• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
It is rather interesting, is it not, that whilst all the senior officers died, those actually down below - for example in the engine room - wasted no time in getting their body warmers and survival suits on.
Click to expand...

Engineers by virtue of being at the bottom of the ship know when it is sinking.
I would think even before power was lost they knew the ship was doomed.
Once power went then it's time to get in a boat.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Of course, the captain is ultimately responsible for his ship. Herein lies the mystery of why Captain Andresson would be zooming head-on with windspeeds up to 24 m/s south westerly into port side, with the vessel almost in a westerly direction and a clear sense of something wrong, especially when the engine would have cut off when the lilt was circa 45°.
Click to expand...


Yes, that seems quite the mystery. How could the person holding this important position of trust and authority have been so incompetent? What could possibly explain it?

He was authoritarian and a strict disciplinarian in the Russian heel-clicking style, yet he seems to have been quite a high-class captain, despite anecdotes of scrapes against quays and being somewhat new to a more powerful ferry like the Estonia at age 40.
Click to expand...


Ah, there's the answer! "High-class." That means "able to secure a position of trust and authority (especially if it's either very high-paying or involves receiving frequent ritual gestures of respect from others) without actually being competent to do the job."

It would appear his top officers were similarly "high-class," while most of the rest of the crew, perhaps not very good at their jobs either but at least able to tell the difference between a floating ship and a sinking one, were able to survive. This is often the outcome when incompetent "high-class" leaders face an emergency that doesn't respect their "class" but instead puts their actual abilities to the test.
 
Utter hogwash. You have claimed to be a scientist. We are simply asking you for details on that claim. Stop attempting to guilt trip us into dropping this legitimate line of questioning, stop handwaving and deflecting and answer the question.

What do you think being a scientist means, exactly?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Utter hogwash. You have claimed to be a scientist. We are simply asking you for details on that claim. Stop attempting to guilt trip us into dropping this legitimate line of questioning, stop handwaving and deflecting and answer the question.

What do you think being a scientist means, exactly?
Click to expand...

Lab coats with pens in the top pocket?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Utter hogwash. You have claimed to be a scientist. We are simply asking you for details on that claim. Stop attempting to guilt trip us into dropping this legitimate line of questioning, stop handwaving and deflecting and answer the question.

What do you think being a scientist means, exactly?
Click to expand...

Stop trying to pretend I am an uneducated moron.
 
Vixen said:
No, Mark Corrigan and yourself demanded I have scientific credentials.
Click to expand...

Because that's what is required of someone who claims to be a scientist, as you have claimed.

Sorry to disappoint you but I do.
Click to expand...

What, specifically, are they? You mentioned work you had done in college, and you mentioned a baccalaureate in an unspecified field. That is not enough to establish you as a scientist as the term is commonly used.

You even rudely said I was not a scientist...
Click to expand...

You cannot demonstrate basic competence in scientific concepts. Examples were provided. I conclude therefore that you are not a scientist. Therefore claims you have made on the basis of your alleged scientific expertise, and upon no other evidence, are rejected.

...which shows your only interest is in making degrading and sneering comments designed to undermine one's confidence.
Click to expand...

My interest is in testing your claims. Insofar as your claims are founded only upon your say-so, the basis of that alleged knowledge is relevant. You proposed to say what scientists meant when they used certain formulaic phrases. It doesn't comport with my experience, so it bears further elaboration. You habitually claim expertise you do not have, and make arguments solely upon that basis. Therefore that is the appropriate -- in fact, the only -- avenue by which your argument can be rebutted.

It is not my fault that you make claims you either cannot or will not back up.
 
Vixen said:
I am a scientist.
Click to expand...
You are not a scientist. Full stop.
Vixen said:
Stop trying to pretend I am an uneducated moron.
Click to expand...
There is no need for any one else to "pretend". You are doing a fine job of it yourself. For example
Vixen said:
A scientist will use the term 'compatible with' because they use statistical probability to evaluate their results and thus use confidence intervals and ANOVA to calculate the odds on getting their results completely randomly, so it always will be X%/100% as there will always be a degree of freedom.
Click to expand...

This is utter gibberish. Pure nonsense. Do you have any idea what a 'degree of freedom' is?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Elementary chemistry.
Click to expand...
Please explain.

How did nuclear material in a container in a truck "dissolve" part of the bow visor?

I've no idea how that works, and as you're a scientist, perhaps you can explain to me how that works.
 
There's a big difference between "You don't know what you're talking about and are clearly not a scientist" and "You're an uneducated moron".

I'm not a scientist. I don't know much about metallurgy, and what little I do know is stuff I've picked up on my own. I wouldn't dare claim to be an expert in metallurgy, and if there was a conversation which involved the finer points of the subject I would likely be lost unless it was explained to me. That doesn't mean I'm an uneducated moron.

Contrawise, if JayUtah didn't know the finer points of the Yom Kippur War (he might, I don't know, just using it as an example) in a discussion on the thing then I, as someone who DOES know a lot about it, would not consider him an uneducated moron for his lack of knowledge on the subject.

The problem with you Vixen is that you ARE claiming to be an expert on these things. You've done so repeatedly, from your attempts to discuss metallurgy, to your hamfisted attempts to discuss the KGB, all the way to your recent claim to be a scientist. The problem is not that you're an uneducated moron, the problem is you are invoking or trying to claim expertise in fields where you clearly have none. You have done this so often in the past on such a wide variety of topics that we no longer accept that you have expertise in an area just based on your say so. We want details now, and if you can provide them we may well accept that you have some measure of expertise. Provide the subject of your degree (mine was International Relations) and explain how said degree or your other works after your degree makes you a scientist and we will accept that you are a scientist.

Alternatively keep deflecting and we will, with justification, take it as a tacit admission that you aren't a scientist at all and just threw that out there to make yourself seem more important and knowledgeable than you really are.

It's ok to not know things. I don't know how to compute rocket science calculations, as my pitiful failures on Kerbal Space Program can attest to. That's no problem at all. It becomes a problem however if I then try to argue with people who DO know how to compute rocket science calculations and claim expertise and tell those who do have said expertise that they are wrong.
 
Vixen said:
No, Mark Corrigan and yourself demanded I have scientific credentials. Sorry to disappoint you but I do.
Click to expand...
Earlier in this thread you claimed to have studied physics for 5 years. Then when you were asked for further details, it turned out that you'd studied physics at school.

So there's a history of you embiggening rather worthless claims to sound much more impressive than they really are. You even tried to embiggen your rather silly claim about physics studies by talking about how you were teacher's pet and how the teacher called you "the creme de la creme".

Hey, I've got 5 years of physics studies by the same logic. I'd never be so self-deluded to make the claim that I "studied physics for 5 years" because people are going to rightly think that means studies at third level, not the kind of school level physics I've done.

So it's perfectly reasonable, given your previous claims to scientific authority, to ask you what exactly you mean by "I am a scientist".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom