• 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 Reopened Part VII

junkshop said:
Fair point, I ****** up there.

Amended post, then:

Rabe claims that an unidentified person that she claims claimed to be a Swedish naval diver claimed to have seen a body that they claimed to have identified as that of Cpt. Andresson, with what they claimed was a bullet wound in their head.

No evidence provided. All there is are claims. All there are are claims? All there are is claims? That syntax got weird, but I digress. Point is: unevidenced claims and a flair for the dramatic melodramatic is all Rabe has ever had.

TLDR: We've all read your bat-**** conspiracies theories before. There is no need to repeat them yet again.
Click to expand...

I fully understand that not everyone is interested in this topic. Surely there is a topic that better serves your interests than this one?
 
Vixen said:
I fully understand that not everyone is interested in this topic. Surely there is a topic that better serves your interests than this one?
Click to expand...

I'm interested in hearing you defend your deferential and uncritical approach to Rabe's claims, which you seem unwilling to believe or disbelieve for the record.
 
Vixen said:
Is this playground name-calling? Or do you have a rational basis for the jibe?
Click to expand...

Yes, as have been exhaustively raked over in these threads multiple times. When we point out her utter lack of any evidence for any of her insane, baseless claims you whine that we're not taking her word for it because she's a "respected journalist".

Even if she were a respected journalist and not an insane crank, she still needs to support her claims, which she absolutely does not do.

I am more inclined to listen to an expert in a field about their opinions on that field, but they still have to support those opinions, and if they make claims of fact then that goes doubly so.

We're back to the Ian Wright thing again where you attempted to defend Anders Bjorkman, an absolute nutcase with no actual expertise who regularly pulls things out of his ass but that you wanted us to listen to because you thought he was an expert. In that case he wasn't even an expert, but even if he had been he would need to provide actual evidence for his claims.

This is something you really don't seem to understand, or more likely are pretending not to so that we can keep paying you attention. It doesn't matter who someone is when they make a claim, what matters is if they can support that claim. Sure, if an actually respected journalist like say, Woodward and Bernstein say something I'm more likely to hear them out than Joe Headcase on the internet, but if they started on about conspiracy theories I would still need them to provide evidence for every claim they make.
 
Vixen said:
Is this a variation of 'When is the last time you beat your wife'?
Click to expand...

Nope, you frequently do exactly what Jay is saying you do.

When did you last beat your wife isn't actually a bad question to a proven and known wife beater.
 
Vixen said:
I fully understand that not everyone is interested in this topic. Surely there is a topic that better serves your interests than this one?
Click to expand...

I am interested in this topic. That is why I find your periodic attempts to reintroduce various bat-**** conspiracy theories, as if they hadn't already been thoroughly debunked, frustrating.

Safety at sea is an important issue. Companies that risk, let alone cause, the death of innocent passengers by cutting corners and fudging rules need to be held to account. More specifically, the people in charge of those companies need to be held to account.

Bat-**** conspiracy crap like your contributions in these threads serves only to distract from their culpability for valuing profit over life.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Yes, as have been exhaustively raked over in these threads multiple times. When we point out her utter lack of any evidence for any of her insane, baseless claims you whine that we're not taking her word for it because she's a "respected journalist".

Even if she were a respected journalist and not an insane crank, she still needs to support her claims, which she absolutely does not do.

I am more inclined to listen to an expert in a field about their opinions on that field, but they still have to support those opinions, and if they make claims of fact then that goes doubly so.

We're back to the Ian Wright thing again where you attempted to defend Anders Bjorkman, an absolute nutcase with no actual expertise who regularly pulls things out of his ass but that you wanted us to listen to because you thought he was an expert. In that case he wasn't even an expert, but even if he had been he would need to provide actual evidence for his claims.

This is something you really don't seem to understand, or more likely are pretending not to so that we can keep paying you attention. It doesn't matter who someone is when they make a claim, what matters is if they can support that claim. Sure, if an actually respected journalist like say, Woodward and Bernstein say something I'm more likely to hear them out than Joe Headcase on the internet, but if they started on about conspiracy theories I would still need them to provide evidence for every claim they make.
Click to expand...


I am not really interested in this 'personalities' stuff. Your calling someone an insane crank does not make them so.
 
Vixen said:
I am not really interested in this 'personalities' stuff.
Click to expand...

Pointing out that somebody is patently unqualified and therefore obviously lying about his background and credentials is not "personality stuff," especially when that person is begging to be believed as an expert.

Your calling someone an insane crank does not make them so.
Click to expand...

Someone acting as such, however, does.

You claim to be perfectly objective. Yet a better, more critical approach, rejects such obviously unqualified and non-credible evidence. Defend your approach.
 
It's not personalities stuff, you're just deflecting and running away again because you can't actually answer my point.

Where is Rabe's evidence for any of her lunatic claims?
 
junkshop said:
More specifically, the people in charge of those companies need to be held to account.
Click to expand...

As part owner of an engineering company who produces things subject to human-safety requirements, I take very seriously the need to meet the highest standards. As a participant in investigations intended to hold practitioners to account and ferret out the causes of failure, I take very seriously the need to maintain high standards of integrity and fairness in such investigations.

Bat-**** conspiracy crap like your contributions in these threads serves only to distract from their culpability for valuing profit over life.
Click to expand...

Armchair detectives are worse than useless. Vixen's approach is wrong, unfair, and self-indulgent. It causes far more harm than any benefit it might realize.
 
JayUtah said:
Pointing out that somebody is patently unqualified and therefore obviously lying about his background and credentials is not "personality stuff," especially when that person is begging to be believed as an expert.



Someone acting as such, however, does.

You claim to be perfectly objective. Yet a better, more critical approach, rejects such obviously unqualified and non-credible evidence. Defend your approach.
Click to expand...

Look. The accident happened locally to me. There are many people in this area who helped in the rescue effort. There are many people employed in the Meyer Werft shipyards. Werft built the recent Icon of the Seas. Werft built Viking Sally (reconditioned into the Estonia). I know for a fact that the workmanship on the Werftt shipyard is first class. Therefore, I am not going to write off the Germans as 'insane cranks'. If they dispute the bow visor caused the accident - and of course, I get why they would - I am going to listen to them carefully as to what they have to say.
 
Except that we did listen, and the physical evidence doesn't match what they say so we dismiss what they say as being wrong.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
It's not personalities stuff, you're just deflecting and running away again because you can't actually answer my point.

Where is Rabe's evidence for any of her lunatic claims?
Click to expand...

She has brought out a book, a documentary and a fictionalized film based on fact.

She attended the shipwreck site (there is now a warrant out for her in Sweden). She retrieved some pieces from the hull and had them tested at independent metallurgists labs.
 
Vixen said:
She has brought out a book, a documentary and a fictionalized film based on fact.
Click to expand...

But you admit you just assume all those publications were properly researched and corroborated. Why would you make assumptions that support sensationalist claims if not to indicate your belief in the claims?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Some of us are more interested in the world we live in than others. Some people want to understand what happened, others do not.
Click to expand...

You have demonstrated almost total ignorance of the sciences that pertain to your claims. You are almost entirely unable to admit error. None of that is consistent with being merely curious about the world. Your approach is worse than useless, and I am asking you to defend it if you can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom