The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[W.D.Clinger]

Well chartered accountants are classed as STEM so we are not all a bunch of Lotus-1-2-3 spreadsheet nerds any more. We are highly analytical and able to deal with complex data, is the theory in order to pass the tough exams. Contrary to the view that psychology is 'just a social science' you won't get in without a strong science background, especially in biology. So whilst we might know nothing about welding - NOTHING! - it doesn't mean we can't understand how ships float and sink.

To my knowledge, no one is saying your chartered accountancy is why you don't understand how ships float and sink.

Nobody can hang on to a grudge quite like a Brit! Of all the grudgiest of grudgiesness of grudgy nationalities, Brits hold the crown! A Brit nurtures his grudge lke a precious hothouse flower and hangs on to it like a rock-climber hanging on to a rope over a cliff-edge. He bears his grudge unto his grave and from generation unto generation. In three hundred years' time his descandants will still be sipping tea with a frown on their face about that rando on the internet on an obscure forum posing a dialectical question on a contentious topic under debate. Bloody bastard! 'Calling me a racist!!!'

MarkCorrigan, be reasonable. For the sake of sweet baby Jesus, Mary and the little donkey, 'Let it lie!'



<sfx voice of MC: "Shan't!">

I don't understand why those grudge-holding Brits were responsible for sinking the MS Estonia.

(Probably because I am not a chartered accountant.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Nope, you were corrected after using prime notation for time wrongly, and refused to accept this.

The ship did not sink in 35 seconds.

Did you not notice that Vixen made the self-same error just now?!

 

[LondonJohn]

To my knowledge, no one is saying your chartered accountancy is why you don't understand how ships float and sink.

Exactly. People are saying Vixen doesn't understand how ships float and sink because...... she's demonstrated conclusively through her posts in this thread that she doesn't understand how ships float and sink.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

It was a question! A frigging question! If you had to put up with half of what I have to put up with, beaten up over using primes for time duration as in time taken for the ship to sink 35", shee-eesh! Welcome to my world.

No, I'm not just talking about when you indirectly accused me of being a racist. That is hardly your only lie about others Vixen.

 

[JayUtah]

The idea was to acquire a piece of metal from the bow visor and compare its deformations with what can be expected at what heat and at what impact if it resembles a deformation caused by a high impact explosive

What is a "high impact explosive?" Do you perhaps mean a "high explosive?"

...the usual stuff a metallurgist can identify.

Actually most metallurgy has nothing to do with explosive effects. In any case, Prof. Westermann's findings were thoroughly discussed in this forum when they were released and you have been given a link to that discussion.

 

[Steve]

What is a "high impact explosive?" Do you perhaps mean a "high explosive?"


Actually most metallurgy has nothing to do with explosive effects. In any case, Prof. Westermann's findings were thoroughly discussed in this forum when they were released and you have been given a link to that discussion.

"High impact explosive" is an accountancy term. You have to be an accountant to understand it.

 

[Vixen]

You DID accuse him of being a racist - no matter that the accusation was oblique and indirect. And you have demonstrated a steadfast refusal to concede even that. But that's par for the course when it comes to your way of addressing the incompetence and ineptitude of so very many of your claims, so we shouldn't be surprised.

ETA. Oh and the interjection of an offstage/off camera voice is not a special effect. One more fail.....

You do enjoy heckling.

 

[Vixen]

Rubbish. The divers were not tasked with recovering bodies. Satisfying your curiosity over the wildest conspiracies you can conceive was, amazingly, not a priorty. Proposing the ship sank because the captain was incapacitated and nobody else know how to sail it is one of your daftest suggestions yet.

Obvs it doesn't have to be the same divers sent to do surveying. You do know several naval team went down?

 

[Vixen]

On their superstructure, or after they inevitably turn turtle?

I am glad you can see the hilarity in the JAIC claiming this very thing in their JAIC report.

 

[Vixen]

Nope, you were corrected after using prime notation for time wrongly, and refused to accept this.

The ship did not sink in 35 seconds.

Stop being flippant. As I clearly set out that the vessel sank in thirty-five minutes earlier, it is perfectly conventional and correct to then annotate. And " is perfectly correct in the context I used it. But carry on hazing.

 

[Vixen]

Did you not actually read what I wrote?

Did you not see the date?

 

[JayUtah]

Well chartered accountants are classed as STEM

No. Training in accountancy does not include a study of the physical sciences. You are not a scientist by virtue of having been chartered as an accountant.

Contrary to the view that psychology is 'just a social science' you won't get in without a strong science background, especially in biology.

Biology is not especially relevant to this discussion. Psychology is tangentially relevant only in that the study of eyewitness testimony falls under that subject. However, we tested your understanding of the state of scholarship on that point and found it no better than what could be obtained from a web search. There is no basis to consider you any sort of expert on that subject, nor in the physical sciences by virtue of your claim to expertise.

So whilst we might know nothing about welding - NOTHING! - it doesn't mean we can't understand how ships float and sink.

You do not understand how ships float and sink. For example, you don't know the difference between buoyancy and stability. How welding works is only one example of your ignorance of basic principles. When you tried to restate in your own terms a hastily-Googled description of roll stability, you confused basic terms and concepts such as lines, points, and vectors. That would reckon your level of understanding somewhere in the neighborhood of a beginning high school student. There are many other such examples.

We have thoroughly tested your knowledge of the physical sciences that pertain to your arguments and to the interpretation of the evidence and have found you to be almost entirely incompetent at it. Further, you annoy your interlocutors by vacillating between insinuations to competency (if not outright expertise) and disclaimers of any profession of expertise. This whiplash seems more calculated to support rhetorical complaints of shabby treatment than to account properly for one's foundation of knowledge. All this discussion aside, you simply cannot demonstrate an understanding of the sciences that pertain to your claims. Hence there is no reason to consider you competent to criticize or correct a forensic engineering investigation.

 

[Mojo]

I am glad you can see the hilarity in the JAIC claiming this very thing in their JAIC report.

I remember you claiming that they had said it in their report, but I don't remember you providing a specific citation or quotation.

 

[JayUtah]

And " is perfectly correct in the context I used it.

No, it most certainly was not, and this was explained to you in excruciatingly thorough detail.

The issue is trivial in terms of the overall discussion, but not at all trivial as an example of your bad faith argumentation preferences. You had the opportunity to correct your mistake early and move on. But you doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on it to save face—and you are still doing so. When you express interest in a topic and invite discussion, this kind of evidence of good or bad faith determines how seriously others should take you.

 

[catsmate]

I think it's protocol to list passengers.

You are, as usual, wrong.

 

[catsmate]

Also Jutte Rabe is not a particularly trustworthy source. This has been explained to you.

She's quite notorious among IT people of a certain age.

 

[JayUtah]

"High impact explosive" is an accountancy term. You have to be an accountant to understand it.

I suppose it means applying bold, italics, and underlining to your spreadsheet. You know, for greater impact.

 

[Mojo]

Stop being flippant. As I clearly set out that the vessel sank in thirty-five minutes earlier, it is perfectly conventional and correct to then annotate. And " is perfectly correct in the context I used it.

Do you understand why the model of Stonehenge was not as big as Nigel Tufnel expected it to be?

 

[catsmate]

Well chartered accountants are classed as STEM

No they are not. You tried this lie previously, remember.

so we are not all a bunch of Lotus-1-2-3 spreadsheet nerds any more.

I wouldn't trust you with a spreadsheet, even one as obsolete as 123

We are highly analytical and able to deal with complex data, is the theory in order to pass the tough exams. Contrary to the view that psychology is 'just a social science' you won't get in without a strong science background, especially in biology. So whilst we might know nothing about welding - NOTHING! - it doesn't mean we can't understand how ships float and sink.

None of this nonsense has anything to do with your abject lack of education, skills or expertise in the sciences.
Also psychology at university has no biology requirements for entry. You are, as usual, wrong

 

[catsmate]

I can't read Estonian so I have no idea what is in Meister's book but Jutta Rabe made a claim that some helicopter pilot got chatting with a survivor who said he came from a small town in Estonia and that this survivor was Piht, who did come from there. Now you might say this is bolleaux but Meister was a member of the JAIC and thus his view can't be brushed off as a conspiracy theory., given he has had sight of highly confidential stuff and more.

Third hand hearsay. Worthless nonsense.