Stenmark resigned' the same day as the newspaper reports, 1.10.
Rubbish.
Even if in someone's opinion it was wrong why run an entire hate campaign over it, when it is obvious what it referred to, i.e., how long it took for the Estonia to sink? This is what I mean about being subjected unwarranted bullying as though I was a wrongdoer, based on someone's failure to grasp primes are quite normal in annotating time duration, for those of us who use it.
No, you haven't, but Rabe did. That's the point being made.
When you use the word incorrectly it shows you do not know the meaning of the word you use.
It isn't someone's opinion Vixen, you're simply wrong.
But Rabe did, which was the operative statement. Triple-niner fail.
Because you use the wrong words, such as “reinforced steel” and “high impact explosives.”
In my case because I am licensed in the field that pertains to this thread. In @catsmate’s case because he can demonstrate competence.
As for the reinforced steel comment, I did say it was a misstatement and would have to check (it was 'strengthened steel' I was looking for). If you really want an explanation for the error, I had been up in the early hours watching Katrina Hell and High Water on Netflix, had done the company quarterly VAT return earlier in the day and thus, was extremely tired. Is that OK to make a typographical mistake?
No, you are not being bullied. You are being appropriately challenged for persisting in error despite all evidence. Examples such as this of your bad faith affect whether others might be inclined to take you seriously. As you well know, the issue was not that you used primes notation at all, but that you used the wrong primes notation and still to this day refuse to admit that error.
It’s not a typo. It’s a conceptual mistake. And it’s quite proper to cite to such errors when you ask for examples of when you use words improperly.
OK fair enough. Rabe is a journalist. Just because one might have disagreed over a Y2K issue, it doesn't mean everything she does is bad. I don't have any particular opinion about her credentials but her passion and perspicacity in trying to get to the truth of Estonia is commendable IMV because a lot of questions were left open about the disaster.
No, you are not being bullied. When you solicit examples of your errors you don’t get to whine when they are provided. It wasn’t a one-time mistake, because links were provided to other examples of exactly this same “typo.” Now kindly just admit that your critics have supported with evidence their claims that you used words improperly and that it’s reasonable therefore to propose that you don’t know what they mean.
Citations please or I'll assume this is more of the same.
Given I have read Hegel, I rather think I do know what dialectics mean.
You must be joking. You can't possibly be serious.
Have you tried using the search function and the back arrow?
But you do have an opinion about her credentials. You previously insisted that we had to accept her claims regarding this sinking as credible (despite their facial problems) because she had a good reputation as a journalist. You don’t get to change that basis just because it turns out not to be true. “Passion” is not a substitute for journalistic integrity in search of the truth.
No, you are expected to put up or shut up: either put up evidence to support your claims or, if you can't, withdraw them.
It is definitely a conceptual mistake, as you don't even know when it is appropriate to use high strength steel versus other grades.
Obvs this changes nothing in what I wrote.
1) Even in cases where there is a passenger manifest, I'd bet it's going to be a separate document, not an entry in the pilot's logbook.