• 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:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh you're back to using the words of your critics as a magic spell.

You're not a scientist. You made the claim that I said you needed to be one to participate in the discussion, so quote me saying it or retract the lie.
 
Vixen said:
No, you don't get away with this. I never mentioned qualifications except JayUtah demanded to know.
Click to expand...
That's only partially true. You volunteered that you were a "psychology postgraduate" in response to someone else's observation that you seemed to understand little about the psychology of eyewitness testimony.

I asked you for your qualifications in physics because you insinuated that you were competent to understand and endorse very technical arguments made by a professor of physics in a documentary you asked us to evaluate. Voir dire of someone purporting competence or expertise in a specialized subject is not at all intrusive.

You are not a scientist. You cannot demonstrate a competent understanding of elementary scientific facts, scientific law, scientific reasoning, and scientific process. What papers you can claim to wave are irrelevant. You continually raise arguments that implicate technical topics you cannot demonstrate that you understand—many you clearly get wrong. And you expect to be taken seriously when you do that. When people correctly point out that your arguments are premised on ignorant assumptions and uninformed interpretations, you play victim and whine about being picked on—an immature response to a perfectly proper rebuttal. No one is claiming that you have to be a scientist in order to discuss the MS Estonia investigation. But you do have to know what you're talking about. And you simply don't.

If you want to be taken seriously, stick to subjects that you know. The world is not obliged to indulge your ignorant fantasies. If you want to satisfy your curiosity by learning the relevant topics, understand that accepting corrections from your betters is a necessary part of that process.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Well, no. But you did request an explanation of various words.
Click to expand...
You tried to get out of a jam by splitting hairs and I challenged that hair-split. Throwing out new words to spackle over every previously rejected equivocation is not helpful.

No one cares what you're curious about personally. But you have spent years and many hundreds of pages arguing that the MS Estonia investigation was a coverup. You have previously suggested that the failure to recover the captain's body must be part of that coverup, in effect that there was a universal expectation being violated. Now that you can't support the premises of that argument, you're trying to pretend you're no longer making it—but without actually abandoning it. This is bad-faith argumentation. People have a right to expect you to argue in good faith as a condition of receiving their attention.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
No one cares what you're curious about personally. But you have spent years and many hundreds of pages arguing that the MS Estonia investigation was a coverup. You have previously suggested that the failure to recover the captain's body must be part of that coverup. Now that you can't support the premises of that argument, you're trying to pretend you're no longer making it without actually abandoning it.
Click to expand...
Which is a pattern of hers, such as when we thoroughly demolished her preferred source of Anders Bjorkman. When we pointed out that Bjorkman is an incompetent crank she first tried to bluster by saying our comments were a personality issue and that we just didn't like the man. When it became obvious this wasn't working she tried to disavow him but kept using him as a source, simply hoping that if she neglected to mention that he was her source we wouldn't realise it. When this also failed she whined about us being mean.
 
Vixen said:
Legislation is underway to officially make it a STEM.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. If you're talking about the UK, then you misinterpreted (as usual) the article I linked. There's no legislation; that was just a report making recommendations to a parliamentary committee; there's no indication that any bill is actually in the works. If you're talking about the US, the bill that's in process will, if it passes, simply allow STEM education funds to be spent on accounting. This is something like the the US Congress redefining Lake Champlain to be one of the Great Lakes so that schoolchildren in the state of Vermont could have access to funds earmarked for studying the Great Lakes.

Vixen said:
I am a numbers person.
Click to expand...
Arithmetic and possibly algebra and statistics, not higher math. And there's also the issue of several bizarre pronouncements you've made that call your competence into question, such as conflating a questionable tax shelter with tax fraud.

Vixen said:
Your demand I must be a scientist to discuss this issue is your arbitrary rule . . .
Click to expand...
As noted, no one demanded that.

Vixen said:
. . . 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.
Click to expand...
As I said, unless you specifically majored in behavioral, experimental, or clinical psychology, then, no, it's not a science. It's simply a social science.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Which is a pattern of hers, such as when we thoroughly demolished her preferred source of Anders Bjorkman. When we pointed out that Bjorkman is an incompetent crank she first tried to bluster by saying our comments were a personality issue and that we just didn't like the man. When it became obvious this wasn't working she tried to disavow him but kept using him as a source, simply hoping that if she neglected to mention that he was her source we wouldn't realise it. When this also failed she whined about us being mean.
Click to expand...
She also still has yet to cite a non-Christopher Bollyn-adjacent source for the claim that Sweden did a forced disappearance on those two Egyptians. Sven Aner, despite being harshly critical of how Sweden handled their deportation, doesn't say that.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
When we pointed out that Bjorkman is an incompetent crank...
Click to expand...
...which he is. But what concerns me most is that Vixen assures us she qualified to ascertain that Anders Björkmann himself is a competent practitioner of applied physics and naval engineering. How one can determine that someone else is an expert in a field without also being an expert in that same field boggles the mind.

MarkCorrigan said:
When this also failed she whined about us being mean.
Click to expand...
The resurrection of the search function (All hail developers!) has facilitated being able to short-circuit the fringe reset of various topics like Dr. Westermann's metallurgy. That said, there has actually been movement in the investigation. There has arisen a document that some say is fabricated and others say should be taken more seriously. But is there any discussion on that new development? No—every discussion inevitably devolves to Vixen whining about how she's being picked on and heckled and not being taken seriously for her very serious interest in the subject which is totally serious and not at all based on stuff she just makes up to get attention.
 
Vixen said:
Given I have read Hegel, I rather think I do know what dialectics mean.
Click to expand...
I have not read Hegel, but I have read Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Something about the remark quoted above—indeed much of this thread—reminds me of its last sentence (Proposition 7):

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.​
Translated into English:
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.​
 
W.D.Clinger said:
I have not read Hegel, but I have read Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Something about the remark quoted above—indeed much of this thread—reminds me of its last sentence (Proposition 7):

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.​
Translated into English:
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.​
Click to expand...
For us plebs;
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"
 
Have just read through this thread. Realised this was only the latest of seven. Gave up on life. But then I thought, hang on, Helen, you want people to know that you've read this whole iteration of it, don't you? How else will you get the credit you deserve for slugging through all of it?

I know a great deal more about it now, so thank you to those who have patiently answered, informed, and debunked, over and over again. I lived in Stockholm when it happened, and many colleagues, friends and acqauintances knew people who went down with Estonia - it was and is a trauma for many, and it is always upsetting for them to have their wounds reopened, especially by those who seem to revel in conspiracies, or those who make money from spreading them, not to mention the ghouls who have tried to film there. Most of those who lost someone, as well as most of the rest of us, accepted straight away that it was an accident, and that those who perished should buried where they were, at sea (not uncommon, we're a seafaring nation).

I have nothing of value to add, I just wanted to say thank you. (And, of course, to be lauded for having read through this installment of the thread; a truly Herculean Labour, at times akin to the cleaning of the Augean stables.)
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Post-mortems are carried out by a public coroner. The whole point of of carrying out a post-mortem in an accidental death is in the interests of justice. Given Andresson had literally just come on duty (1:00am) and the 'bang' or 'collision' sensation was heard about the same time, one would have thought determining the cause of the Captain's death (if by heart attack there would be no water in his lungs) then that would be in the public interest to know a possible contributing cause for the loss of comtrol of the vessel. Given the extraordinary lengths to retrieve Capt. Piht's briefcase, which was in Voronin's designated room, it would appear they decided early on their aim was Piht, so they didn't care about whatever was going on at the bridge.
Click to expand...
That the captain had just come on duty is an indication (as if it were needed) that he was not the only person aboard capable of commanding the ship. The imagined incapacitation of the captain would be an emergency for him, but not for the ship.

It is not a "given" that they went to "extraordinary lengths" to try to discover Piht's briefcase. Why do you claim that was their purpose? The divers entered cabins they could access and one they initially thought might be Piht's contained an identifiable personal effect, which was Voronin's briefcase. The diver had difficulty reading the name in cyrillic. How you got from that event in the transcript of the dive to believing that part was its entire purpose is a mystery.
 
EHocking said:
Yes, I understand the primary nomenclature for minutes (') and seconds (") as well as for feet and inches.
Click to expand...
My parameters were hours and minutes. No ship ever sunk in seconds, not even the Lusitania. If you are still unsure, consider the old duodecimal system of £, s. d ~vs~ the current decimal one. Reflect on whether anyone still uses the old notation and ask yourself why not. Think about the logic of using parameters that have no relevance.
 
Vixen said:
My parameters were hours and minutes. No ship ever sunk in seconds, not even the Lusitania. If you are still unsure, consider the old duodecimal system of £, s. d ~vs~ the current decimal one. Reflect on whether anyone still uses the old notation and ask yourself why not. Think about the logic of using parameters that have no relevance.
Click to expand...
Do you get your loads of bollocks delivered by the ton?
 
SpitfireIX said:
No, it's not. If you're talking about the UK, then you misinterpreted (as usual) the article I linked. There's no legislation; that was just a report making recommendations to a parliamentary committee; there's no indication that any bill is actually in the works. If you're talking about the US, the bill that's in process will, if it passes, simply allow STEM education funds to be spent on accounting. This is something like the the US Congress redefining Lake Champlain to be one of the Great Lakes so that schoolchildren in the state of Vermont could have access to funds earmarked for studying the Great Lakes.


Arithmetic and possibly algebra and statistics, not higher math. And there's also the issue of several bizarre pronouncements you've made that call your competence into question, such as conflating a questionable tax shelter with tax fraud.


As noted, no one demanded that.


As I said, unless you specifically majored in behavioral, experimental, or clinical psychology, then, no, it's not a science. It's simply a social science.
Click to expand...
I have confirmed several times my psychology honours degree course was heavily experimental, behavioural and laboratory-based, with a mandatory fifteen lab reports utilising applied statistics (which constitutes one of the finals exams).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom