Obviously you have never been stalked.
Yes, I have—by people who were evidently conspiracy theorists. Back when I limited my debunking to the Apollo space missions, I received two overt threats: one death threat and one threat of indeterminate harm. I reported them and luckily they came to nothing. I've had two people call up my business and try to get me fired. That would be hard, since I own the business with partners.
Despite that, I can tell you I drive a black 2015 Audi A3 2.0 L turbo, four-door with a petrol engine and a Tiptronic transmission. Further, the fire services can identify the make, model, and year of the vehicle in the Luton fire, yet we still don't know who owned it or was driving it at the time, so we can't stalk him.
You have forgotten that I—not you—am the expert in how to write reports for public consumption that were developed according to information provided in confidence, under privilege, or under restriction. No one knows who you are or where exactly you live. I'm telling you that revealing the make, model, and year of your car does not subject you to undue personal risk. No one is asking for further information that would identify the individual vehicle, and therefore you. You're being asked for generic information about the model.
I have told you exactly what type of car I have. Full stop.
Lie.
We asked for the make, model, and year. You've told us the model year is 2023. You've told us it's of Japanese make. But you still haven't told us the make and model. There is no concept of reality in which you have identified "exactly what type of car" you're talking about.
You heard. I informed you I was not giving you my personal information. Respect people's boundaries. I have told you all you need to know for information purposes.
No.
Identifying your vehicle type is not personal information. Your fear of being stalked as a result is irrational.
You have not told us what we need to know for information purposes. You have purported that you drive a hybrid. Yet your description of how you operate that hybrid is unlike anything else known, and contrary to the engineering principles that pertain to hybrids. Thus your claim cannot be take as trivially or self-evidently true. It requires further investigation before it can be believed. Your unwillingness to provide the necessary information is strong evidence you do do not want that investigation to happen. From that we can reasonably infer that you believe the investigation would produce information that would be detrimental to your claim. Therefore it's reasonable to presume your claim is false.
Your boundaries are irrelevant. When you invoked your personal experience to support your claim, you made that experience discoverable. Insinuating just enough "personal information" to support your argument but not enough to allow others to verify it while preserving your anonymity is dishonest, and typical of your other dishonest patterns of argumentation.
All the actual evidence in the Luton fire—and it is strong evidence—supports a finding that the initial vehicle was a diesel powered vehicle and not any sort of EV or hybrid. Contrary to all this evidence, you propose that the vehicle was nevertheless a hybrid. To answer the contravening evidence, you propose that the owner (and presumably driver) was utterly unaware that he was driving a hybrid. (You're completely unable to answer how the fire services allegedly misidentified the powerplant, but we'll save that for another day.)
Your hypothesis regarding the driver is absurd on its face. But to try to blunt some of that absurdity, you've said that obliviously driving a hybrid must be accepted as possible because you do it. You claim you drive a hybrid, that driving it is indistinguishable from driving an ICE-powered car, and that it has a clutch and manual gearbox that so many of us (including me) love to drive. You don't state it explicitly, but implied in your argument is that such a car would have a lithium ion battery capable of burning down a car park.
But to people who know hybrids, no such car exists. That is, either you're making it up, or your description of what it is and/or how it works is inaccurate or incomplete. In any case, you don't get to expect your critics just to take your word for it. Once again your argument rests upon your unverifiable claims to personal authority. If you don't like people asking you about your personal experience, stop basing your arguments on it.
Ironically, you can completely divorce your argument from personal experience by giving us the make, model, and year of the car you're talking about. That lets us evaluate your claim based on what we can discover about the car on our own, rather than having you chase you constantly around Grievance Grove and Evasion Alley. Since you refuse to give us the information required to evaluate your claim, and it faces substantial countervaling evidence, we have to dismiss it.
But there's a lingering issue about why you would stoop to conjuring up magical hybrid designs. It's not to actually solve better the Luton fire's initial cause. That's been done. The evidence is in, and it's conclusive. It's not because you're "curious" or "just asking questions." Inventing fantasy cars isn't about getting new information from the scenario; it's about injecting questionable information
into the scenario.
So why are you coming up with patently absurd lines of reasoning to keep alive the idea that it's still somehow a hybrid? I'm certain it's because you can't let go of the smoke-and-flame argument. You want it to still somehow be an operative claim, some purported anomaly that
you were clever enough to spot and which hasn't been specifically addressed by the experts. There's no actual controversy, since the "anomaly" exists only in your uninformed imagination. But you can't let it go. It's still always all about
you, not what really caused the fire.
