• 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

Vixen said:
The issue being discussed was whether it was suspicious or strange the Captain's body was not recovered. I explained my POV and at least JayUtah understood there were two separate points, so there is hope, even though he repeated the question.
Click to expand...
No, you claimed there was a material difference between "strange" and "suspcious" as you used the terms. When pressed you said that the difference was that suspicion suggested ill intent, concealment, or malfeasance. But I'm not seeing a difference between your definition of "suspicious" and your description of what you say normally would be done and what you say would have been dispositive to the examination and your belief in the apparent ease of recovery, versus the fact that it wasn't done in this case. You tell us that you choose your words carefully. This suggests you desire to be understood accurately. Under those auspices...
Vixen said:
<shrugs>
Click to expand...
...looks like an abrogation of your prior position. You seem to be trying very hard to show that there was something suspicious about not recovering the captain's body. But I suspect you don't want to go there officially because the expectations against which you're measuring that choice amount to nothing more than, "Because I say so."

So choose. Either the failure to recover the captain was suspicious for the reasons you keep alluding to, or it was not an it deserves no further comment in this discussion.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
I find it highly offensive that you keep repeating this BS just to try to pretend that you have STEM credentials, particularly when you've continually demonstrated your lack of ability to reason scientifically here and elsewhere where you attempt to spread your conspiracist dreck.

(I believe I've mentioned it in this thread, but in case I haven't, and for the benefit of any newcomers, I'm a former accountant. I passed the Certified Public Accountant Exam, but I didn't practice long enough to obtain my CPA license. I'm now a mechanical designer with a BS in Mechanical Engineering Technology and an MS in Industrial Technology. I also taught secondary school math and science for a year.)

As we've discussed in the past when you've tried to claim this, accounting is not a STEM discipline. It is true that there has been pressure from some accounting organizations to get the profession recognized as such, but a) that has not generally happened yet, b) doing so might well require additional education and certification requirements, c) this is partly just about gaining access to funds and other benefits earmarked for STEM education, and d) again, in any case, you have repeatedly shown that you lack the ability to apply scientific or mathematical reasoning.

As for your psychology BS, unless you specifically majored in clinical, behavioral, or experimental psychology, then, yes, it is "just a social science," and even if you did so major, that still doesn't make you a scientist, any more than my BA in history makes me a historian.
 
JayUtah said:
No, you claimed there was a material difference between "strange" and "suspcious" as you used the terms. When pressed you said that the difference was that suspicion suggested ill intent, concealment, or malfeasance. But I'm not seeing a difference between your definition of "suspicious" and your description of what you say normally would be done and what you say would have been dispositive to the examination and your belief in the apparent ease of recovery, versus the fact that it wasn't done in this case. You tell us that you choose your words carefully. This suggests you desire to be understood accurately. Under those auspices...

...looks like an abrogation of your prior position. You seem to be trying very hard to show that there was something suspicious about not recovering the captain's body. But I suspect you don't want to go there officially because the expectations against which you're measuring that choice amount to nothing more than, "Because I say so."

So choose. Either the failure to recover the captain was suspicious for the reasons you keep alluding to, or it was not an it deserves no further comment in this discussion.
Click to expand...
No, I don't consider it 'suspicious' at all, I consider it curious, especially after the lengths they went to to retrieve Piht's briefcase, bearing in mind they had the wrong room number because he had done a swap, or was socialising, with Voronin, a Russian living in Estonia.
 
Vixen said:
No, I don't consider it 'suspicious' at all, I consider it curious...
Click to expand...
Adding a new word to the mix doesn't fix your problem. You're claiming things weren't done that you believe were easy to do and should have been done because they are normally done. Either that means something or it doesn't. Choose.
 
SpitfireIX said:
I find it highly offensive that you keep repeating this BS just to try to pretend that you have STEM credentials, particularly when you've continually demonstrated your lack of ability to reason scientifically here and elsewhere where you attempt to spread your conspiracist dreck.

(I believe I've mentioned it in this thread, but in case I haven't, and for the benefit of any newcomers, I'm a former accountant. I passed the Certified Public Accountant Exam, but I didn't practice long enough to obtain my CPA license. I'm now a mechanical designer with a BS in Mechanical Engineering Technology and an MS in Industrial Technology. I also taught secondary school math and science for a year.)

As we've discussed in the past when you've tried to claim this, accounting is not a STEM discipline. It is true that there has been pressure from some accounting organizations to get the profession recognized as such, but a) that has not generally happened yet, b) doing so might well require additional education and certification requirements, c) this is partly just about gaining access to funds and other benefits earmarked for STEM education, and d) again, in any case, you have repeatedly shown that you lack the ability to apply scientific or mathematical reasoning.

As for your psychology BS, unless you specifically majored in clinical, behavioral, or experimental psychology, then, yes, it is "just a social science," and even if you did so major, that still doesn't make you a scientist, any more than my BA in history makes me a historian.
Click to expand...
|I don't see why you should find it 'offensive'. I am eligible to apply for a CPA licence should I ever go to the USA (which of course, I never will). As I said, you generally need a strong biology foundation to do a B.Sc. (Hons) Psychology course:

BSc (Hons) Psychology entry requirements vary by university but typically involve strong academic achievement, such as specific A-Level grades (e.g., AAB or BBC) in relevant subjects like Psychology, Biology, Chemistry, Maths, or English.

If you don't have Biology A-Level you are at least expected to have it at GCSE.

Now, you are welcome to claim as much as you want this is not relevant but it wasn't me who claimed it was!
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I have not tried to fool anybody about anything.
Click to expand...
You are right now attempting to claim you're a scientist and attempting to use the fact you have a psychology undergrad degree and are an accountant to get that recognition. So yes, you have and are still attempting to fool everyone about your own credentials.
 
Vixen said:
|I don't see why you should find it 'offensive'.
Click to expand...
Because when I only had my accounting (and history) degrees/certificates, I would never have falsely claimed to have had any kind of STEM qualifications, as you are doing now.

Vixen said:
I am eligible to apply for a CPA licence should I ever go to the USA (which of course, I never will).
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Although as a side note, I will mention that if that is true, things have changed since I was in school (which was admittedly almost thirty years ago), when the only country the US had reciprocal accountancy licensure with was Australia.

Vixen said:
As I said, you generally need a strong biology foundation to do a B.Sc. (Hons) course:

BSc (Hons) Psychology entry requirements vary by university but typically involve strong academic achievement, such as specific A-Level grades (e.g., AAB or BBC) in relevant subjects like Psychology, Biology, Chemistry, Maths, or English.

If you don't have Biology A-Level you are at least expected to have it at GCSE.

Now, you are welcome to claim as much as you want this is not relevant but it wasn't me who claimed it was!
Click to expand...
This still doesn't give you any STEM credentials, make you a scientist, or change the fact that you've repeatedly demonstrated a lack of ability to reason scientifically.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Because when I only had my accounting (and history) degrees/certificates, I would never have falsely claimed to have had any kind of STEM qualifications, as you are doing now.


Irrelevant. Although as a side note, I will mention that if that is true, things have changed since I was in school (which was admittedly almost thirty years ago), when the only country the US had reciprocal accountancy licensure with was Australia.


This still doesn't give you any STEM credentials, make you a scientist, or change the fact that you've repeatedly demonstrated a lack of ability to reason scientifically.
Click to expand...
I am afraid it is true.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
You are right now attempting to claim you're a scientist and attempting to use the fact you have a psychology undergrad degree and are an accountant to get that recognition. So yes, you have and are still attempting to fool everyone about your own credentials.
Click to expand...
Psychology is a science. My chartered accountancy qualification has the academic standing of a master's degree in the UK (recognised at Level 7 by NARIC).
 
MarkCorrigan said:
You are not a scientist. Your accountancy qualification is not a scientific degree.
Click to expand...
Legislation is underway to officially make it a STEM. I am a numbers person. Your demand I must be a scientist to discuss this issue is your arbitrary rule, which you have changed because Psychology is a STEM and you can't stand that it is a science which is why you are now stipulating only sciences approved by you qualify.
 
Gibberish.

You have attempted to claim you are a scientist to bolster your own credentials. Quote where I have demanded you must be a scientist to discuss this issue. You have claimed I have done so, so quote me saying it.

I know you won't because it's yet another one of your lies.
 
Vixen said:
Dialectical question for you: how have you determined Rabe is not a particularly trustworthy source? (Not an accusation of anything.)
Click to expand...
Rabe says that an anonymous pilot says that he met someone else who says that...

There's nothing about this reporting chain that justifies trusting it in the first place.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Gibberish.

You have attempted to claim you are a scientist to bolster your own credentials. Quote where I have demanded you must be a scientist to discuss this issue. You have claimed I have done so, so quote me saying it.

I know you won't because it's yet another one of your lies.
Click to expand...
No, you don't get away with this. I never mentioned qualifications except JayUtah demanded to know. But I'm afraid psychology is a science. I don't see why I should pretend it is not a science just to avoid bullying. I haven't bolstered anything. As an analogy, how would you like me jeering that you aren't qualified and you said ah but I have a degree in international relations. So then I turn around and jeer that you are bolstering yourself up. That is the equivalent. Setting someone up just to jeer at them.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Adding a new word to the mix doesn't fix your problem. You're claiming things weren't done that you believe were easy to do and should have been done because they are normally done. Either that means something or it doesn't. Choose.
Click to expand...
The divers videoed through the door of the bridge so we have a rough idea of what lies within. I get there's a reason they left it and concentrated on attaining Piht's attaché case. I am curious to understand what was in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom