Steve]

(Respectful snippage)

Because every single Vixen tries to show Vixen is the smartest person in the room.

Vixen might be able to do a better job of this if Vixen had studied and learned some actual science...., or psychology....., or anything really, beyond junior high level.

 

[Vixen]

You're still lying about what happened Vixen.

Further you indicated that the "honours" part of your claimed "honours degree" was to do with lab work. I'm certainly curious what kind of lab work you did for a psychology degree.

You can find an example of how to do a lab report here: https://www.simplypsychology.org/research-report.html

These involved:

Designing questionnaires and interviews (attitudes re social psychology) validating for reliability.

Testing for personality traits/designing personality trait questionnaires (personality) ditto.

Observing children, for example, playing at an adjacent nursery designed for this (child development).

Effects of alcohol on reaction times - re subjects attached to an electroencephalogram (physiology)

What part of a memory test do people remember best (Ebbinghaus and co.)

The pattern of forgetting (ditto)

The link between having an audience and effect on performance (ditto)

Transactional analysis (economics option)

Cognitive dissonance and rationalisation (designing how to measure)

Lie detector type stuff - attach fingertip to ECG machine

Eye witness reliability (criminology option)

Linguistics (Chomsky)

Eye to hand reaction; stimulus/response (physiology)

Group dynamics


Shook hands with Stanley Milgram at graduation ceremony. (We weren't allowed to replicate his experiments [giving subjects electric shocks to see how well they would obey authority] for ethical reasons.

Plus the additional dissertation, roughly 30,000 words, typed up professionally, bound and archived for future researchers.

 

[JayUtah]

You can find an example of how to do a lab report here: https://www.simplypsychology.org/research-report.html

These involved:

Designing questionnaires and interviews (attitudes re social psychology) validating for reliability.

Testing for personality traits/designing personality trait questionnaires (personality) ditto.

Observing children, for example, playing at an adjacent nursery designed for this (child development).

Effects of alcohol on reaction times - re subjects attached to an electroencephalogram (physiology)

What part of a memory test do people remember best (Ebbinghaus and co.)

The pattern of forgetting (ditto)

The link between having an audience and effect on performance (ditto)

Transactional analysis (economics option)

Cognitive dissonance and rationalisation (designing how to measure)

Lie detector type stuff - attach fingertip to ECG machine

Eye witness reliability (criminology option)

Linguistics (Chomsky)

Eye to hand reaction; stimulus/response (physiology)

Group dynamics


Shook hands with Stanley Milgram at graduation ceremony. (We weren't allowed to replicate his experiments [giving subjects electric shocks to see how well they would obey authority] for ethical reasons.

Plus the additional dissertation, roughly 30,000 words, typed up professionally, bound and archived for future researchers.

Hastily Googled irrelevance. What did you do in the lab? What reports did you write? What relevance does it have?

Much of what you’re claiming here appears to be clerical or lap technician type work, not scientific investigation,. The rest seems to be surveying already plowed ground.

 

[GlennB]

You can find an example of how to do a lab report here: https://www.simplypsychology.org/research-report.html

These involved:

Designing questionnaires and interviews (attitudes re social psychology) validating for reliability.

Testing for personality traits/designing personality trait questionnaires (personality) ditto.

Observing children, for example, playing at an adjacent nursery designed for this (child development).

Effects of alcohol on reaction times - re subjects attached to an electroencephalogram (physiology)

What part of a memory test do people remember best (Ebbinghaus and co.)

The pattern of forgetting (ditto)

The link between having an audience and effect on performance (ditto)

Transactional analysis (economics option)

Cognitive dissonance and rationalisation (designing how to measure)

Lie detector type stuff - attach fingertip to ECG machine

Eye witness reliability (criminology option)

Linguistics (Chomsky)

Eye to hand reaction; stimulus/response (physiology)

Group dynamics


Shook hands with Stanley Milgram at graduation ceremony. (We weren't allowed to replicate his experiments [giving subjects electric shocks to see how well they would obey authority] for ethical reasons.

Plus the additional dissertation, roughly 30,000 words, typed up professionally, bound and archived for future researchers.

"Plus the additional dissertation, roughly 30,000 words, typed up professionally, bound and archived for future researchers."

How very modest of you

 

[Craig4]

Let's see. You believe the video shows diesel flames. Another person believes they look like lithium flames.

Are you seriously claiming that the opinion you disagree with is the same as 'a lie'?


Or would you prefer people in a debate to stick to polite language?

My point being that you've engaged in some very childish behavior. Telling, lies about qualifications, refusing to accept obvious evidence.

 

[Vixen]

"Plus the additional dissertation, roughly 30,000 words, typed up professionally, bound and archived for future researchers."

How very modest of you

What? That is standard.

So end of subject AFAIAC.