Court rules for white firefighters over promotions - Page 15 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Maat222 · #**211** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Which is what we've been telling you all along.

Right - you don't know anything - you've assumed a tremendous amount, and you've been utterly wrong.

This is just one of your many assumptions, and trust me, the rest are just as wrong.

Don't be silly.
You are trying to defend the accuracy of standardized testing, and no one can ever do that.
These tests are never very good or accurate, and no one should be trying to defend them.

What is worse is that you don't know how bad they may be.
The only testimony we have is that they are bad, from competing companies and from the only sample question ever quoted.

Maat222 · #**212** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

What do you want them to do? List all materials discussed in the course, as well as the actual discussion? It's rather clear when describing what they teach.
No, it pretty clearly mentions uniformed fire service members.
Oh yeah, like those regions where gravity works upside down and gasoline puts out fires. It could have been about breeding donkeys for all we know.

However, in order to prove your statement that "The test was blatantly unfair" with the claim "The books could have been about operating procedures used in different areas that used different equipment," you'd actually have to prove that the books WERE about operating procedures of different areas that had totally different operating procedures from the area where the test took place.

That's right, you have no fucking idea if it would or would not be useful in New Haven, but you went ahead and concluded that "The test was blatantly unfair," anyway. Thank you for finally admitting that your claim was unsubstantiated bullshit that was based on some of the most horrendously contorted thinking to ever disgrace this forum.

Wrong.
It is you who have to prove the test were fair and were exactly in accord with their actual standard operating procedures.
The ONLY indications we have are from competing companies and one test taker, who said the tests were not fair or accurate.

Maat222 · #**213** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Here's a tidbit you apparently don't know - when the fire department arrives to fight a fire in a multi-story building, they hook a pumper into the building's "internal fire prevention systems".

So perhaps, just maybe, knowing about those things would be useful?

Dude, just face it - you're completely wrong. Man up, admit it, and move on.

You're just floundering around on this, way out of your depth.

Matt

Don't be silly.
There is no way that the fire department could know about all the different systems used in all the different buildings.
But in New Haven, they probably would never run into much more than a simple standpipe, since there are not a lot of skyscrapers or petroleum refineries there.

And when the fire department has responded to alarms in commercial buildings I was involved with, they knew nothing at all about the systems.
Often times I had to tell them what to do, in order to shut off the alarm and repressurize the system.

Maat222 · #**214** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

You are the one braying about how the test is bogus, not me.

The burden of proof is on you - I've simply been refuting your uninformed statements.

As far as the tutors, it's a pointless and stupid argument. Was there a regulation forbidding tutors? If not, where's the issue?

Matt

Wrong.
Since the city was against the test, the competing test company said it was bad, and the only quote we have from a firefighter was of an example of it being bad, then it is up to you to disprove all of them.

While there is nothing forbidding tutors, the city is well within their authority to consider the fact tutors were used.
The deliberation process for promotions are not automatic.
They can use almost any criteria they feel if important.

Maat222 · #**215** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Wrong again.

Never heard of Halon? It's in those "internal building systems" you know nothing about. It's also a bit important, as it can kill you if you get caught in it without SCBA.

Never heard of CAFS?

No surprise there, because you don't know what you are talking about.

Matt

Yes, I have been involved with halogen system in race cars and restaurants, and foam system at airports.
But neither would have to be appropriate for a New Haven captain's test, because they may not use them there, and they have nothing to do with whether or not the test was bad.

Maat222 · #**216** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

You keep harping on the specific type of equipment. This is once again a giant beacon of your ignorance.

Have you ever heard of mutual aid? Do you think trucks ever get replaced?

Right - you have no idea - but you're still screeching about it as if you had a clue.

No, that's just a symptom of your inability to think beyond a single article.

Doesn't matter.
It is not that other procedures do not exist, but that the test question was only allowing for a single procedure answer, and your statement helps prove why the test then was wrong.

MattLarson · #**217** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

In your uninformed opinion.

Which really no longer interests me. You've made a lot of silly claims, and when they are refuted, you just babble about something else. You're willfully ignorant on the topic, and it is apparent that nothing will change that.

Matt

Maat222 · #**218** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Did you?

Really?

Here; get ready to take a nice big bite:

Here's a list of universities, colleges, and technical schools with firefighting curriculum. This list has 367 of them:

Firefighting

Maybe you need to think long and hard about thinking long and hard...

So universities are getting more specialized and desperate for funds, while fire fighting has become more specialized and upscale as well.
It still does not alter the fact there was so much testimony that the test was wrong and poorly written.

Nice image though. Thanks. I have an avian interest.

Imperator · #**219** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

There are specialized halogen systems, etc., but not normally used at firehouses like in New Haven.
These are usually built in systems, or used at special places, like airport, ships, etc.
Why would a potential New Haven fire captain need to know the physics of pressurized gases?

Excuse me but every fire dept has to have some hazmat training….hazmat as in responding to a site where in there are production materials that use halon, foam etc. to extinguish fires, and yes, of course they need to know the characteristics and properties of those mechanisms are you kidding or what?
As well as the properties of gases and chemicals, bases, acids, aqueous solutions etc....inert gases...etc etc etc. that they may find within the building etc.

Doctor Who · #**220** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Here's what I find strange Maat. One guy, with one example of one question, allows you to take the leap that the entire test was unfair and poorly written. My guess is there is more than just a couple of questions on the test and I also understand there was an oral part to it. That typically means others, who are experts, ask questions to the applicants. So I believe that almost any test would have at least one question that may be in error or is not clearly written as to have only one answer. That does not invalidate the entire test. For all we know, everyone missed that question. What we have is a person who didn't pass, blaming the test, and citing only one example out of probably hundreds of questions. More likely scenario is the test taker is to blame.

Slon · #**221** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

Wrong.
It is you who have to prove the test were fair and were exactly in accord with their actual standard operating procedures.

So I have to prove the opposite of what you said, but you don't have to prove what you said?

Quote:

The ONLY indications we have are from competing companies and one test taker, who said the tests were not fair or accurate.

Maat222 · #**222** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

Excuse me but every fire dept has to have some hazmat training….hazmat as in responding to a site where in there are production materials that use halon, foam etc. to extinguish fires, and yes, of course they need to know the characteristics and properties of those mechanisms are you kidding or what?
As well as the properties of gases and chemicals, bases, acids, aqueous solutions etc....inert gases...etc etc etc. that they may find within the building etc.

I have no idea what this has to do with the tests, but sure, firemen need some hazmat training.

The point that someone was trying to make was that firemen needed to know about the physics and theory of pressurized gases and liquids.
And I asked what that has to do with normal firefighting.

hairballxavier · #**223** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

There are specialized halogen systems, etc., but not normally used at firehouses like in New Haven.

Most of the fires in New Haven do not occur at firehouses.

Maat222 · #**224** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

Here's what I find strange Maat. One guy, with one example of one question, allows you to take the leap that the entire test was unfair and poorly written. My guess is there is more than just a couple of questions on the test and I also understand there was an oral part to it. That typically means others, who are experts, ask questions to the applicants. So I believe that almost any test would have at least one question that may be in error or is not clearly written as to have only one answer. That does not invalidate the entire test. For all we know, everyone missed that question. What we have is a person who didn't pass, blaming the test, and citing only one example out of probably hundreds of questions. More likely scenario is the test taker is to blame.

The point is that tests like these are always not very good.
They can't be very good because they are not written by experts in the subjects, but simply by those who write tests for a living.
So no one should expect the results to be perfect.

We do know that one firefighter gave one example of one bad question.
We also know the city did not like the results at all, and questioned the test.
So why should anyone give the test any credibility at all?
Why should someone be able to complain about all the money they spent trying to pass the test?
Why wasn't all the material the test was based on, available for free at the stations?
Why use other material for the basis of test questions?
If the firefighters should know it, then they should have had access to the information, just so they could do their job.
What kind of job would make people buy reference material?
What if different people buy different references, that don't agree?
Why base a test on potentially conflicting references?

Maat222 · #**225** (**permalink**) 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

So I have to prove the opposite of what you said, but you don't have to prove what you said?

Except I did not make any claims.
I am simply taking the side of the city, some firefighters, and the competing company, that all agreed there were problems with the test.
That is all we have to go on, are these complaints.

You are trying to say they are all wrong, and that the test was perfect.
But there is nothing at all to indicate that.
So you have the burden of proof.
You are taking the plaintiff side.

And I am taking the city side because we all know how bad these sorts of standardized tests usually are.
It is not at all unreasonable to assume the test was bad.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode