• 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:
I will wait to see with the pundits involved in this issue have to say about the final report when it is released.
Click to expand...
Based on how some of your sources have approached the investigation that already occurred, I would not consider them worth the attention. In the whole history of conspiracy theories, new findings by experts have never compelled the conspiracy theorists to pack up and go home.

Vixen said:
Because as I said, if you were listening, is that this is a news item I am following.
Click to expand...
We can read the thread for ourselves. You are a conspiracy theorist. The only conspiracy theories that have appeared in this thread are those you brought to it and invited commentary for.
 
Vixen said:
A contratrian is someone who argues for the sake of it.
Click to expand...
Such as someone who raises various conspiracy theories and invites debate on them, only to say she doesn't really subscribe to any of them once the debate goes badly for her.

Vixen said:
To me that is a totally bonkers way to form your opinion but sadly it is how many people here seem to behave.
Click to expand...
No, your critics here are not just sheeple being led around by social media. You're dabbling in what I do for a living. My license to do so doesn't come from YouTube.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
A search for posts by Vixen that include the name "Bjorkman" finds in excess of 200 hits.
Click to expand...
Yes because unbeknownst to myself this guy had once been on ISF spouting off about 9/11 as if having an opinion on one topic means anyone has to agree with anyone else on all topics. Bjorkman wasn't around to discuss the sinking of the Estonnia, here, so they are using me as a proxy as If I were him, just because Bjorkman was one of the persons agitating about the JAIC Report being wrong in respect of buoyancy and sinking.

Now, when 9/11 happened, like a lot of people, I was interested in understanding why one tower seemed to implode inwardly but that is because some people take an interest in such matters. Claiming you are not interested and anyone who is is <fx garlic and crucifix> sounds bigoted to me. If someone wants to understand how the atom bomb worked or how live signals were broadcast to earth from the moon or whatever, I honestly can't see anything wrong with it. Nerds will be nerds.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
A skilled debater can argue either for or against a proposition at the flip of a coin.

That's neither interesting nor relevant when considering why the Estonia sank.
Click to expand...
I was referring to certain posters' penchant for hurling false personal accusations as a debating tool, which IMV is both impolite and intemperate, as well as being improper.
 
Vixen said:
I have never said anyone should believe me.
Click to expand...
You have claimed to be intellectually superior to everyone here. You have claimed to be morally superior to everyone here. Why would it not follow that you expect to be taken seriously?

Vixen said:
Use your own powers of reasoning instead of handing it over to FOX News or the guy down the pub.
Click to expand...
No, your critics are not sheeple being led around by the nose. In most cases they know more about the issue than you do, and from a variety of reliable sources.
 
Vixen said:
...they are using me as a proxy as If I were him, just because Bjorkman was one of the persons agitating about the JAIC Report being wrong in respect of buoyancy and sinking.
Click to expand...
We are holding you accountable because you cited him as a source for a technical argument regarding buoyancy.

Vixen said:
No, I haven't cited him in a long time.
Click to expand...
You've stopped naming him as a source for the claim, but you haven't stopped making the claim. And you haven't stopped trying to rehabilitate him as a source, often comically.

Vixen said:
IOW they have a personal dislike of him, which they think is rational to use here.
Click to expand...
No. They have very good reasons not to consider him as an expert on physics, which is what you needed him to be. Your inability to understand the real reason for rejecting him as an expert baffles me.

Vixen said:
Now, when 9/11 happened, like a lot of people I was interesting in understanding why one tower seemed to implode inwardly but that is because some people take an interest in such matters. Claiming you are not interested and anyone who is is <fx garlic and crucifix> sounds bigoted to me.
Click to expand...
No, conspiracism is not mere "interest." You're not asking question to discover what happened or to expand your knowledge. You're asking questions you expect to be uncomfortable to the mainstream narrative. But since you don't know what you're talking about, those challenges fall flat.

Vixen said:
Nerds will be nerds.
Click to expand...
And conspiracy theorists will be conspiracy theorists.
 
JayUtah said:
You have claimed to be intellectually superior to everyone here. You have claimed to be morally superior to everyone here. Why would it not follow that you expect to be taken seriously?


No, your critics are not sheeple being led around by the nose. In most cases they know more about the issue than you do, and from a variety of reliable sources.
Click to expand...
I have done nothing of the sort. I offered my opinion that the communication gap - the refusal to believe that my opinions are formed by myself (not by some crank) and ignoring my reasoning - could be to do with the Simonton gap because others seemed not to understand that one can hold an opinion by means of careful and considered reasoning which isn't going to be changed by a stream of swear words demanding I change it. For example, the masses like the tabloids because they are all about personalities, Beckham, Farage, Ariana, whatever. The more intellectual papers deal with ideas and analysis. That is a good analogy as to how this gap works. SUN readers would think the OBSERVER boring and OBSERVER readers the SUN vice versa. It is neither good nor bad, it just is. Eleanor Roosevelt summed it up. So why do you keep 'telling me off' as though you have some kind of ownership over what I am allowed to be interested in?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I was referring to certain posters' penchant for hurling false personal accusations as a debating tool, which IMV is both impolite and intemperate, as well as being improper.
Click to expand...
Report those posts for moderation. Do not keep claiming as much for rhetorical effect.

You are here because you choose to be. You have participated heavily in this forum for years. You are making claims here that you fully know will be challenged in ways you should be accustomed to by now. To carry on in that manner while whining about how shabbily you think you're being treated is therefore pretty childish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom