• 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

Mojo said:
Indeed, and that's why saying one sank in 35" is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Do try out this exercise and let me know how you get on: 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. Then explain why you think I should have included seconds in the time duration it took Estonia to sink. Don't worry too much if you don't get it. (Clue: one hour = sixty minutes.)
 
Exactly. Nobody uses those antique hours, minutes and seconds nowadays, grandad. It's all decimal now. What century are you living in with your quaint "seconds"? Sheesh.
 
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...

At the end of the day, none of this is - or ever was - about what you claim you are. Rather, it's entirely about what your posts here (and yes, all over this forum) clearly demonstrate you to be. Which is inept at even basic natural science.

To explain: suppose Mr X posted on ISF that 3+5=9 (and stuck doggedly to that position, even when it was pointed out numerous times by numerous people that Mr X was wrong. Now, it wouldn't matter a jot, or make any difference to the situation, if Mr X claimed to be a university maths professor. It wouldn't actually make any difference if Mr X was a university maths professor: what matters is that Mr X was demonstrating on ISF a gross ineptitude at even simple mathematics.
 
Vixen said:
Do try out this exercise and let me know how you get on: 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...
What you did, though, was equivalent to pricing something at 1/10, and then charging 30 bob for it.
 
Vixen said:
Do try out this exercise and let me know how you get on: 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. Then explain why you think I should have included seconds in the time duration it took Estonia to sink. Don't worry too much if you don't get it. (Clue: one hour = sixty minutes.)
Click to expand...

What the HELL are you talking about now?? :ROFLMAO:

If you insist on using prime notation for time, then 35 minutes is written as 35' . No ifs or buts. You have no more right to claim that 35 minutes is written 35" as you would have by claiming that 5 feet 8 inches can be written 5'' 8'''
 
LondonJohn said:
What the HELL are you talking about now?? :ROFLMAO:

If you insist on using prime notation for time, then 35 minutes is written as 35' . No ifs or buts. You have no more right to claim that 35 minutes is written 35" as you would have by claiming that 5 feet 8 inches can be written 5'' 8'''
Click to expand...
Last attempt: A sexigesimal system is a base-60 number system that originated with the Sumerians and was developed by the Babylonians. It can be applied to any base-60 system. And that includes hours and minutes. It doesn't have to include a parameter that is not relevant, as people insist.
 
Vixen said:
Last attempt: A sexigesimal system is a base-60 number system that originated with the Sumerians and was developed by the Babylonians. It can be applied to any base-60 system. And that includes hours and minutes. It doesn't have to include a parameter that is not relevant, as people insist.
Click to expand...
But writing '35 minutes' as 35" is still wrong.
 
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 want me to post links to reports of ships sinking in seconds?
 
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...

The Nantucket Lightship (LV-117) sank in 30" (to make sure there's no ambiguity, that's 0:30) after being rammed by the Olympic in heavy fog in 1934.
 
Vixen said:
Not when you were told it sank in thirty-five minutes. There's the clue. Did you notice it?
Click to expand...
Yes, and that's why saying it sank in 35" is nonsense. The only reason it isn't a lie is that it isn't sufficiently credible.
 
LondonJohn said:
What the HELL are you talking about now?? :ROFLMAO:

If you insist on using prime notation for time, then 35 minutes is written as 35' . No ifs or buts. You have no more right to claim that 35 minutes is written 35" as you would have by claiming that 5 feet 8 inches can be written 5'' 8'''
Click to expand...
Inches aren't broken down into twelfths. If they were, you could absolutely correctly choose to just use the inches and 1/12 inches as ' and ", if those are your stated parameters. In that instance, it would not be correct to insist the ' is a foot, when you have stated your parameters are imches and 1/12 inches, and it is obvious that is what you are referring to. End of discussion.
 
Vixen said:
Do try out this exercise and let me know how you get on: 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.
Click to expand...
I wonder how you imagine this helps explain your persistent mistake.

There is no old notation for time. There is (pace the French revolution) no new decimal notation for time.

I don't care how you misremember being taught it at Hogwarts, the ' symbol means minutes and the " symbol means seconds and it was never otherwise.
 
Vixen said:
My parameters were hours and minutes. No ship ever sunk in seconds, not even the Lusitania.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that the ' and " notation depends on the expected duration of an event? That 1' 8" for, say, a sea voyage would mean 1 day and 8 hours? For a journey to a distant planet it would mean 1 year and 8 months?
 
Vixen said:
Not when you were told it sank in thirty-five minutes. There's the clue. Did you notice it?
Click to expand...
But that isn't what you said. You said 35" which means 35 seconds.

You're simply wrong here Vixen and making up a load of waffle about the Sumerians won't fix that. You used the prime notation of time incorrectly and when it was pointed out you doubled down, whined that you were taught differently and demanded that we accept your error as correct. When we naturally declined to do so you whined about how mean we were and started throwing insults.
 
Vixen said:
Inches aren't broken down into twelfths. If they were, you could absolutely correctly choose to just use the inches and 1/12 inches as ' and ", if those are your stated parameters. In that instance, it would not be correct to insist the ' is a foot, when you have stated your parameters are imches and 1/12 inches, and it is obvious that is what you are referring to. End of discussion.
Click to expand...

Oh boy. You have no idea what you're talking about. And this is just one of literally hundreds of examples of you not knowing what you're talking about, but pontificating away regardless. Truly pitiful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom