• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Continuation] Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
EHocking said:
The problem is not that there is a Pass rate on the exam, but that you think that the success rate of the process is the same thing, e.g.,
Again, the chances of successful placement has been/is small. This is not the same as the pass score of the exam.

Oh, and a standardised test has nothing to do with how the scores/pass is calculated (or standard deviations of same), it is the definition of tests that “ are designed in such a way that the questions and interpretations are consistent and are administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner.”.

Test score interpretation/determination may involve normative interpretation of scores, but scores being determined by standard distribution is not what “standardised test” means. A standardised test can also be scored using “criterion-referenced” score interpretation. These are sometimes referred to as “standard-based assessment”.

Perhaps the latter is where you have become confused between standardised test, standard based assessment and standard deviations?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I think we are at cross references between public exams such as the Civil Service Fast Stream process with psychometric tests designed to measure cognitive ability.

But there would have been some kind of pass mark in the former, for sure.
 
Vixen said:
That was the logical conclusion I came to from the final report, which clearly stated that only authorized personnel were present at the final recovery scene. Hardly a 'conspiracy theory', if officially confirmed in an official report.
Click to expand...

Logical conclusion, my arse. Long before any final report was available you were speculating that the man who reported spotting the body might be some kind of undercover psychic detective.

You siezed upon the description of police trying (not quite successfully) to keep the public away from the recovery scene, and you claimed that was evidence that the person who spotted the body was therefore not a member of the public. Ludicrous.

Your invention today of the phrase "authorised personnel" is an attempt to bolster your baseless conspiracy theory that Rothwell is secretly one of those police personnel. It's obvious nonsense. The report says no such thing.


I invite you to show us where in the report you became convinced that Rothwell was a secret undercover psychic detective sleeper agent:
https://www.lancashire-pcc.gov.uk/w...Nicola-Bulley-independent-external-review.pdf
 
Vixen said:
...perhaps the law or parliamentary protocols need to be amended so that only minor MP's can hide behind a genuine 'blind register' ...
Click to expand...

You appear to be advocating for corruption so long as it's limited to backbench MPs. Except of course you're still talking about 'blind registers' as the method of cheating but I don't know what that means.

So that we who are less educated in the ways of high finance can keep up with you, can you direct us to a description of what a 'blind register' is, and how it differs from a blind trust? Thanks.
 
Vixen said:
Fact: PM Rishi Sunak is the only UK prime minister who has listed his interests on the register as being on a blind register. Note the words [whilst in office as] serving Prime Minister.

So once again a rash assertion on your part.
Click to expand...
Sigh. You're still wrong.
 
Vixen said:
That was the logical conclusion I came to from the final report, which clearly stated that only authorized personnel were present at the final recovery scene. Hardly a 'conspiracy theory', if officially confirmed in an official report.
Click to expand...

Holy flarking schnitt! You think that they sent a detective to discover the body because anyone else would have been unauthorized? You think it was a restricted crime scene before the body was discovered? Even the words "final recovery scene" should tell you something about that. Even the most rudimentary logical ability should tell you that recovery has to come after discovery.

Not only are you not even remotely as logically astute as you claim to be, you lack even basic reading comprehension.
 
Vixen said:
Citation please of where it was confirmed it was a Land Rover Discovery.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant to type 'Evoque'. And like I said, we know this from the first photo, because that's what a Land Rover Evoque looks like. When the final report comes out this summer, it's virtually certain to to say the car was a Land Rover Evoque.

Now will you please answer my question? Why should anyone mark your words given how frequently you are wrong?
 
Steve said:
Economically disadvantaged persons who have to fly budget airlines are a security risk in the eyes of the wealthy such as our Vixen who can afford the very best full-service airlines. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I read it as poor people on budget airlines getting killed isn't much of a risk.
 
Vixen said:
Fact: PM Rishi Sunak is the only UK prime minister who has listed his interests on the register as being on a blind register. Note the words [whilst in office as] serving Prime Minister.

So once again a rash assertion on your part.
Click to expand...

Once again, it's a blind trust that was registered, not a 'blind register'. You'd think an accountant would understand the terminology.

And, to your point, no, it's not a fact, as usual you're talking bollocks. Just one counter example:
Theresa May used a "well-established mechanism" in setting up a blind trust to manage her financial interests on becoming PM, Downing Street has said.

...

Mrs May set up the arrangement when she became prime minister last summer, after serving in the cabinet for six years as home secretary.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
Seriously, we all notice typos and unfamiliar expressions all the time. To turn it into a thread for people to express their inner heckler...really...?
Click to expand...

It wasn’t a typo. You spent dozens of pages trying to convince everyone you were still somehow right. And you’re still trying. You still can’t just admit you made a mistake.

As I said before that was how we did it.
Click to expand...

No.

I get that not everybody did but that is hardly an excuse for ad hominem attack.
Click to expand...

Report personal attacks for moderation. Do not just whine for rhetorical effect. It is not ad hominem to point out that someone who is trying to teach others has made a mistake in that teaching that she refuses to acknowledge.
 
Last edited:
Please tell me we don't have to go through the geography of the Wyre valley again? Nor the direction of tidal flow in Morecambe Bay nor where specific weirs are nor any of the rest of that?

Please...

I was over in the Forest of Bowland a couple of weeks ago and it was very pleasant; in the Hodder valley rather than the Wyre, though, that and Ribbledale...
 
Vixen said:
That was the logical conclusion I came to from the final report, which clearly stated that only authorized personnel were present at the final recovery scene. Hardly a 'conspiracy theory', if officially confirmed in an official report.
Click to expand...

This is a bit off-topic and so perhaps should be moved, but I'll note the following is a quote from that report.

In support of the police effort to recover Nicola’s body, the search
team worked to a forensic recovery strategy. To provide the necessary
protection to the area from the public, officers were deployed to
the scene to prevent any public intrusion into the area. Despite this deployment, a member of public was able to breach the restricted area, ignoring the direction of the police present. This action resulted in an
extreme invasion of privacy, in what was the most sensitive aspect of the
investigation, and resulted in the arrest of the individual involved.
Click to expand...

Now, as far as I know, the alleged psychic wasn't arrested so this may not refer to him, but it's pretty clear that you're just wrong that only authorized folk were present. It's also not clear whether the psychic was ever in the restricted area -- at least not to me. He's nearby, but not obviously in the midst of the police scene.
 
phiwum said:
This is a bit off-topic and so perhaps should be moved, but I'll note the following is a quote from that report.



Now, as far as I know, the alleged psychic wasn't arrested so this may not refer to him, but it's pretty clear that you're just wrong that only authorized folk were present. It's also not clear whether the psychic was ever in the restricted area -- at least not to me. He's nearby, but not obviously in the midst of the police scene.
Click to expand...

Yeahbut, the lack of direct evidence that he wasn't in the restricted area just shows that there was an embargo on that specific information, doesn't it? Surely a cabal of senior police officers (or should I call them polis, even though it's Lancashire?) were covering up the presence of a psychic, who would undermine their hold on the investigation of crimes and potential crimes and all, thus stopping super efficient psychics from solving all crimes and enabling us to do away with police?

That'll be it...
 
Vixen said:
Nonsense. I was called a conspiracy theorist in the Nicola Bulley case...
Click to expand...


Never mind all the stuff about undercover cops posing as psychics, your claim here is false.

You were not called a conspiracy theorist in any of the threads about the Bulley case. You are once again remembering something that didn't happen.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
Surely a cabal of senior police officers (or should I call them polis, even though it's Lancashire?) were covering up the presence of a psychic...
Click to expand...


No, Vixen's theory seems to be that they were using an undercover agent posing as a psychic, who they tipped off so he could be photographed pointing it out to them, to make it look as if a psychic, not the police, had found it.

ETA: Vixen's post about the police tipping him off:
Vixen said:
It might well be the case he just happened to be passing. However, as someone who is sceptical that 'things happen accidentally' insofar if one looks at the sequence of events that leads up to most 'accidents' or 'chance' events, things are rarely accidental at all. Did the appearance of Ms. Bulley's body, the psychic medium and the press photograph all convene by random chance? I don't know. Maybe. IMV more likely Mr. Neill had a tip-off, as did Mr. Rothwell -the tip off being from police and detective sources as it was known the tide was due to rise as of that date due to the new moon - spring tides and all that.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
P.J. Denyer said:
Wait. The Prime Minister's electric? What if he burns down Downing Street?!?
Click to expand...
Well that would be a shocking experience for all involved...
I mean, watt would the responce of the public be???
There would have to be a electron to elect a new government for sure...
And there would be a battery of questions about how such an polarising event could happen in the first place...
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It is important to be clear on word meanings otherwise they just become meaningless.
Click to expand...


Which is why I gave the definition of "conspiracy theory" from a respected American dictionary that shows the term clearly applies to your claims in this thread and the Estonia thread, despite your repeated attempts at denial and obfuscation. I will grant that there may be reasonable doubt about whether the term applies to your claims about Amanda Knox, though I would argue that there is not.

[Note: I stated that I wasn't going to discuss Vixen's Amanda Knox claims any further in this thread. I will therefore attempt to limit my response to the following to the issue of exactly who is advocating a conspiracy theory.]

Vixen said:
Looking at court processes and court transcripts and stating an opinion of them, whilst providing reasoning for the opinion, really does not qualify as a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...


That's not what I said. I said that you have claimed, despite overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of gross misconduct (as confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights, I should have added) and incompetence on the part of the Italian authorities in this case, that Knox and her ex-boyfriend are clearly guilty, but that various elements (including the Mafia) conspired to have their convictions overturned. So yes, you are once again pushing a conspiracy theory.

Vixen said:
(You do know that Italy does factually have a mafia problem, mafias which do in fact interfere with its legal machinery? This is fact, or perhaps only an opinion, but it's not a 'conspiracy theory').
Click to expand...


Motte-and-bailey. None of this proves, or even suggests, Knox's ex-boyfriend is connected with the Mafia, or that they intervened to get the convictions overturned. And yes, it is a conspiracy theory.

Vixen said:
A true pure conspiracy theory is one that states, 'That defendant was convicted of murder for doing cartwheels'. This is the actual conspiracy theory believed and stated by a large number of people in this forum as an ISF mantra in every second thread.
Click to expand...


[Note to those who don't follow the Knox discussion: At one point, Knox was doing yoga to relax. Some tabloid claimed that she did a cartwheel, and this has become something of a running joke in the many iterations of the thread.]

Your misinterpretation aside, this statement further demonstrates that you don't understand the meaning of the term "conspiracy theory." Exactly who is claimed to be conspiring here? (Don't answer; that's a rhetorical question.)

Vixen said:
It is my opinion there is a cover up re the Luton Airport car park fire, albeit a banal mundane one with standard embargos placed on the press as to what they are allowed and not allowed to report.
Click to expand...


You have presented no credible evidence to support this claim, so why should anyone take you seriously? Further, this absolutely is a conspiracy theory, and you certainly are a conspiracy theorist, your denials notwithstanding.

Vixen said:
That is my opinion. Relax. It is not threatening to have someone differing in opinion from oneself. The whole idea of a forum is discussing how you reached your opinion.
Click to expand...


What makes you think anyone feels threatened? I think you're the one whose upset because no one's taking you or your ridiculous conspiracy theories seriously, and you're just projecting.
 
Mojo said:
She doesn't, it's just an ad hom.
Click to expand...


I think it’s just the standard narcissistic flex from conspiracy theorists. They have to interpret every objection as some kind of fearful reaction, so they can maintain the illusion that people just can’t deal with the truth they’re laying out. It’s a delusion of relevance.
 
Mojo said:
It's an ad hom: "your argument is false because you feel threatened".
Click to expand...


Sure; from the logical analysis standpoint it’s an ad hominem argument. From the psychological standpoint, it’s just Vixen soothing her ego. She has to believe everyone is threatened by and scared of her. But then yes, having established that delusion, she can go on to propound it into an ad hominem rebuttal.
 
None of this blather actually addresses the content of the post you are replying to, but regardless. . .
Vixen said:
Not at all. I think we are at cross references
Click to expand...
That you might be at cross purposes with your confusion between the meaning of standardised tests and standard deviation is obvious.
You may want to try “cross referencing” the definitions of each to discover where you are at cross purposes, perhaps.

You might also want to cross reference “pass mark” with “success rate”
… between public exams such as the Civil Service Fast Stream process with psychometric tests designed to measure cognitive ability.
Click to expand...
Who’s “we” Kee-mo-sah'-bee?, “public exams” and “psychometric tests” are not mutually exclusive.
Since you passed the Fast Track, e.g., “public”, exam, you should be aware that it also includes psychometric tests in the process.
But there would have been some kind of pass mark in the former, for sure.
Click to expand...
Both exam types have “some kind of pass mark”.
The root of your confusion on the subject is that you thought job placement success rate was the same as the CSFS pass rate and prefer to double down on your error rather than accept correction of your misconception.
 
Last edited:
While we're waiting for Vixen to come back, I'm going to revisit a couple of things from my previous response to her. I was somewhat pressed for time when I was finishing, and upon rereading, I see that I should have developed those points more fully, partly for the benefit of those who don't follow the Amanda Knox thread.

Vixen said:
Looking at court processes and court transcripts and stating an opinion of them, whilst providing reasoning for the opinion, really does not qualify as a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...


Whether you ever did any of the above is debatable at best, but we won't go off on that tangent.

The evidence that Knox and her ex-boyfriend are innocent, and that they were wrongfully convicted due to gross police and prosecutorial misconduct (again as confirmed by the ECHR), gross investigative incompetence, and other problems with the Italian legal system is, as I have stated, overwhelming and incontrovertible. This should be obvious to anyone with even basic critical thinking skills. You, however, reject or ignore all this evidence and continue dogmatically insisting that the two are clearly guilty, and that the explanation for their ultimate exoneration must therefore be some sort of conspiracy or conspiracies. So yes, you are promoting conspiracy theories about Amanda Knox.

Vixen said:
A true pure conspiracy theory is one that states, 'That defendant was convicted of murder for doing cartwheels'. This is the actual conspiracy theory believed and stated by a large number of people in this forum as an ISF mantra in every second thread.
Click to expand...


Two additional items on this. First, although you were wrong, you told us earlier that a conspiracy theory requires reptilian overlords or an international Jewish cabal or similar organization. So how does this fit your (incorrect) definition? Come to that, how does it even fit the correct definition of a conspiracy theory? (Not rhetorical questions this time; please answer.)

Second, as I should have clarified, the joke that "Knox was convicted for doing a cartwheel" refers to the prosecutor's fixating on her as a suspect because he decided that her reactions were somehow inappropriate. But Vixen evidently missed that.
 
Vixen said:
Looking at [the mainstream narrative claims] and stating an opinion of them, whilst providing reasoning for the opinion, really does not qualify as a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

You don't know the difference between an opinion an an allegation of fact. If your reasoning involves proposing an alternative narrative in which people conspired to do something, then it's a conspiracy theory.

You do know that Italy does factually have a mafia problem, mafias which do in fact interfere with its legal machinery?
Click to expand...

I lived in Italy for a number of years, one of them in Sicily and several months of that in Palermo—that very nice villa on the corner of Via Vodige. I knew personally people who were involved in organized crime. The relationship between these people and law is complex and often distasteful. But it's entirely different from the mythology spread by people who don't know what they're talking about. I have no desire or intention to dive into the Knox case. But I am absolutely sure I know more about the Mafia than you do.

This is fact, or perhaps only an opinion, but it's not a 'conspiracy theory'
Click to expand...

Including real life people in your conspiracy theory doesn't stop it from being a conspiracy theory.

A true pure conspiracy theory is one that states, 'That defendant was convicted of murder for doing cartwheels'. This is the actual conspiracy theory believed and stated by a large number of people in this forum as an ISF mantra in every second thread.
Click to expand...

Straw man. What you propound in this and other threads are conspiracy theories. And apparently you don't get jokes.

It is my opinion there is a cover up re the Luton Airport car park fire...
Click to expand...

That is an allegation of fact, not an opinion. It is also a conspiracy theory.

Relax. It is not threatening to have someone differing in opinion from oneself.
Click to expand...

You appear to be the only one who feels threatened, as evidenced by your constant whin[g]ing about how badly you're being treated. You're posting conspiracy theories in a skeptic's forum expressly aimed at testing those theories. And no, you're not just "discussing current events." The sine qua non here is simply whether you can support your claims with evidence—whatever those claims may be. Your evidence boils down to, "Because I say so." And you're being appropriately criticized for that.

Your critics are not emotional or irrational for holding you accountable for your claims, so you can stop pretending they are.

The whole idea of a forum is discussing how you reached your opinion.
Click to expand...

You support your belief by making up a bunch of crap because you don't know what you're talking about. There is little left to discuss.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom