A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: For Jim Mazerat
Posted by:
dahebert (IP Logged)
Date: October 30, 2006 05:23PM
Pat, for ease of reading I have answered each of your questions individually. The answers are spliced between each of your quoted questions
PMK140 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dan,
>
> I really don't know with any exactitude who is
> teaching bad science in your area. If I did I
> would "out" them.
>
> I know this, however:
>
> 1) Bad Science is being taught;
> 1.I agree.
> 2) People are being incarcerated and put to
> death, as a result of Bad Science;
> 2. I agree
> 3) If I know of any programs which promulgate Bad
> Science (not just the programs sponsored any one
> organization), I oppose them vigorously (sometime
> publicly, mostly privately with messages to the
> sponsoring agency);
> 3. I agree, and me to.
> 4) If anyone also knows of such instances, and
> they do not do anything to prevent or correct this
> (publicly or privately), then that person has made
> a morally and ethically unacceptable choice;
>
4. Without question, I Agree.
> 5) The National Association of Fire Investigators
> does not teach Bad Science. I have a fairly
> significant amount of control over what NAFI
> teaches.
>
5. I am aware of NAFI and have never heard, nor suggested that I heard of them teaching Bad Science. Don't read more into my post. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
> 6) I have little control, other than vociferous
> complaint, over what other groups teach;
> 6. I agree. In my state especially and we all know why. Well, we may not all know why, but you sure as hell do...don't ya?
> 7) Those who religiously teach to the precepts of
> NFPA 921, do not teach Bad Science;
> 7. I agree. 921 all of the way.
> 8) Many teach “principles” not included or
> addressed in NFPA 921 (some of which “claim” to be
> teaching to NFPA 921), for good or ill;
8. Without question.
>
> 9) If every other organization taught to the
> principles of NFPA 921, no Bad Science would be
> taught;
>
9. Yep....I'm with ya.
> and
>
> 7) No one so far in this thread has mentioned any
> specific organization other than you.
7. (Not quite sure about your counting skills, but) I agree.