JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I'm sure she'll just dismiss the demonstration post as a "typo" and my analysis as somehow moot. She had plenty of opportunity to disavow it before now.
For fairness' sake, it bears repeating that those are not Vixen's words. I'm sure she'll blame in on the AI being stupid—which, frankly, it is. But until the mod box appeared identifying it as an AI product, she tried to claim it as her own work. Even after suspicion grew that it was AI slop, she kept insinuating otherwise in her characteristically indirect, evasive manner. It was her job to detect and reject the slop, and she failed at it.
And this wouldn't have been an issue again except insofar as Vixen lately decided to refer back to it and equivocally suggest that it was still somehow a right answer for which she should be given credit, even though she now admits she doesn't know what she's doing.
And you should be justly proud of your recall. Vixen herself finally admitted that her study of physics was only up to O-level exams, and therefore long ago and only to an extent common among U.K. students. Her recall of studies completed decades ago seems to have fallen far short of the mark. But the lesson is that if you're going to pretend to know a subject, maybe don't deploy an argument that fails spectacularly and obviously at the elementary level easily detected by people with an ordinary correct knowledge of that subject. To be sure, the actual characterization of the hydrodynamics in this case involves much more advanced engineering techniques. But the detection of elementary failure doesn't always require the same professional level of expertise that is needed to achieve an ultimate success.
It comes down to the common sense of expecting people who set themselves up as judges of other people's work to be able to demonstrate some understanding of how that work should properly be done. Vixen simply can't do that here. Hence there is no reason to take her seriously.
I'm sure Vixen can imagine what she might want to do if she took some failing trust company under her wing, applied a suitably rigorous program of accounting to put its accounts in proper order, determined and alleviated causes of failure, and thus restored faith in it—only to have some uninformed interloper accuse her of malfeasance. It could be someone with a demonstrable lack of understanding, such as someone who thinks a "blind register" is a thing, or who can't tell the difference between a company directorship and a trusteeship, or wrongly believes trusts have to be approved by a court. Whatever the case, I suggest she would undoubtedly recognize the faulty premise for the judgment and rightly question that critic's command of fact and proper method.
Now it's common for there also to be a knee-jerk emotional response to such unjust criticism. And I believe a conscientious, fair-minded person would have enough introspection to realize that to respond emotionally would be less effective and mature overall than objectively pointing out first the unreliable facts that the critic has relied upon, and second the ways in which the critic's lack of specialized experience and understanding has led to indefensible judgment. It's not so much the emotional desire to lash out as it is the belief that the record can and should be set straight. The existence of error is often the only justification needed for the application of correction.
But while the issue can be addressed by looking at facts and the basis for judgment, the underlying problem is not that the critic fails to understand accountancy. It's that the critic fails to realize that his inexperience and his reliance on a questionable factual basis should give a reasonable person legitimate pause about whether to continue comment. Surely a reasonable person can't go very far down such a road before observing, "I don't know what I'm talking about." And thereafter that critic might reasonably conclude, "...and therefore I should probably keep my mouth shut." When such critics persist in judgment based on error and ignorance, it ceases to be a question of facts. judgment, or altruistic motives and becomes entirely a "personality" issue. A critic's desire to sweep his ongoing bad behavior under the carpet and propose to maintain focus on doubtful facts and inexpert judgment in the name of mere casual "interest" or perceived moral authority is an indicator of bad faith and should be responded to accordingly.
Last edited:
