Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Braidwood & Fellows; Ida Westermann rules out ordinary friction, the metallurgists contracted by Jutta Rabe. That is not to say there was an explosion but it has never been looked into because the whole aim of the JAIC was to prove it was a few strong waves that knocked the bow visor off.
Click to expand...

:crazy:
 
Vixen said:
Braidwood & Fellows...
Click to expand...

Already addressed, no evidence of explosives.

Ida Westermann rules out ordinary friction...
Click to expand...

She also rules out explosives.

...the metallurgists contracted by Jutta Rabe.
Click to expand...

Already addressed, not reliable evidence.

That is not to say there was an explosion but it has never been looked into because the whole aim of the JAIC was to prove it was a few strong waves that knocked the bow visor off.
Click to expand...

Straw man.
 
zooterkin said:
You do know we can read the post you're replying to, don't you?

No-one is claiming you said you were a chartered psychologist. Stop lying.

What you said was

The strong implication being that your postgrad study was in the field of psychology. Now you're saying that was not the case? Why refer to postgraduate if your psychology training was only to degree level?
Click to expand...

My graduate degree led on to entry level to my two recognised masters degrees. Without the psychology honours degree I would have had to enter the profession at Certificate Level. So I am a psychology postgraduate.
 
Vixen said:
Because I have two chartered accountancy designations, both classified as masters degrees.

So I am a postgraduate whichever way you look at it.
Click to expand...

The way I'm looking at it is how you're trying to transform accountancy into psychology. The question is not whether you obtained post-graduate education. The question is about the subject of that education. If it wasn't psychology, then in what sense are you a "psychology postgraduate" as you claimed?
 
Vixen said:
Braidwood & Fellows; Ida Westermann rules out ordinary friction, the metallurgists contracted by Jutta Rabe. That is not to say there was an explosion but it has never been looked into because the whole aim of the JAIC was to prove it was a few strong waves that knocked the bow visor off.
Click to expand...

Already dealt with previously. None of them show evidence of explosives. Braidwood never actually studied the wreck, just looked at pictures.

You're lying about the JAIC. Their job was to investigate what caused it. Do you have any evidence that they went in with an agenda?

Vixen said:
Because I have two chartered accountancy designations, both classified as masters degrees.

So I am a postgraduate whichever way you look at it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but not a psychology postgraduate. You're a psychology graduate and an accounting postgrad, would be the closest.


So are you ever going to admit that I've caught you being mistaken 3 times now?
 
Vixen said:
My graduate degree led on to entry level to my two recognised masters degrees. Without the psychology honours degree I would have had to enter the profession at Certificate Level. So I am a psychology postgraduate.
Click to expand...

Nope. Doesn't work that way.
 
Vixen said:
My graduate degree led on to entry level to my two recognised masters degrees. Without the psychology honours degree I would have had to enter the profession at Certificate Level. So I am a psychology postgraduate.
Click to expand...

No. You're a psychology graduate. Your postgraduate study was in a different field.
 
zooterkin said:
But not a "psychology postgraduate", which was your claim.
Click to expand...

Claim you.

So you are trying to claim that someone who is a history graduate cannot claim to be a history postgraduate if they undertake a course in MA Modern History.

You are putting forward a false claim that your postgraduate course has to have the same title as the undergraduate one.

It is your prerogative to believe that but it is not factually true.
 
Vixen said:
Claim you.

So you are trying to claim that someone who is a history graduate cannot claim to be a history postgraduate if they undertake a course in MA Modern History.
Click to expand...

Nope.
Vixen said:
You are putting forward a false claim that your postgraduate course has to have the same title as the undergraduate one.

It is your prerogative to believe that but it is not factually true.
Click to expand...
No one is claiming that. I have an graduate degree in International Relations, which is a politics degree. If I did an MSc in say, Intelligence Studies I could claim to be a Politics postgrad.

If I did an MA in English Lit I could not claim to be a politics postgrad.
 
Vixen said:
You are putting forward a false claim that your postgraduate course has to have the same title as the undergraduate one.
Click to expand...

No, we're putting forward the correct claim that your postgraduate study was in accountancy, not in psychology. It doesn't matter that someone thought your bachelor's degree in whatever field was sufficient to begin a study of accounting. Accounting is not psychology, and it is misleading for you to present yourself as a "psychology postgraduate."
 
Vixen said:
Claim you.
Click to expand...

It's there in black and white, it was your claim. Here is is again.
Vixen said:
Please stop with the rationalizing and the pop-psychology. You are talking down to a psychology postgraduate here.
Click to expand...

Highlighted, so you can't miss it. You claimed to be a psychology postgraduate.

Vixen said:
So you are trying to claim that someone who is a history graduate cannot claim to be a history postgraduate if they undertake a course in MA Modern History.
Click to expand...
You clearly didn't take logic at any level, if you think that's a reasonable claim based on what I've said.

If you do postgraduate studies in a subject, then you can claim to be a postgrad in that subject; if you've actually got a qualification as a result of that study, then you would be even more entitled to the claim.
You are putting forward a false claim that your postgraduate course has to have the same title as the undergraduate one.
Click to expand...
Again, how the **** can you twist my words to come up with that ridiculous statement?

It is your prerogative to believe that but it is not factually true.
Click to expand...
Another statement that applies more to your posts than anyone else's in this thread.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
No one is claiming that.
Click to expand...

Indeed we can draw the parallel to law school. In the U.S., a Juris Doctor degree is considered a professional postgraduate degree. There is no corresponding degree program at the baccalaureate level. First-year law students are a smorgasbord of prior studies, almost none of which are directly relevant to the study of law.

Really? you might say. Yes, while degrees in political science, history, administration, and so forth might introduce topics in law, the program of law school relies upon almost none of that. What qualifies you for success in law school is the ability to think logically on your feet and to read and recall large tracts of text. The facts you bring with you from the previous degree are largely immaterial.

Further, if one proposes to study intellectual property law, one's bachelor's degree must be in the field that pertains to the kind of intellectual property in question. Therefore someone coming to law school to practice patent law must have something like an engineering degree. But under no circumstances would that person be an "engineering postgraduate." No, those would be my students who were continuing their education in engineering, not applying what they've previously learned to some new and different field.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom