Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

[Myriad]

I once had an accountancy lecturer who would go absolutely apoplectic with rage and frustration, throwing his chalk about, if a student dared answer any of his exceedingly tough questions with, 'It depends'. Likewise, the examiners: the key to passing the mind-bending exams was to take a view and then justify it.

'It depends,' as an answer, is a big fat, 'No Baby, no'.

Try again.

That is very poor procedure. When the correct answer depends on an unknown factor, the rational approach is to establish the unknown factor and then re-evaluate, not to pull a guess out of your nether regions and then defend it.

"Can I legally deduct the cost of my work clothes from my U.S. Federal income tax?" There are IRS rules and precedents about when work clothes are deductible and when they aren't. Until you've established and evaluated certain facts about the particular work and work clothing in question, the only correct answer to that question is "it depends."

The fact is, some vessels heeled 90 degrees will float stably in that attitude (zero righting moment). Others will continue to rotate (negative righting moment) until they invert. Others still will right themselves (positive righting moment). Cargo loading, damage, wind, and waves can all affect any particular case. So the only correct general answer to "what will a ship do after heeling 90 degrees?" without establishing and evaluating more of the relevant facts of the specific case, is "it depends."

 

[MarkCorrigan]

That is because it is true.

It is true I did proceeds of crime.

You skipped a question there sport. Did you claim to be a scientist?

 

[Myriad]

It is true I did proceeds of crime.

Garnering benefits (proceeds) from crime makes one a criminal, not a forensic specialist. Consider clarifying your wording.

 

[Vixen]

That is very poor procedure. When the correct answer depends on an unknown factor, the rational approach is to establish the unknown factor and then re-evaluate, not to pull a guess out of your nether regions and then defend it.

"Can I legally deduct the cost of my work clothes from my U.S. Federal income tax?" There are IRS rules and precedents about when work clothes are deductible and when they aren't. Until you've established and evaluated certain facts about the particular work and work clothing in question, the only correct answer to that question is "it depends."

The fact is, some vessels heeled 90 degrees will float stably in that attitude (zero righting moment). Others will continue to rotate (negative righting moment) until they invert. Others still will right themselves (positive righting moment). Cargo loading, damage, wind, and waves can all affect any particular case. So the only correct general answer to "what will a ship do after heeling 90 degrees?" without establishing and evaluating more of the relevant facts of the specific case, is "it depends."

Tax, like law*, is the one thing you do have to learn off by heart, but other things, such as centre of gravity and centre of buoyancy follow set rules which can be calculated just by knowing the rules.

*This is why law students have to wade through thick volumes as they need to cite case law. Likewise, tax being based on Acts of Parliament follow a similar minefield of rote learning. Thus in valuing a house you need to know (in the UK) whether it was purchased pre-1986 or or post- as that is when the law changed, as an example, etc.etc.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There will always be a momentary pause before a ship turns over, due to resistance of the water from the opposite direction...

Do you teach that principle on your Naval Architecture MEng correspondence course?

It is painfully obvious when you are just making **** up. You suggest the water allows the ship to roll over until it reaches a particular angle than decides it's time to resist the roll momentarily and then shove it on its merry way again.

No sale.

 

[abaddon]

Yes, because you are lying.

OK then. Did you or did you not claim 5 years of physics education?

Yes or no.

Did you claim to be a scientist?

Yes or no.

Did you claim to be a marine engineer, no , you merely borrowed the credentials of a clown. Which makes you what?

Did you claim to be ... It does not matter anymore. I would not claim to be a chemist, or a biologist, or a forensic anthropologist. Because I'm not any of those things and I'm honest. Unlike others, I would not lie about who and what I am. YMMV.

 

[JayUtah]

Mr Justice Sheen is a wig who sits on the Queen's Bench. He does not do street slang...

Irrelevant. The sentiment you attribute to him is found nowhere in his statements. In fact, the opposite sentiment is expressed.

 

[JayUtah]

Tax, like law*

Are you claiming expertise in law?

...but other things, such as centre of gravity and centre of buoyancy follow set rules which can be calculated just by knowing the rules.

You were invited to do that, but failed.

 

[Vixen]

Garnering benefits (proceeds) from crime makes one a criminal, not a forensic specialist. Consider clarifying your wording.

I have worked under the Proceeds of Crime Act to help recoup hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

I do not make false claims, nor have I alternatively, claimed to be an expert in marine matters.

 

[JayUtah]

I once had an accountancy lecturer...

'It depends,' as an answer, is a big fat, 'No Baby, no'.[/quote]

And accountancy is nothing like engineering. In engineering, "It depends" is almost always the right answer, because problems posed to engineers are almost always underspecified. Because it does depend on details like the density of materials.

You're not the teacher here.

 

[Vixen]

OK then. Did you or did you not claim 5 years of physics education?

Yes or no.

Did you claim to be a scientist?

Yes or no.

Did you claim to be a marine engineer, no , you merely borrowed the credentials of a clown. Which makes you what?

Did you claim to be ... It does not matter anymore. I would not claim to be a chemist, or a biologist, or a forensic anthropologist. Because I'm not any of those things and I'm honest. Unlike others, I would not lie about who and what I am. YMMV.

Stop your degrading behaviour.

 

[JayUtah]

I have worked under the Proceeds of Crime Act to help recoup hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

Is that relevant to investigating the sinking of ships?

I do not make false claims...

You've made dozens of claims that are at best misleading and at worst outright falsehoods.

...nor have I alternatively, claimed to be an expert in marine matters.

Will you then defer to those who are?

 

[JayUtah]

Stop your degrading behaviour.

Why is it degrading to point out that a person can demonstrate no basis for "because I say so" arguments?

 

[JayUtah]

It is true I did proceeds of crime.

Do you believe that qualifies you to speak as a forensic engineer?

 

[abaddon]

That is because it is true.

Nope, it isnt. You got some childhood physics education. You told us so. Or were you lying about that, once again?

 

[Myriad]

Tax, like law*, is the one thing you do have to learn off by heart, but other things, such as centre of gravity and centre of buoyancy follow set rules which can be calculated just by knowing the rules.

No problem, then. If you want to support your claim that Estonia would have been expected to invert in the generally accepted scenario (and thus, that it's suspicious she didn't do so), all you have to do is show your calculations of the center of gravity, the center of buoyancy, and the other relevant factors besides those two that you have not listed or mentioned, for Estonia throughout the capsize, and how those factors suggest some particular outcome, based on your knowledge of the set rules.

 

[JayUtah]

That is because it is true.

Then why are you so bad at science? I say that not as a taunt; you've demonstrated no aptitude whatsoever for science, and especially for physics. Similarly you claimed to have made a special study of psychology, such that you were relevantly employed following college. Yet you stumble over the standard model of memory. All this claimed knowledge, regardless of whether it can be objectively titled "expertise," seems to avail you nothing. Why do you keep insinuating knowledge you can't demonstrate you have? What role does that play in "reporting current events?" How does that help the Estonia survivors?

Your behavior is inconsistent with your stated purpose. Your behavior is more consistent with ego reinforcement. And you seem to be getting mad that others won't help.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen, did you or did you not claim to be a scientist? Are you still claiming that you are one?

Stop avoiding the question.

 

[abaddon]

I have worked under the Proceeds of Crime Act to help recoup hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

I do not make false claims, nor have I alternatively, claimed to be an expert in marine matters.

Cool, you are stating up front that you haven't the foggiest when it comes to matters maritime.

I accept your concession of abject ignorance.

 

[Vixen]

'It depends,' as an answer, is a big fat, 'No Baby, no'.

And accountancy is nothing like engineering. In engineering, "It depends" is almost always the right answer, because problems posed to engineers are almost always underspecified. Because it does depend on details like the density of materials.

You're not the teacher here.

I disagree. If there is an issue of missing information, then you can still go ahead and answer the problem by stating your assumptions.

Thus, say you are sitting an exam and you've made a mess of the maths, you can still get credit by showing you know the method of calculation and you can do this by first stating an assumption - perhaps a made up figure because you messed up and you had no time to re-calculate your starting figure - and still get points for workings.

This is because understanding what you are doing is probably more important than coming up with the correct answer, or just as important, as those 'problems' are often arbitary ones anyway.

In the case of the JAIC it made the assumption that water must have flooded in at an enormous volume at great speed as the car deck filling with water even at a 40 degree list would not be enough to cause the vessel to capsize. It made the assumption that all the windows in the superstructure (decks 4 - 8_ and the dividers must have been smashed by the waves, now coming in at port (the direction the ship had now turned). However, it does not give us any of its workings of how it reckons any of this happened.