I don't want this to turn into a competition between you and me, and would like to keep this conversation respectful if possible.
The entire boiling water issue is, as I said in my post, a red herring -- although I'll return to it later as it's assumed a life of its own. It's a red herring because pot roast should not be cooked in boiling liquid. My major point regarding your post was that pot roast could be successfully cooked in the oven. I also made a few subsidiary points related to a your other false statements.
Returning to the issue of whether water can be boiled in the oven -- of course it can. Whether enough energy can be transferred to achieve state change (which you referred to as the "ole latent heat of vaporization thing") in a conventional (not "convection") oven held at 350*F is another question. One which wasn't addressed in either your previous posts, nor mine, nor this one either.
However, boiling water placed in a pan in a 450*F oven will maintain a cheerful boil. At least it did in my oven when I baked off two loaves of pain de campagne this morning. Yum. Pain de campagne. Good with pot roast, don't you know?
And, FWIW, a 350*F convection oven with good fan action will certainly keep a pan of water at the boil.
IMO, the "fuel use" metaphor for understanding the practical meaning of BTUs is more helpful for most people than using terms like joule multiples or (1054.53)(1kg)(m^2)/s^2. Not for you of course, but for most people. On the other hand, you might find it helpful to look at BTU qua fuel use yourself. Look at it this way, iIf you crank the oven regulator far enough over, you'll put enough energy in the oven to boil water. Maybe not at 350F but at 1350F certainly.
Insulative properties as the reciprocal of conductive properties is common scientific and engineering understanding and parlance. It just is. In fact, you seemed on the track of the same thought when you wrote, "air is a terrible heat conduct (see: insulation) [sic]." If that wasn't your point, what was it? Not to go off on a tangent, I don't know that I'd go so far as to say air was all that poor a conductor, convection in air is a less efficient form of energy transference than some other forms, but more efficient than others. Hot air popcorn poppers work like a charm.
You see energy is transferred via air convection with the collision of excited molecules. The more molecules, the more collisions. So if you push a lot of air, as with a fan, the more molecule collisions you get per unit time. Also, if you raise the air temperature, each molecule has more energy, move around more, transfers more energy per collision, and is more likely to collide. But of course, you already knew that.
Oh yes, considering that I quoted your post in near entirety it seems redundant to delete it. Why?
No one's saying you don't have plenty of good ideas and a refreshingly breezy way of expressing yourself. Clearly, you do. But as to the things addressed in this and my earlier post, you were wrong.