A Midland Railway 990 Class. They were a simplified version of the Johnson 1000 Class of Compounds. Designed by Deeley without the compound cylinders and initially no superheating. There were 10 of them altogether. They were built in 1907 to work the Settle to Carlisle line.
Ah. So a group of people engaging in a circle jerk to marvel at how wonderful and exclusive they all are. Nothing to do with practical knowledge on any given topic. And nothing to do with an ability to learn from knowledgeable people.
Inquiring minds want to know- is there perhaps a 'inverse triple niner' group???
Plus of course, there's nothing except Vixens word that she is indeed a member of such a group...
I have an engineering degree, a master's in manufacturing operations and almost 30 years of manufacturing experience. Half that time has been in automobile body manufacturing where various forms of joining are used, including multiple forms of welding. You've already proven you are woefully inept at understanding welding.
To be fair to Vixen she did specify she was not a member of the TNS. She just claimed she would qualify.
Nothing to do with IQ. I am well aware there is a high level of it in ISF. I was referring to the propensity of being interested in things that most people seem to find incredulous that anyone could be (for example, the evolution of dinosaurs, etc.) So the idea that only people in the naval or shipping industry can know anything about the Estonia accident makes me incredulous.
Thank you so much for digging this out. As you can see, I was employing the dialectical technique of debate in drawing to the poster's attention, in the form of a cutting question, as to whether his belief it was an ordinary deportation was based on intellectual consideration of the facts or just a lazy assumption based on what we normally consider to be reasons for deportation. As you can see, it is NOT my calling the poster 'a racist' at all. So all this time I have had to tolerate enormous resentment, instead of the question being treated objectively.
I have never done that. I have addressed specific topics.
There is of course no problem whatever with taking an interest in these topics, nor with expressing what you know about them. The problem is being confidently wrong and then being stubbornly resistant to correction.
Well, for me this was a current affairs news item and as such, I have been bringing up current affairs issues to do with this accident. This is local news for me.
What do you think debating is about unless it is to examine the issues at hand. Asking whether someone has a belief based on a generalisation or a stereotype is asking them to evaluate their belief. Quite often, people believe things without much thought, so I see nothing wrong with that at all.
Straw man. Despite your claimed level of intelligence, you constantly make elementary mistakes on the subjects of shipping, the investigation of shipping accidents, and this accident in particular. The claim is not that you don’t know “anything,” but rather that you don’t know enough correct information to interpret evidence and support your conspiracy claims. Your response to being corrected by your betters is typically to double down. Others’ expertise permits them to know confidently that you’re wrong on some given point.
With not enough knowledge to address them.