• 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

JayUtah said:
Yes, you were asked to cite the sources for your claim. You're not just "being helpful." You're offering commentary on the reliability of the source that is contradicted by its nature. And your evaluation of the claim you hope to support from that source differs from what you said earlier. Are you able to rehabilitate your source, or shall we properly dismiss it? Are you able to reconcile your different views on the theory that the captain was shot, or shall we just assume you're flitting about as usual?
Click to expand...
I'll let you know when I receive the book.
 
Vixen said:
No I haven't 'presented' myself at all. I was browbeaten into 'explaining' how dare I be interested in a shipping accident and made to reveal my level of scientific training, which of course would never be enough for you, and then told I was 'bolstering' myself when I helpfully explained. The Estonia isn't just a mechanical accident, it also involves people.
Click to expand...
You yourself were saying things that revealed your appalling level of scientific understanding. When challenged, you yourself attempted to defend your indefensible claims by presenting yourself as a scientist. That's what led to you yourself revealing your very own minimal level of scientific training.

Yes, the MS Estonia disaster involves people. Its victims should be respected. Their fate should not be used by clueless conspiracy theorists as an opportunity to present themselves as the smartest ones in the room.
 
JayUtah said:
So you only choose your words carefully when it's a choice between those two words?
Click to expand...
Context is important. Always look at the context. 'Strange' as used in one post can relate to something completely different in another post. It doesn't mean 'strange' ALWAYS means the same regardless of context,
 
W.D.Clinger said:
You yourself were saying things that revealed your appalling level of scientific understanding. When challenged, you yourself attempted to defend your indefensible claims by presenting yourself as a scientist. That's what led to you yourself revealing your very own minimal level of scientific training.

Yes, the MS Estonia disaster involves people. Its victims should be respected. Their fate should not be used by clueless conspiracy theorists as an opportunity to present themselves as the smartest ones in the room.
Click to expand...
That is not correct. When posters sneered, you ain't no scientist, I quite rightly corrected them. The fact they are not interested in the how and why tells me the aim in asking is not predicated in good faith.
 
lobosrul5 said:
I have never heard the term 'happy kraft', and Google is not helping me. You are referring to the naval evacuation of Prussia in 1945 I presume. That has so little to do with the sinking of the Estonia that it beggars belief that you brought it up.

ETA: BTW the Wilhelm Gustloff is yet another example of a ship dramatically listing, and sinking but not capsizing.
Click to expand...
She means Strength Through JoyWP, or Kraft durch Freude in German, and, as usual, she doesn't know what she's talking about. :rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
Context is important. Always look at the context. 'Strange' as used in one post can relate to something completely different in another post. It doesn't mean 'strange' ALWAYS means the same regardless of context,
Click to expand...
Oh, for Pete's sake. You tried to justify a hairsplit in one case with the general rebuttal that you choose your words carefully. Either you only choose your words carefully in that one context, or you always choose your words carefully in all contexts, in which case people are right to point out your misuse of language.
 
Vixen said:
That is not correct. When posters sneered, you ain't no scientist, I quite rightly corrected them. The fact they are not interested in the how and why tells me the aim in asking is not predicated in good faith.
Click to expand...
You are not a scientist. You are unable to exhibit any degree of scientific proficiency when tested. Your "corrections" amount to various evasions and equivocations trying to establish that you might technically be considered a scientist.

You. Are. Not. A. Scientist.
 
JayUtah said:
Oh, for Pete's sake. You tried to justify a hairsplit in one case with the general rebuttal that you choose your words carefully. Either you only choose your words carefully in that one context, or you always choose your words carefully in all contexts, in which case people are right to point out your misuse of language.
Click to expand...
I stated it was strange the captain's body was not recovered, his being the captain 'n all. I immediately had the claim, 'Oh you think it's suspicious then'. I politely pointed out that was not what I said. I said it was strange, not suspicious. For me, there is a difference in meaning. Context gives a word meaning, so it is useful to let the context sink in before jumping to a conclusion.
 
JayUtah said:
You are not a scientist. You are unable to exhibit any degree of scientific proficiency when tested. Your "corrections" amount to various evasions and equivocations trying to establish that you might technically be considered a scientist.

You. Are. Not. A. Scientist.
Click to expand...
You don't define me.
 
JayUtah said:
By all means keep deliberately missing the point. Do you choose your words carefully only sometimes? Or generally?
Click to expand...
Yes, I was criticised for using qualifiers such as AIUI or 'it is highly likely' because I am aware of subtleties and the likelihood of exceptions and probabilities being factored in.
 
Vixen said:
You don't define me.
Click to expand...
Actually, as a former university teacher, I had quite a bit of say over who got to call themselves what.

However, your problem is that no one is obliged to agree with your attempts to define yourself, especially when people can identify very good reasons not to do so. Saying it's not illegal to call yourself something you're not is a cop-out. You can either display the proficiency consistent with your claims to expertise or you cannot.
 
Vixen should have chosen her words carefully when she said "I choose my words carefully". What she should have said, apparently, is "I chose my words carefully".

"I choose my words carefully" is the simple present tense, meaning that you're referring in general to how you choose your words.

Whereas "I chose my words carefully" would refer to the particular use of words in a particular context.

Pedantic, I know, but you know what they say about sauce for the goose...
 
JayUtah said:
Actually, as a former university teacher, I had quite a bit of say over who got to call themselves what.

However, your problem is that no one is obliged to agree with your attempts to define yourself, especially when people can identify very good reasons not to do so. Saying it's not illegal to call yourself something you're not is a cop-out. You can either display the proficiency consistent with your claims to expertise or you cannot.
Click to expand...
Now you are twisting my words.
 
Vixen said:
Be that as it may, he was head of the JAIC - which consisted of a panel set up to investigate - on behalf of three countries, Estonia, Sweden and Finland, so it can't just be brushed off as 'fake news'.
Click to expand...
Well, reading this article: https://www.ohtuleht.ee/7790/andi-meister-suudan-koiki-oma-vaiteid-toestada makes at least me wonder.

Google translate:

"Monday's Postimees accused Meister of concealing facts and versions known to him. Postimees asks why Meister did not speak earlier about Avo Piht's possible escape or misunderstandings during the diving work on the wreck.

According to Meister, as chairman of the commission, he could not speak publicly about his doubts because he did not have any at the time. He confirmed that he arrived at most of the claims in the book through a long research process that he began after leaving the post of chairman of the commission."


8 pages of the book, translated to Swedish is available here: https://sok.riksarkivet.se/estonia?...F2A2-6ED2-446E-BD64-7C8912CD27B2&tab=post#tab

It reads as a diary/stream of consciousness type writing, rather than a clear structured analysis of a situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom