Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

Vixen said:
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.

Click to expand...

Well done, that almost answers my question about what lab work you did. Keep trying and you might be able to honestly answer a question one day!
 
JayUtah said:
No, that's not the dilemma, and no, you are not the teacher. You claimed the fire services were accountable to the ministry in a certain specific way that required the minister proper to "sign off" on a technical report issued by one of its offices. Now you're trying to distract from the fact that the source you cited contains no evidence of such a practice by pretending you were addressing a question that was never asked.

Further, you claim that this "sign off" procedure provides the minister proper an opportunity to censor the report and "hush up" anything he doesn't like. You have no evidence that this has occurred or will occur, and you have completely ignored that the minister who you say will be censoring this report to protect Sunak's purported interests will be a member of the opposition party.
Click to expand...

...which is quite similar to her repeated assumption in the Estonia threads that Ingvar Carlsson's government would willingly carry Carl Bildt's water and continue to perpetuate its predecessor's coverups.
 
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian said:
...which is quite similar to her repeated assumption in the Estonia threads that Ingvar Carlsson's government would willingly carry Carl Bildt's water and continue to perpetuate its predecessor's coverups.
Click to expand...


Of course. Conspiracy theories are partisan until that doesn’t work. And then there’s some other cabalistic influence that transcends politics.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Sure, but equivalence wasn't the original point as I recall. It was whether, say, a biology degree followed by a masters in medieval history lets you claim to be a biology postgraduate.
Click to expand...
Well no, you'd need a degree/diploma in something biological. I thought Vixen was trying to pass off her (alleged) professional certification in accounting as an actual degree.
 
catsmate said:
Well no, you'd need a degree/diploma in something biological. I thought Vixen was trying to pass off her (alleged) professional certification in accounting as an actual degree.
Click to expand...

She is. This is why she keeps referring to the employment equivalence tables to support her contention of having a “post-graduate” degree. An accountant’s charter is a professional qualification, not an academic one.

She claims to have a baccalaureate in psychology. And she claims this qualifies her as a psychology “post-graduate.”
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
A difference of opinion is hardly 'lies'. Let's not use childish language.
Click to expand...


Most of these are not "differences of opinion." Rather, they are issues of fact upon which you've continued to spout misinformation even after having been repeatedly corrected. However, I will grant that whether this qualifies as "lying" is debatable.

But I'll give you a few examples where you've provably lied that are beyond debate that haven't been mentioned yet.

You lied and claimed that I'd accused Anders Björkman of being a Holocaust denier, when what I'd actually said was that his claims that almost no Japanese died in the "fake" atomic bombings were as offensive as Holocaust denial (post here). When I called you on this, you further lied and claimed that I'd backtracked from my original "accusation," which you then claimed made me an untrustworthy reporter of Björkman's crackpot ideas. (This was undoubtedly the point of the exercise, so that you'd have an excuse to dismiss my criticism of Björkman.) Note that this situation is very similar to your lying about Jay's alleged criticism of Carol Vorderman.

Finally, you lied and claimed that I was the only one arguing that Björkman's atomic bomb denial was due to gross misunderstanding of nuclear physics, and that everyone else was arguing that he was claiming nuclear weapons are impossible for logistical and technical reasons (presumably so you could pretend that he's less of a lunatic).

Back to this thread, you lied and claimed that Geoff Buys Cars and a Russian troll/bot (to whom you disingenuously referred as a "commentator") "rationally argued" that the West shouldn't help Ukraine, when there's nothing in the video or the comment that any reasonable person would possibly consider a rational argument. (Feel free to prove me wrong by posting any "rational argument" from the transcript and the comment.) You did this because you didn't want to admit that GBC is anti-EV zealot and a pro-Putin shill.
 
catsmate said:
Well no, you'd need a degree/diploma in something biological. I thought Vixen was trying to pass off her (alleged) professional certification in accounting as an actual degree.
Click to expand...

Oh for goodness sake, I can assure you the postgraduate diplomas were extremely easy, a doddle, a piece of cake and a walk in the park compared to professional accountancy exams. Your snobbery is very amusing and it is apparent you have never suffered the pain of P1 and P2, when pass rates were often only 35%. My pile of accountancy books were taller than me by the time I qualified. Stop trying to make out academia is somehow more elite.
 
JayUtah said:
She is. This is why she keeps referring to the employment equivalence tables to support her contention of having a “post-graduate” degree. An accountant’s charter is a professional qualification, not an academic one.

She claims to have a baccalaureate in psychology. And she claims this qualifies her as a psychology “post-graduate.”
Click to expand...

I have never claimed to have a baccalaureate.

Enough.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Most of these are not "differences of opinion." Rather, they are issues of fact upon which you've continued to spout misinformation even after having been repeatedly corrected. However, I will grant that whether this qualifies as "lying" is debatable.

But I'll give you a few examples where you've provably lied that are beyond debate that haven't been mentioned yet.

You lied and claimed that I'd accused Anders Björkman of being a Holocaust denier, when what I'd actually said was that his claims that almost no Japanese died in the "fake" atomic bombings were as offensive as Holocaust denial (post here). When I called you on this, you further lied and claimed that I'd backtracked from my original "accusation," which you then claimed made me an untrustworthy reporter of Björkman's crackpot ideas. (This was undoubtedly the point of the exercise, so that you'd have an excuse to dismiss my criticism of Björkman.) Note that this situation is very similar to your lying about Jay's alleged criticism of Carol Vorderman.

Finally, you lied and claimed that I was the only one arguing that Björkman's atomic bomb denial was due to gross misunderstanding of nuclear physics, and that everyone else was arguing that he was claiming nuclear weapons are impossible for logistical and technical reasons (presumably so you could pretend that he's less of a lunatic).

Back to this thread, you lied and claimed that Geoff Buys Cars and a Russian troll/bot (to whom you disingenuously referred as a "commentator") "rationally argued" that the West shouldn't help Ukraine, when there's nothing in the video or the comment that any reasonable person would possibly consider a rational argument. (Feel free to prove me wrong by posting any "rational argument" from the transcript and the comment.) You did this because you didn't want to admit that GBC is anti-EV zealot and a pro-Putin shill.
Click to expand...

I honestly did not know at the time Geoff Buys Car was a pro-Russian shill at the time. You think I like the Russians [re the state, not ordinary people]? ******* hell, we have been fighting the Russians for hundreds of years!!! I never claimed that Holocaust denial, or the denial of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was 'rational'. As an admirer of the works of Kazuo Ishiguro, who writes about the destruction of these towns extensively in his novels, I have no idea where you get the idea I am pro-Hiroshima denial. For the record, I am anti-Holocaust denial (we remember today the dreadful attack of 7th October on innocent young people at a festival) anti-Russian aggression and corruption.

To set the record straight.
 
Vixen said:
I honestly did not know at the time Geoff Buys Car was a pro-Russian shill at the time. You think I like the Russians [re the state, not ordinary people]? ******* hell, we have been fighting the Russians for hundreds of years!!! I never claimed that Holocaust denial, or the denial of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was 'rational'. As an admirer of the works of Kazuo Ishiguro, who writes about the destruction of these towns extensively in his novels, I have no idea where you get the idea I am pro-Hiroshima denial. For the record, I am anti-Holocaust denial (we remember today the dreadful attack of 7th October on innocent young people at a festival) anti-Russian aggression and corruption.

To set the record straight.
Click to expand...

1/10 - try to read for comprehension.

Or in the current parlance "drop the strawmen"
 
When I studied Milgram as an undergrad, no mention was made of him shocking anyone. My poor lecturer actually claimed Milgram never shocked anyone, nor did he cause anyone to be shocked. Is this something he told you personally, Vixen, or is it in the literature?
 
Vixen said:
I honestly did not know at the time Geoff Buys Car was a pro-Russian shill at the time. You think I like the Russians [re the state, not ordinary people]? ******* hell, we have been fighting the Russians for hundreds of years!!! I never claimed that Holocaust denial, or the denial of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was 'rational'. As an admirer of the works of Kazuo Ishiguro, who writes about the destruction of these towns extensively in his novels, I have no idea where you get the idea I am pro-Hiroshima denial. For the record, I am anti-Holocaust denial (we remember today the dreadful attack of 7th October on innocent young people at a festival) anti-Russian aggression and corruption.

To set the record straight.
Click to expand...

Meaningless gibberish that doesn't address the fact you lied.
 
Vixen said:
Please stop spreading lies about me. In one post you claimed I was a fat old man living in a basement on the verge of suicide over his sad old life, plus several misogynistic characterisations in which you claimed only men were allowed to critique females. You also claimed I was really a data-entry clerk.

For the record I have an science honours degree (honours: means I was in a laboratory. I was obliged to produce fifteen laboratory reports, designed and carried out by me and analysed as to statistical significance levels. This is exactly what scientists do. Plus a lengthy dissertation throughout the final year.

Please stop with your deliberately untrue statements.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
This is sort of stuff universities expect of science undergraduates each term, in each subject.
 
JayUtah said:
She is. This is why she keeps referring to the employment equivalence tables to support her contention of having a “post-graduate” degree. An accountant’s charter is a professional qualification, not an academic one.

She claims to have a baccalaureate in psychology. And she claims this qualifies her as a psychology “post-graduate.”
Click to expand...
My sister has a psych BA (OK it's from UCD....). Her postgraduate qualifications include two Masters' degrees (MA. MSc), a GDip (education), and a pair of doctorates (PhD and DEd). I must ask her opinion.

SO#2 is a psychiatrist/psychopharmacologist. She amassed the usual collection of degrees; BM, BCh, BAO, plus PhD and MD (an awarded higher degree here, not the USAian version). Her opinion would be scathing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom