Court rules for white firefighters over promotions - Page 20 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Captain Trips · #**286** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

To be fair to him, halogen is one of the inert gases in halon systems.

That's actually pretty easy to find information on too. It is one of it's common uses.

Steve · #**287** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

To be fair to him, halogen is one of the inert gases in halon systems.

Thanks.

But that doesn't make it a "halogen system", as Maat has been insisting on...

Captain Trips · #**288** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Here's something that took me about 30 seconds to find:

Halon Extinguishing Agents: Safety & Health Concerns

Halogenated (Halon) fire extinguishers are used throughout industry and the military to protect personnel
and sensitive equipment/systems.

http://erd.dli.mt.gov/safetyhealth/brochures/halon.pdf

EricOKC · #**289** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Thanks.

But that doesn't make it a "halogen system", as Maat has been insisting on...

Much as it pains me to say it - on that he's actually right. The term "halon" was derived from "halogen".

Its kinda like referring to a copier as a photographic duplication machine. Nobody is going to know what the fuck you're talking about, but technically, it is accurate.

Steve · #**290** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Here's something that took me about 30 seconds to find:

Halon Extinguishing Agents: Safety & Health Concerns

Halogenated (Halon) fire extinguishers are used throughout industry and the military to protect personnel
and sensitive equipment/systems.

http://erd.dli.mt.gov/safetyhealth/brochures/halon.pdf

Huh.

Well, I'll be dipped.

Unke Maat, though, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong...

Maat222 · #**291** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

That is his opinion, and as others with relevant experience have pointed out, his lack of understanding of the example does not make it a bad test.

So a competing test company says it is bad and you think that means it is?

So if Ford says GM doesn't make as good of car, we should take that as the final word on the topic?

No, these are opinions. I suggest you do some research and discover the difference between the terms.

Well actually yes, a lot of things have been said to refute it. You, however, refuse to accept these facts in favor of baseless opinion.

Obvious to those who have relevant knowledge of the topic, yes.

Sorry but that simply is not true. In SOME cases they are absurd, in others - particularly tests which are seeking comprehension of specific knowledge - they do not work that way.

Sure the only things we have to go on happen to be opinion, because we don't have the full testimony or test.
But given what we have, the evidence says the test was bad.
There is no one who can argue against that without having more information than any of us have.
And in general, no one should even begin to try to defense generic tests like these.

And yes, all generic test have a very similar theme, where you can easily rule out some answers.
I do it all the time.
You either are unfamiliar with these sorts of tests, or are not being reasonable.

Maat222 · #**292** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

And you'd be wrong - again.

That is beyond absurd. You're absolutely wrong Maat.

I live in Houston Maat. The Houston area has one of the largest concentration of refineries in the world. It is also home to the 2nd or 3rd (i forget which) largest PORT in the world.

Not all of them have their own firefighting equipment and staff - not even all of the large ones.

Ah yes - so in your vast experience of probably one or two major international airports you have assumed everything must be that way. Got it.

You win man - your stupidity has overwhelmed reality and we all now bow to your omniscience.

I lived in Pasadena, just east of Houston for awhile, and the refineries and port there had their own fire fighting equipment.

But Texas has the lowest regulation level of any state I have ever seen.
They let companies get away with incredibly dangerous things.

And they still have the largest volunteer fire department in the world, in order to make up for the danger from the lax regulation.

Quote:

It claims largest all volunteer municipal fire department in the United States, the Pasadena Volunteer Fire Department.

Pasadena, Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is silly is that you are arguing about what could have been on the test, but you don't even know.
And no matter what was on the test, you would still be wrong because it should have been in the material at the stations.

Maat222 · #**293** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Wrong again. Line officers at my station did dozens of inspections a month.

Again - what experience do you have that provides the basis for all your claims?

Matt

You are misrepresenting.
What the fire station representatives do is check if business have had their equipment inspected by those who installed it.
There is no way that the fire station people did the actual inspection of the equipment.
No one would let them.
They could too easily screw it up.

Maat222 · #**294** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

So, in what we'll loosely call your thinking, you believe that a unit officer doesn't need to know anything but what is handed to them in the firehouse?

Again, please detail your experience in the fire service.

Matt

That is silly.
If fire fighters go elsewhere for information, then they will not be following standard procedures, and will be dangerous.
That is why all the information needed MUST be at the firehouse, (or some equally common and accessible place).

Maat222 · #**295** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Yes they do and yes it would. The fire captain, as a matter of fact, is who decides if a building is or is not up to code. That is part of his job you idiot.

Probably because you are making apparently authoritative statements which disagree with information known to those with experience in the field.

Well it DIDN'T have anything to do with it until you started making the statements you did.

Partially true. Water is used in refineries for a variety of fires and firefighting techniques.

Of course there are some simple violations any firefighter could catch, but there is no way a fire captain can determine if a building fire system was fully functioning, because he would not be qualified to do that.
Building systems are tested by the installers, not the fire captains.
The fire inspector just checks that the private inspections are up to date.

Maat222 · #**296** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

...

Well actually yes, a lot of things have been said to refute it. You, however, refuse to accept these facts in favor of baseless opinion.

....

No, there has not been a single thing said that refutes the evidence at the trial, that the test was bad.

And until someone does actually refute these opinions that the test was bad, then anyone claiming otherwise, would have to be making it up.

Maat222 · #**297** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

There is only one correct way when it makes a difference, on all the trucks where it DOES make a difference, they all should be parked in the same way, which means the most sensible thing to do is to park all trucks in that way in case it does make a difference.

You are making yourself look increasingly stupid, you should stop digging the hole.

Except apparently the people who are obviously such complete idiots that they still managed to fail the test. How is it that supposedly knowledgeable people managed to do so poorly (even without "cheating") that they couldn't do well on what is basically a true/false test (if 2 of 4 answers are so utterly absurd that anyone can tell, then a truly knowledgeable person shouldn't need any tutoring to do well on a test where they have a 50/50 shot of getting right even if they know nothing).

No, that is foolish.
There is no one particular way.
It not only depends on the trucks, but the road, pavement, curbs, conditions, etc., and there is no one way that satisfies all trucks. The test was wrong.
What really matters is what the station policy was.
Even if the test had a better way to do it than station policy, the test would still be wrong.
It should have been about station policy.

And you seem to be unfamiliar with the case.
No one "failed" the test.
It is simply that some did better than others.

Maat222 · #**298** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

I'm asking for actual proof, not what some loser who probably failed the test said. You got any?

Now, in the books which the passing firefighters used, where is the information that was on the test which you have a problem with? Could you also point out the fire station procedure which you claim is contradictory to that information?

Once again, pointing to some loser who probably failed the test is no sufficient evidence of this.

I remind you of what you said:

"the test to be derived from purchased material that they were told was not necessary"

So, here is what you need to prove:

Let's call the incorrect info relating to the contradictory material INFO I and the "correct" info INFO C.

1. Point out where on the test INFO I was asked.
2. Point out the books used by the other firefighters.
3. Point out where in those books INFO I was contained.
4. Point out where someone in an official position said that INFO C was unnecessary.
5. Show how INFO I is necessarily contradictory to INFO C.

Wrong.
The fire fighters association said the test was bad, the city said the test was bad, and the majority taking the test said it was bad.
So YOU have to prove it wasn't.
You have to prove there is only one correct way to park the kind of trucks the station used, on a hill.
You have to prove the competitor was lying.
And you have to learn about the test, because no one failed it.

Slon · #**299** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

Wrong.
The fire fighters association said the test was bad, the city said the test was bad, and the majority taking the test said it was bad.

First of all, saying that the test is bad does not mean it was bad for the reasons you mentioned. Secondly, you still haven't provided links to it, so you haven't even gotten as far as step 1.

Quote:

So YOU have to prove it wasn't.

I think I'll wait for the links before I ponder that.

Quote:

You have to prove there is only one correct way to park the kind of trucks the station used, on a hill.

I have to prove things when you were the ones making the claims?

Quote:

You have to prove the competitor was lying.
And you have to learn about the test, because no one failed it.

They obviously failed to get a grade high enough to get the promotion. Otherwise, why would they be whining?

Maat222 · #**300** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

You know, when I Google "halogen", I find nothing about fire fighting.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to provide some links which discuss its' use.

I don't suspect you will, though...

Here is some information to show that halon is a halogen based extinguishing system.

Bromotrifluoromethane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Bromotrifluoromethane, also known by the trade name Halon 1301, is an organic halide with the chemical formula CBrF3.

And here is the definition of an organic halide.

Halocarbon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Halocarbon compounds are chemicals in which one or more carbon atoms are linked by covalent bonds with one or more halogen atoms (fluorine, chlorine, bromine or iodine) resulting in the formation of organofluorine compounds, organochlorine compounds, organobromine compounds, and organoiodine compounds

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