Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[Vixen]

So you have nothing more than assumptions?

I do recall that Moik was subjected to work-related issues but I can't remember the source.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

So if Bjorkman quotes the Laws of Thermodynamics, we are all banned from reading it because you are the self-appointed censor?

No, but you can expect challenging questions on why you would rely on Bjorkman about the laws of thermodynamics when there are any number of more reliable sources out there.

Also, you can expect to get called out on your crap if you presume to school your audience on thermodynamics if and when it turns out that your pretend knowledge of the subject is confined to quoting Bjorkman.

And you can expect your audience to call shenanigans if you pretend to be quoting a more reputable source when you are actually cribbing from Bjorkman.

You are getting exactly the responses you deserve. They will not change unless your rhetoric does.

 

[JesseCuster]

Are we back to playground taunts?

You certainly made it clear that quoting anything that also appeared on a site you claim to detest was verbotten but you never explained why it was not allowed.

No I didn't. I never said that.

By the way, the post of yours that I objected to didn't say that quoting from Bjorkman's website was verbotten, it was because you said the following:

Your claim that Bjorkman made them up himself is ludicrous.

That's the lie. I never said anything about Bjorkman making up the interview or the letter, I just said that you're getting your claims about Moik's dismissal from Bjorkman's website, not from anywhere else and this is why you can't provide any evidence to back it up.

When asked for evidence of Moik being fired because he said he saw Piht on TV, you merely copied and pasted from Bjorkman's website, the translation of the interview with Moik (in which he never said that he saw Piht on TV, he said that crewmembers of his saw Piht on TV), and you then merely repeated the claim that he was fired as a result of that interview, you even copied and pasted Bjorkman's exact wording, just removing the words phrase "(or before?)":

After (or before?) such a frank interview captain Moik was dismissed from Estline.

After such a frank interview captain Moik was dismissed from Estline.

But you didn't provide any evidence of Moik being fired for what he said in the interview. Bjorkman doesn't provide evidence of the claim and so I'm claiming that the reason you can't provide evidence of Moik being fired for that interview is because you're getting the claim from Bjorkman's website which has no evidence to support it.

So you did lie, I never said Bjorkman made up the interview or the letter, I said you're cribbing from his website and you can't backup the claim about Moik's firing because you're cribbing from a website which doesn't have that evidence.

 

[JesseCuster]

It was my assumption. An assumption is assessed on its reasonableness.

Should you disagree with my assumption, the correct way to deal with it is to say, 'I disagree because...[cite source which shows the assumption is incorrect]'.

It was a claim. The correct way to deal with a claim that has no evidence provided to back it up is to ask for the evidence which backs it up, which is what I and others have done repeatedly.

As for his having seen Piht on TV, that too was an assumption, and it is a common one, as evidenced by author Stephen Davis in his book

Who cares if it's a common assumption? You claimed that Moik saw Piht on TV and when asked for evidence, copied and pasted from an interview with him, where he doesn't say that he saw Piht on TV, he says that crew members of his saw Piht on TV.

So you claim that it was Moik's friends who saw him.

No, I don't claim that. Moik claims that in the interview.

 

[Vixen]

So you have nothing more than assumptions?

You were not an investigator for the Estonia accident, either. Like myself, you, too, never had first hand access to the evidence.

Thus EVERYTHING you know about the case is based on information directed at you.

So, were I to ask you for hard evidence that the Atlantic lock broke, does it make you a 'Liar!' if you make assumptions based on your favourite information sheet, itself awash with assumptions?

 

[Vixen]

Is that an assumption?

No, it is a readily inferable fact from the interview.

 

[Vixen]

It was a claim. The correct way to deal with a claim that has no evidence provided to back it up is to ask for the evidence which backs it up, which is what I and others have done repeatedly.

Who cares if it's a common assumption? You claimed that Moik saw Piht on TV and when asked for evidence, copied and pasted from an interview with him, where he doesn't say that he saw Piht on TV, he says that crew members of his saw Piht on TV.

No, I don't claim that. Moik claims that in the interview.

According to Davis he saw it in a hotel room in Rostock with his two crew members.

 

[JesseCuster]

I do recall that Moik was subjected to work-related issues but I can't remember the source.

You said that he was sacked because he claimed in an interview that he saw Piht on TV. You didn't say that he "was subject to work related issues".

Firstly, you've been repeatedly asked for evidence that he was dismissed and that his claim of seeing Piht on TV was the reason for the dismissal and you have repeatedly failed to provide such evidence.

Secondly, the interview you provided with Moik doesn't say anything about Moik seeing Piht on TV, it says that Moik's crewmembers saw Piht on TV.

Thirdly, the interview with Moik is not evidence that he was fired because of the interview, and you can't provide a source for where you came across the interview, other than to copy and paste the reference "Eesti Päevaleht 990917" from Bjorkman's website, you can't actually provide any details beyond that vague reference of Bjorkman's.

And now you've dumbed down your claim to "he was subject to work-related issues but I can't remember the source".

So you're the dispassionate researcher, who sources, cites and properly references her posts and who has all sorts of eclectic sources and who goes to libraries and national archives and has notes about her research, yet you can't provide a single piece of evidence for this claim because you don't remember where you got it from?

I know where you got it from and why you can't provide any details of where it came from, because you're just copying and pasting claims and chunks of text from Bjorkman's website. You don't have any other source for claim about Moik's supposed dismissal because that's the only source you have.

If I'm wrong, prove me wrong.

Do you have any evidence that Moik was fired because of his claim about Piht being seen on TV that he said in an interview?

 

[Vixen]

You said that he was sacked because he claimed in an interview that he saw Piht on TV. You didn't say that he "was subject to work related issues".

Firstly, you've been repeatedly asked for evidence that he was dismissed and that his claim of seeing Piht on TV was the reason for the dismissal and you have repeatedly failed to provide such evidence.

Secondly, the interview you provided with Moik doesn't say anything about Moik seeing Piht on TV, it says that Moik's crewmembers saw Piht on TV.

Thirdly, the interview with Moik is not evidence that he was fired because of the interview, and you can't provide a source for where you came across the interview, other than to copy and paste the reference "Eesti Päevaleht 990917" from Bjorkman's website, you can't actually provide any details beyond that vague reference of Bjorkman's.

And now you've dumbed down your claim to "he was subject to work-related issues but I can't remember the source".

So you're the dispassionate researcher, who sources, cites and properly references her posts and who has all sorts of eclectic sources and who goes to libraries and national archives and has notes about her research, yet you can't provide a single piece of evidence for this claim because you don't remember where you got it from?

I know where you got it from and why you can't provide any details of where it came from, because you're just copying and pasting claims and chunks of text from Bjorkman's website. You don't have any other source for claim about Moik's supposed dismissal because that's the only source you have.

If I'm wrong, prove me wrong.

Do you have any evidence that Moik was fired because of his claim about Piht being seen on TV that he said in an interview?

Whoa! This is a chat forum, not a peer-reviewed paper.

Sheee-eeesh!

 

[JesseCuster]

Never mind, my bad.

 

[JesseCuster]

Whoa! This is a chat forum, not a peer-reviewed paper.

Sheee-eeesh!

Do you have any evidence that Moik was fired because of his claim about Piht being seen on TV that he said in an interview?

 

[Mojo]

Drew Wilson see his book.

Can you provide a page reference, and quote what it actually says?

You can retrieve the letter from sok. riksarkivet.

Sorry, that link doesn’t seem to go to a letter, and I don’t know the language well enough to navigate the site. Can you link to the actual letter?

 

[Mojo]

Whoa! This is a chat forum, not a peer-reviewed paper.

Sheee-eeesh!

Translation: “No.”

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen why are you refusing to answer my question?

I mean I have ideas about it but I doubt you would be happy with them.

 

[Mojo]

So if Bjorkman quotes the Laws of Thermodynamics, we are all banned from reading it because you are the self-appointed censor?

You know, this really isn’t the sort of thing that someone who regularly complains about people putting words in their mouth should post.

 

[abaddon]

According to Davis he saw it in a hotel room in Rostock with his two crew members.

Got a citation for that? Or will you as usual post something totally unrelated?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Citation please.

No problem. Here you are, unmistakably claiming Moik was sacked for saying he'd seen Piht on TV:

The guy who recognised him on TV in Rostock was Captain Moik. He was sacked for saying so in an interview.

I've instantly recognised people on TV and people have recognised me from a two or three second clip of an audience or sports event crowd.

I see I'm not the first to point out your own post to you, but since you asked me I thought I'd oblige. I'm curious to know why you needed to be reminded of what you had claimed so soon after you wrote it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, it is a readily inferable fact from the interview.

What is the difference between an assumption and an inference?

 

[Andy_Ross]

You were not an investigator for the Estonia accident, either. Like myself, you, too, never had first hand access to the evidence.

Thus EVERYTHING you know about the case is based on information directed at you.

So, were I to ask you for hard evidence that the Atlantic lock broke, does it make you a 'Liar!' if you make assumptions based on your favourite information sheet, itself awash with assumptions?

I show my references and the evidence I use to support my posts.

 

[JesseCuster]

Hehe. From way back near the start of part I of this interminable discussion:

I accept that Anders Bjorkman may not be a reliable witness as per his writings. However, I only cited him once, and that was through seeing a comment by someone else in a different source.