• 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.
An MSci is not an undergrad degree, it's a post-grad degree. Master of Sciences. You can only take an MSci after you've got a BSc.

It's not just qualifications that matter, but if you do not have the relevant qualifications then you are likely not equipped to deal with the work of being a scientist.

I do not have a degree in accounting. I'm likely not equipped to handle the work of an accountant.

I'm also not a scientist.

Your attempts to reframe this as attempting to put you down rings hollow because I've outright stated that not being a scientist is not a point of shame. I'm not one, but I don't make the claim to be one. You have made the claim that you are a scientist, so we have asked you what qualifications you have and what work you have done in science in order to call yourself a scientist.

Wrong. https://www.durham.ac.uk/study/courses/fgc0/

You are now arguing against someone with first hand knowledge.

Oh I see, so because you wouldn't call yourself something nobody else must either. So you are a control freak who thinks you can define others.

Just because you had no scientific laboratory experience in your degree doesn't mean I did not either. I had laboratory experiments thrown in.
 
I haven't hurled abuse at you either. If you feel I have you are free to report the posts in question.

All I have stated is that you are not a scientist. Which you aren't. You do not do science, nor do you have specialised training in science. Neither do I!
 
Then you should have no problem conceding that your formal qualifications are irrelevant, if indeed that is the case. And if you believe that your subsequent real-life experience in "practicing science" qualifies you to claim the title "scientist," then you should have no problem elaborating when asked.



No, it's you getting caught once again trying to pretend you're something you're not, and being wholly unable to admit the error that arises from that.

I know better than you what scientific experience I have had. I am in a unique position to know.
 
You don't get to tell me what my identity or experiences are.

We do get to ask what your experience is when you base an argument on it. We do get to react with suspicion when you refuse to give any details.

Praise or criticism is all equal to me.

Perhaps, in that you seem to enjoy one as much as the other. You fall over yourself trying to recast your critics' statements as personal invective, even when none was intended or evident, just so you can complain about how badly you're being treated. Playing the victim is all part of the conspiracy theorist's typical presentation, from what I've seen.

Note I haven't hurled abuse at you.

Aside from putting scurrilous words in everyone's mouths so you can complain about them.

Pointing out that you are not a scientist is not abusive. Pointing out that your reaction to not being accepted as a scientist, when you refuse to substantiate your claims that you are, is disproportionately defensive, is not abusive.
 
No scientist worth their salt would write the following:



What do you think 'a degree of freedom' is? How do scientists/mathematicians/statisticians use the term?



You are not being judged here based on your personal information. No one is interested in doxing you here. When challenged on the erroneous and ill-informed statements you make about science, you often resort to citing your credentials. "I am a scientist". If you are going to claim experience relevant to the topics at hand, don't be surprised if you are challenged on your credentials. You're bringing them up, not us. We are not trying to cancel your accounting credentials, but the idea that your accounting work makes you a 'scientist' is laughable.

Yes, I know perfectly well. I was talking colloquially to make it as simple as possible for the casual reader.

For the umpty-ninth time, I was responding to JayUtah when he rudely declared I was not a scientist. A thing is neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so. I could care less whether I am defined as a scientist or not. I would rather be an artist except my livelihood has turned out in the other direction.
 
I know better than you what scientific experience I have had. I am in a unique position to know.

And your reluctance to share the details of that, after you made them relevant and after you were asked to supply them, is what makes your approach suspicious. You seem to prefer to keep your qualifications a mystery and hope for the benefit of the doubt than to remove doubt and accept whatever consequences ensue.

You have no reason to demand to be accepted as a scientist if you refuse to elaborate what you think that means and how you think you have met the criteria.
 
And it was, in fact, mentioned that the history of the components' exposure to ordinary heat sources would have to be known before concluding what caused the observations. You're the one jumping to the conclusion that it must be a "detonation" (conflating two dissimilar concepts) and opining that fractured metal must have been "blown apart."

Nope, I was reporting the latest news. Ida Westermann said the marks on the bow visor could not have been made by it pounding on the bulbous bow area.
 
Wrong. https://www.durham.ac.uk/study/courses/fgc0/

You are now arguing against someone with first hand knowledge.

The frst 3 years of the MSci are just a BSc equivalence. Note that the MSci is a 4 year course and a BSc is a 3 year course, unless you already have a BSc in which case the Msci is a 1 year course. The actual masters course is the 4th year of specialisation.
Oh I see, so because you wouldn't call yourself something nobody else must either. So you are a control freak who thinks you can define others.
No...That's...how did you get that from what I said?

Jay is a scientist. He does science. I am not a scientist. I do not do science.

You are not a scientist. You do not do science.
Just because you had no scientific laboratory experience in your degree doesn't mean I did not either. I had laboratory experiments thrown in.

I did not claim you did not, I am simply saying that doesn't make you a scientist.

I did modules in my degree that were historical in nature. I studied history and used this study to answer questions on history. That doesn't make me a historian, any more than your course makes you a scientist. Stop throwing a tantrum because we will not allow you to falsely represent yourself.

Further, I thought the university courses didn't matter anymore? That you weren't an 18 or 20 year old who cared about your degree because you had moved past that?

It either matters or it does not. It cannot matter when it suits you and be irrelevant when it is inconvenient.
 
Yes, I know perfectly well. I was talking colloquially to make it as simple as possible for the casual reader.

For the umpty-ninth time, I was responding to JayUtah when he rudely declared I was not a scientist. A thing is neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so. I could care less whether I am defined as a scientist or not. I would rather be an artist except my livelihood has turned out in the other direction.

You think you're a scientist. Thinking does not make it so. You are not a scientist. You certainly don't make your living as one.

You used 'degree of freedom' incorrectly. How would that make in simpler for the casual reader.
 
Not necessarily. Ordinary, healthy ships are damaged by wave action, but the waves in question are rare. Conversely, if a ship has been exposed for many years to the kind of loading that results in metal fatique, failure will eventually occur under circumstances well within design and operational parameters. Yes, there is a discontinuity -- or nonlinearity if you prefer -- to that kind of behavior. Everything appears all right until suddenly it isn't. But that doesn't mean that some suspiciously overwhelming condition suddenly arose. It doesn't have to be an unusually strong storm wave to precipitate failure under degrading capacity.

Suppose I have an account that must maintain a minimum balance in order to avoid penalty. Let's say I've neglected that account, and a small fee is being levied against it every month that I haven't noticed. When the debit of that fee on some particular day causes the balance to drop below the minimum balance, a penalty suddenly becomes due. That's a sudden change in the state of the account. It's not because the periodic fee was large. It's that it was relentless over time, and eventually reached an enforceable point.

Then your being an expert engineer, I take it you have calculated the stochastic frequency and probability of this type of sneaker wave on a vessel for any particular area of sea?
 
Yes, I know perfectly well. I was talking colloquially to make it as simple as possible for the casual reader.

For the umpty-ninth time, I was responding to JayUtah when he rudely declared I was not a scientist. A thing is neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so. I could care less whether I am defined as a scientist or not. I would rather be an artist except my livelihood has turned out in the other direction.

It was not rude, it was a simple statement of fact.

I could just as easily say JayUtah is not an expert in the Middle Eastern conflict. That isn't an insult, it is simply true. You are not a scientist. Stop whining for us to accept that you are.

Incidentally, your claim that you couldn't care less if we accept you as a scientist or not is at direct odds with the massive temper tantrum you are throwing, including attempting to paint your critics as rude and abusive when we are very clearly not.

Furthermore, your claim that you have no thrown abuse at us is belied by the fact you told the lie that your interlocutors were telling callous jokes about the dead, and the further lie that we are being abusive and unfair to you.
 
Wrong. https://www.durham.ac.uk/study/courses/fgc0/

You are now arguing against someone with first hand knowledge.

Oh I see, so because you wouldn't call yourself something nobody else must either. So you are a control freak who thinks you can define others.

Just because you had no scientific laboratory experience in your degree doesn't mean I did not either. I had laboratory experiments thrown in.

I don't see 'business' or 'accounting' listed in the 'range of subjects' for a MSci degree.....
 
Yes, I know perfectly well.

Then you deliberately misstated what it means?

I was talking colloquially to make it as simple as possible for the casual reader.

You used words that have a precise meaning to the people who invented them. And you seem to have given it a new meaning in your argument. So the lay person has no idea what you're talking about, and a statistician notes that you used the term incorrectly. How does that result in better understanding for anyone?

For the umpty-ninth time, I was responding to JayUtah when he rudely declared I was not a scientist.

I gave you my reasons for concluding that. You have so far been enthusiastically elusive in providing the information that would render that conclusion false. From my point of view it is a simple statement of fact. There's no judgment associated with it. You're the one who has thrown a tantrum as a result.

I could care less whether I am defined as a scientist or not.

Then why does someone defining you as not a scientist throw you into multi-page hysterics?
 
Nope, I was reporting the latest news. Ida Westermann said the marks on the bow visor could not have been made by it pounding on the bulbous bow area.


And precisely nobody - not least the official report - has even claimed that the bow visor had been pounding on the bulbous bow.

Did Westermann also say that the marks on the bow visor could not have been made by it having been hit repeatedly by a dead cow?
 
Then your being an expert engineer, I take it you have calculated the stochastic frequency and probability of this type of sneaker wave on a vessel for any particular area of sea?

Straw man. My argument is not predicated on the necessity of a "sneaker wave." Would you care to address what I actually argued?
 
"Given" is a dangerous word to use considering the lack of primary sources being used. Was the diver sufficiently confident in what they think they saw that they reported it to the police?

Nobody knows as it has remained classified but it is claimed to have been reported in the diver's debriefing on submerging. All the Rockwater divers were under contracts of great confidentiality (gagging clauses) and the Rockwater firm itself had to make an undertaking to destroy all copies of the video and lodge the original with the Swedish JAIC. The Estonian and Finnish arm of the JAIC were only allowed to view a heavily edited version circa 2.5 hours long (the original one is about 17 hours IIRC).
 
Nope, I was reporting the latest news. Ida Westermann said the marks on the bow visor could not have been made by it pounding on the bulbous bow area.

When and where did she say that? She didn't say it in the press report you linked before.
 
Nobody knows as it has remained classified but it is claimed to have been reported in the diver's debriefing on submerging. All the Rockwater divers were under contracts of great confidentiality (gagging clauses) and the Rockwater firm itself had to make an undertaking to destroy all copies of the video and lodge the original with the Swedish JAIC. The Estonian and Finnish arm of the JAIC were only allowed to view a heavily edited version circa 2.5 hours long (the original one is about 17 hours IIRC).

So it's hearsay. Not really deserving of your "given that..." setup.
 
Nobody knows as it has remained classified but it is claimed to have been reported in the diver's debriefing on submerging


You say "it is claimed to have been reported....". But who is making that claim? And on what evidential basis are they making that claim?

(And I'm guessing you meant "resurfacing", not "submerging")
 
Nobody knows as it has remained classified but it is claimed to have been reported in the diver's debriefing on submerging. All the Rockwater divers were under contracts of great confidentiality (gagging clauses) and the Rockwater firm itself had to make an undertaking to destroy all copies of the video and lodge the original with the Swedish JAIC. The Estonian and Finnish arm of the JAIC were only allowed to view a heavily edited version circa 2.5 hours long (the original one is about 17 hours IIRC).

Do you have access to classified information regarding Estonia? Are you authorized to release that information here on ISF?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom