The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Vixen]

Amazing, you're committing the exact lie I called you out for in the post you quoted.


Let's go through it point by point shall we?

Where did I even begin to talk about personalities, except to point out that is the lie you are continually telling?


No, but repeating them as if they were an expert does mean you are proffering them as said expert. Which Bjorkman is manifestly not. He isn't an expert Vixen no matter how much you (and he) desperately want him to be. He's a delusional crank on the exact subject you are upholding him as an expert in. Do you get it yet? You are attempting to use someone who thinks atomic weapons are impossible because of physics as an expert in physics. This is the equivalent of proffering someone who doesn't believe in the germ theory of disease as an expert in medicine.


Except I'm not discussing any of that. I, and others are pointing out that his ideas are bollocks. He is a delusional crank in exactly the area you are claiming to be using his ideas in.


I don't have a problem with HIM. I have a problem with you using him as an expert in an area he is less competent in than I am. I am not a physicist. I am definitely not a maritime engineer. I still know more about it than he does because he is a delusional crank on these subjects.

You presented him as an expert. Then when we confronted you over the fact he is no such thing and his ideas are nutter butters you attempted to hide that he was your expert, then you disavowed him publicly but continued to spout his unevidenced gibberish as if we wouldn't know that's what you were doing, and then you finally started this idiotic attempt at gaslighting by claiming we are against you parroting his rubbish because we think he's rude or whatever.

No Vixen, we do not accept your use of him as an expert because he isn't an expert. He's a delusional crank and self aggrandising liar.


But you don't do that, you parrot his insanity without actually understanding why it's insanity, then get offended when we won't accept this obvious con artist as a credible expert.


It is neither a personality issue nor prejudice to not accept insane cranks as experts. That you keep whining and pouting about it doesn't make it true.

Anders Bjorkman is less competent in physics than my 12 year old niece. At least she accepts that nuclear weapons are real.

All you're doing here is continuing your pathetic attempt at gaslighting everyone else into accepting we hate Bjorkman because we think he's a big meanie pants or whatever guff it is you're trying to cram into our mouths today. No. We do not accept him as an expert because he is verifiably wrong about physics.



I don't hate him. I pity him, if anything, because he's a sad lonely crank shouting into the void that only the chronically conspiratorial and clueless pay any attention to. You might as well quote David Icke on world politics, because they're equally capable in the respective fields.

You're welcome to your opinion. However, I find it weird you refer to yourself as 'we'. Do you think it adds weight to your position? To me, it sounds like Kurt Vonnegut Jnr's Granfalloon logical fallacy.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I'm happy for him to speak for me.

So that's a 'we'

 

[SpitfireIX]

I'm happy for him to speak for me.

So that's a 'we'

Same here.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I am not really interested in this 'personalities' stuff. Your calling someone an insane crank does not make them so.

Anders Bjorkman, for example, is not a crank because someone calls him a crank. He is a crank because he is a crank. We know he is a crank because he delights in telling us he's a crank.

As for Bjorkman, his name drives people crazy because he is ex-naval academy and spotted flaws in the JAIC's assumptions, for example, that a ship could float on it superstructure.

As for Bjorkman, the reason people laugh when you bring him up is because he is a crank who delights in telling us he's a crank.

Anders Björkman, qualified ship architect.

I am probably not the only person on earth who finds it hard to believe that someone whose understanding of physics leads him to deny the physical reality of nuclear weapons could be a qualified ship architect. He might well be a ship architect, but a qualified ship architect would not be so dismissive of 20th and 21st century physics.

You do it by implication. It's what a bad debater does. Instead of concentrating on the issue, they start attacking individual people (such as 'Bollyn' or Björkman [or Mignini]) instead of the abstract ideas they might be presenting.

Björkman delights in presenting the abstract idea that "a nuclear explosion is a deception or a joke! It has never happened!"

Björkman's abstract ideas have been attacked, as well they should be, because that's what good debaters do.

What bad debaters do is to appeal to the personal authority of an obvious crank because (1) they lack the knowledge to address the technical issues on their own, so (2) they must resort to appeal to authority, but (3) cannot find any credible authorities who agree with them, and must therefore (4) appeal to the authority of an obvious crank.

Anders Bjorkman could be a one-legged ginger or a strapping German with gingivitis, I wouldn't care a darn. Likewise, who cares if Isaac Newton liked solitude or if Hemingway was as pissed as a newt? What's interesting to me would be their ideas.

Björkman's ideas are interesting for the same reason that Cotard's syndrome is interesting.

Cotard's syndrome...is a rare mental disorder in which the affected person holds the delusional belief that they are deceased, do not exist, are putrefying, or have lost their blood or internal organs.

If you have a problem with Anders Bjorkman take it up with him. Nowt to do with me. I certainly haven't borrowed his ideas.

@Vixen merely hears his ideas, considers them seriously, and pretends her consideration of this obvious crackpot's ideas should be taken as evidence that she is "objective and applying reason", hence "far better than following the crowd":

He thinks the accident was the fault of the Estonian crew so I am quite capable of hearing the views of others without adopting them. It's called being objective and applying reason. OK, so one might be wrong but IMV that is far better than following the crowd and being swayed by someone else's views on personalities and prejudices. So 'let's all hate Anders Bjorkman' sounds pathetic to me.

What's pathetic is the idea that giving serious consideration to Björkman's ideas could be a sign of objectivity and reason.

 

[zooterkin]

Please can you provide an exact citation of the post you are referring to, together with the relevant context (e.g., the post to which I was responding). Otherwise we are simply taking your word for it that I committed a heinous misdemeanour.

Don't you read your own posts?

I never make anything up. All of my comments are sourced, unless I state 'IMV'.


Estonia Ferry Disaster com

Putin was KGB Head in 1991 when the Soviet Union fell and the Head of the newly formed Russian spy agency as from that date.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You're welcome to your opinion. However, I find it weird you refer to yourself as 'we'. Do you think it adds weight to your position? To me, it sounds like Kurt Vonnegut Jnr's Granfalloon logical fallacy.

Stop trying to deflect.

It isn't an opinion that you're lying about what everyone else is saying, it's verifiable fact. You're a habitual liar.

It also isn't an opinion that Bjorkman is a dishonest crank with pathetically poor physics knowledge. It's verifiable fact. He lies about his qualifications and he routinely makes physics errors small children wouldn't make.

Oh and he isn't a qualified naval architect. That's a self aggrandising lie he tells.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Long standing members are familiar with Björkman and his ideas.
He used to be a member of the forum.

 

[Vixen]

Anders Bjorkman, for example, is not a crank because someone calls him a crank. He is a crank because he is a crank. We know he is a crank because he delights in telling us he's a crank.


As for Bjorkman, the reason people laugh when you bring him up is because he is a crank who delights in telling us he's a crank.


I am probably not the only person on earth who finds it hard to believe that someone whose understanding of physics leads him to deny the physical reality of nuclear weapons could be a qualified ship architect. He might well be a ship architect, but a qualified ship architect would not be so dismissive of 20th and 21st century physics.


Björkman delights in presenting the abstract idea that "a nuclear explosion is a deception or a joke! It has never happened!"

Björkman's abstract ideas have been attacked, as well they should be, because that's what good debaters do.

What bad debaters do is to appeal to the personal authority of an obvious crank because (1) they lack the knowledge to address the technical issues on their own, so (2) they must resort to appeal to authority, but (3) cannot find any credible authorities who agree with them, and must therefore (4) appeal to the authority of an obvious crank.


Björkman's ideas are interesting for the same reason that Cotard's syndrome is interesting.



@Vixen merely hears his ideas, considers them seriously, and pretends her consideration of this obvious crackpot's ideas should be taken as evidence that she is "objective and applying reason", hence "far better than following the crowd":

What's pathetic is the idea that giving serious consideration to Björkman's ideas could be a sign of objectivity and reason.

Sorry, I find this weird. If some guy wants to pontificate on atom bombs and whatever, who cares?

 

[Vixen]

Don't you read your own posts?

People are allowed to make mistakes.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Sorry, I find this weird. If some guy wants to pontificate on atom bombs and whatever, who cares?

He isn't pontificating on them, he's saying they are impossible. He is claiming that the laws of physics, the thing you're trying to pretend he is an expert in, means atom bombs are impossible.


Just be honest Vixen, none of this is serious for you is it? You're just trying to keep the discussion going by any means necessary. You don't believe that he is just "[pontificating] on atom bombs" you know that he's a delusional crank.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

People are allowed to make mistakes.

It's not the mistake, it's the fact you outright stated that everything you say is sourced and verified unless it is explicitly stated to be your opinion.

So what was the source and verification for your claims about Putin?

 

[Vixen]

Stop trying to deflect.

It isn't an opinion that you're lying about what everyone else is saying, it's verifiable fact. You're a habitual liar.

It also isn't an opinion that Bjorkman is a dishonest crank with pathetically poor physics knowledge. It's verifiable fact. He lies about his qualifications and he routinely makes physics errors small children wouldn't make.

Oh and he isn't a qualified naval architect. That's a self aggrandising lie he tells.

Do you have any evidence he never went to naval college? It sounds bigoted to me that you hate him because you don't believe people should be allowed to pontificate on whatever it is they pontificate on. David Icke for example, If people buy his books, why should you care? This thread isn't about personalities - not something that interests me in the slightest; Bjorkman and Icke can juggle skittles backwards on roller-skates for all I care - so please can we get back to the topic.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Do you have any evidence he never went to naval college? It sounds bigoted to me that you hate him because you don't believe people should be allowed to pontificate on whatever it is they pontificate on. David Icke for example, If people buy his books, why should you care? This thread isn't about personalities - not something that interests me in the slightest; Bjorkman and Icke can juggle skittles backwards on roller-skates for all I care - so please can we get back to the topic.

Amazing. Just lie after lie about what I said.

You can't possibly be stupid enough to believe that I, or anyone else, disagree with your use of Bjorkman as an expert because of his personality. No one is that stupid. You're obviously lying like a rug.

Oh and the first bit? Reversal of the burden of proof there. There is no evidence he is qualified as he says. Indeed he's been caught lying about it repeatedly.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Sorry, I find this weird. If some guy wants to pontificate on atom bombs and whatever, who cares?

Doesn't saying that the laws of physics don't allow them to work or exist throw some doubt on his reliability?
Even you must see it makes his opinions on other matters of physics suspect.

 

[zooterkin]

Do you have any evidence he never went to naval college?

Do you even read the posts you reply to? There is no claim in the post you quoted that says Bjorkman didn't got to naval college. (I have no idea whether he did or not, but that's not the claim in the post.). The claim is that he is not a qualified naval architect.

 

[Vixen]

He isn't pontificating on them, he's saying they are impossible. He is claiming that the laws of physics, the thing you're trying to pretend he is an expert in, means atom bombs are impossible.


Just be honest Vixen, none of this is serious for you is it? You're just trying to keep the discussion going by any means necessary. You don't believe that he is just "[pontificating] on atom bombs" you know that he's a delusional crank.

Bjorkman is a name brought up as being some kind of antidote to the Estonia reinvestigation. I can't remember the last time I mentioned him in any meaningful way. Whether he is a crank or not doesn't cancel out the topic at hand. Not sure what the panic is about.

 

[Dabop]

Long standing members are familiar with Björkman and his ideas.
He used to be a member of the forum.

Correct, I was reading the forums when he first made an appearance- it didn't take long for his obvious signs of 'crankiness' to appear and he was quickly discredited...

 

[zooterkin]

Bjorkman is a name brought up as being some kind of antidote to the Estonia reinvestigation. I can't remember the last time I mentioned him in any meaningful way. Whether he is a crank or not doesn't cancel out the topic at hand. Not sure what the panic is about.

It was less than two months ago, as your memory seems to be dodgy.

Anders Björkman, qualified ship architect.

 

[Vixen]

Doesn't saying that the laws of physics don't allow them to work or exist throw some doubt on his reliability?
Even you must see it makes his opinions on other matters of physics suspect.

I read his various stuff on this and whilst I found them far left field, even potty, it doesn't bother me that there are eggheads who enjoy 'what-if' type discussiosn. It doesn't appeal to me but I can't see anything to get upset about.

 

[Vixen]

Do you even read the posts you reply to? There is no claim in the post you quoted that says Bjorkman didn't got to naval college. (I have no idea whether he did or not, but that's not the claim in the post.). The claim is that he is not a qualified naval architect.

Citation please of where it says he is not a qualified naval architect as he claims?