• 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:
That was the picture of evidence at the time. It was widely known that he was a loss adjuster in the insurance field all the while he was claiming to be a naval architect, although this wasn't discovered until later. And his demonstrated lack of proficiency was obviously inconsistent with his having earned an advanced degree in the physical sciences. And until just very recently, the school in question could produce no record of his attendance.


No. You are the one obsessed with personalities. We're looking squarely and only at his qualifications.


You mean other than his demonstrated lack of understanding?
Click to expand...
It seems to me you only claim he is a complete dunce because you disagree with his views. That is the difference between you and me. I can look at people's ideas objectively and rationally and if I disagree with them I can still acknowledge they are not necessarily a bad person or devoid of knowledge or education.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
So far as I am aware, Kazuo Ishiguro's first novel does not deny the reality of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Imagining a survivor whose narration is unreliable in part because she does not like to remember that reality is not the same as denying that reality. Not that it would matter even if an avowedly fictional novel were to deny that reality. Ishiguro's readers can distinguish fiction from reality, even though @Vixen cannot.

So far as I am aware, Kazuo Ishiguro's fiction has not given us any account of the MS Estonia disaster, whether imagined or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
He's written several around the topic. Great writer.
Click to expand...
Please direct my attention to what Ishiguro has written about the MS Estonia.
 
JayUtah said:
That wasn't my question. I asked why you're so vigorously trying to rehabilitate Björkman as an expert witness.
Click to expand...
I have never rejected nor rehabilitated him. AFAIAA he is a qualified naval architect so I respect his views even if I don't agree with them. I don't see any need to be so insecure I need to tell myself people who disagree with me are somehow lacking,
 
Vixen said:
It seems to me you only claim he is a complete dunce because you disagree with his views. That is the difference between you and me. I can look at people's ideas objectively and rationally and if I disagree with them I can still acknowledge they are not necessarily a bad person or devoid of knowledge or education.
Click to expand...
It hardly needs saying again, but people reject him as an authority because he is wrong about stuff. It's not about whether you conclude he is a bad person or assume he is stupid or uneducated. It's about his being an unreliable authority on technical matters, based on the entirely reasonable observation that he is stubbornly wrong about stuff.

You're perfectly at liberty to champion him as an adorable and sympathetic and sincere character. None of that is really at issue. But if you present his crackpot work as your wot-I-reckon about how the Estonia sank, you are on the very thinnest ice and may expect to be challenged on it each time you do.
 
Vixen said:
It seems to me you only claim he is a complete dunce because you disagree with his views.
Click to expand...
No. I dismiss him as an expert because he is provably wrong in exactly the ways he claims to be an expert.

Vixen said:
That is the difference between you and me. I can look at people's ideas objectively and rationally and if I disagree with them I can still acknowledge they are not necessarily a bad person or devoid of knowledge or education.
Click to expand...
Asked and answered. You are not qualified to determine whether someone is an expert in the physical sciences. In this case it is not a matter of differing perspective or of ideas that somehow stand alone on their merits, but someone claiming to base an expert judgment upon a foundation he cannot demonstrate. Your ongoing fixation on whether he's a "bad person" is a childish distraction.

You cited him not because he was a good or bad person, but because you believed he provided the judgment of an expert that the sinking of MS Estonia was suspicious for scientific reasons. It is exactly and only upon those grounds that his evidence was evaluated. All your virtue-signaling is pointless.
 
Vixen said:
I have never rejected nor rehabilitated him.
Click to expand...
You are trying very hard to rehabilitate him as an expert, as you have done many previous times in this thread.

Vixen said:
AFAIAA he is a qualified naval architect so I respect his views even if I don't agree with them.
Click to expand...
But you do agree with him, as you have stated many times in this thread.. And while it has been established that he did in fact earn an academic degree in naval architecture, it remains true that he is provably incompetent in the physical sciences, and has lied about his work.

Vixen said:
I don't see any need to be so insecure I need to tell myself people who disagree with me are somehow lacking,
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with insecurity. It is squarely a matter of laying a suitable foundation for people whose supposedly expert judgment you asked us to accept.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
It hardly needs saying again, but people reject him as an authority because he is wrong about stuff. It's not about whether you conclude he is a bad person or assume he is stupid or uneducated. It's about his being an unreliable authority on technical matters, based on the entirely reasonable observation that he is stubbornly wrong about stuff.

You're perfectly at liberty to champion him as an adorable and sympathetic and sincere character. None of that is really at issue. But if you present his crackpot work as your wot-I-reckon about how the Estonia sank, you are on the very thinnest ice and may expect to be challenged on it each time you do.
Click to expand...
Okay, okay, I get it: he's a baddie! He's BAD!!!
 
Vixen said:
Okay, okay, I get it: he's a baddie! He's BAD!!!
Click to expand...
Don't be childish. Your critics are unanimous in their rejection of Björkman solely on the grounds that he fails to demonstrate the technical and scientific proficiency commensurate to the judgment you wish us to accept as evidence. At this point you're just gaslighting.
 
Vixen said:
Okay, okay, I get it: he's a baddie! He's BAD!!!
Click to expand...
Why do you lie so habitually about what others are saying? It's pathetic, and you're a coward.

ETA: In fact I'll yet again challenge you to find anyone saying he is a "baddie". No, criticisms of his skill as an expert witness are not us attacking his character.

See if you can support your claims about what others are saying for once or if you will run away like a coward again.
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
Why do you lie so habitually about what others are saying? It's pathetic, and you're a coward.

ETA: In fact I'll yet again challenge you to find anyone saying he is a "baddie". No, criticisms of his skill as an expert witness are not us attacking his character.

See if you can support your claims about what others are saying for once or if you will run away like a coward again.
Click to expand...
You seem unable to understand that being surrounded by villagers with pitchforks is NOT the way I change my mind. Give me your objective reasoning as to why you believe this guy has no skill as an expert witness. Are you able to do that? With specific reference to the Estonia accident. Also, please avoid the logical fallacy of appealing to the crowd. As in 'We all say he is pants...'
 
Vixen said:
You seem unable to understand that being surrounded by villagers with pitchforks is NOT the way I change my mind. Give me your objective reasoning as to why you believe this guy has no skill as an expert witness. Are you able to do that? With specific reference to the Estonia accident. Also, please avoid the logical fallacy of appealing to the crowd. As in 'We all say he is pants...'
Click to expand...
Blah blah blah wallpaper words.

Ive answered the question previously, perhaps you missed my answer but I do not need to repeat myself.

On the other hand you are running away from my challenge to you. Quote someone saying the words you are desperately trying to shove into our mouths. Can be on Bjorkman, or perhaps people saying you need to be an engineer to be interested in the sinking, or any one of the many other lies you have told.

Come on Sir Robin, support your claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom