• 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 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...
Click to expand...
No, that isn't the issue. The issue is your failure to back up your opinions with reliable evidence.

ETA: And you should make up your mind about whether or not you are presenting your own opinions here. You have repeatedly insisted that rather than promoting conspiracy theories you are Just Asking Questions about what you have seen presented elsewhere. If this is the case then the reliability of your sources is entirely relevant.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I have done nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...
You claim to be a triple-niner. You claimed your critics had "low comprehension." You claim your critics are insensitive to what you suppose the sentiments of the survivors and victims must be in the face of challenges to the official narrative.

Vixen said:
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?
Click to expand...
You are in a skeptics forum presenting arguments and claims of the very type that skeptics like to challenge. No one is claiming "ownership." No one is opposing mere interest. But your constant mischaracterization of what you're doing here is so very tedious. Your interest extends no further than the conspiracy theories you raise here. Insofar as you behave like a conspiracy theorist, skeptics will treat you as one.
 
JayUtah said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...
Please advise what 'conspiracy theories' you believe I subscribe to, so that we can all be aware of what you are referring to.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
No.

Your critics are not so much dumber than you that they can't appreciate the genius with which you form your arguments. On the contrary, your critics are quite adept at seeing through what amounts to little more than your arrogance and sophomoric tactics. Your reasoning is demonstrably poor, and you simply "go personal" when others appropriately demonstrate that to you. And yes, we are laughing at the notion that you're trying posture your fumbling and stumbling through topics you don't understand as if it were instead evidence of your superior intellect.

Vixen said:
The more intellectual papers deal with ideas and analysis. That is a good analogy as to how this gap works.
Click to expand...
No.

You simply don't know what you're talking about, and most of us can easily see this.
 
Vixen said:
I have never said anyone should believe me.
Click to expand...
You're in luck, then.

The problem is not that you present "alternate" theories about things, the problem is that you present them as if they were reasonable when you apparently don't have the knowledge or expertise to determine if they're reasonable or not. Then when people with that expertise (or at least the expertise to know where to look for people who do have the expertise) tell you why what you've presented is not reasonable you cry that you're being repressed because you do have the expertise and by the way you never said you believed in what you presented anyway so it's not your fault and everyone just doesn't understand!

It's not good debate, it's just... Well, whatever it is it's not good debate or good conversation.
 
Mojo said:
No, that isn't the issue. The issue is your failure to back up your opinions with reliable evidence.

ETA: And you should make up your mind about whether or not you are presenting your own opinions here. You have repeatedly insisted that rather than promoting conspiracy theories you are Just Asking Questions about what you have seen presented elsewhere. If this is the case then the reliability of your sources is entirely relevant.
Click to expand...
I have never said anything of the sort. As my Yorkie friend used to say, 'Shut t'gob, pin back t'lugg'oles and put t'brain in gear'. LISTEN. I am following the news - nota bene - and please do go back to my exercise in revisiting the reasons I gave for being interested in it. Can you name any of them? If not, you are just relying on stonewalling and a refusal to believe I am interested for reasons given, preferring to believe in my being some kind of whipping boy for some mythical 'conspiracy theorist' whom you wished existed, so you can mock with impunity. As long as we are all in agreement about this.
 
JayUtah said:
You claim to be a triple-niner. You claimed your critics had "low comprehension." You claim your critics are insensitive to what you suppose the sentiments of the survivors and victims must be in the face of challenges to the official narrative.


You are in a skeptics forum presenting arguments and claims of the very type that skeptics like to challenge. No one is claiming "ownership." No one is opposing mere interest. But your constant mischaracterization of what you're doing here is so very tedious. Your interest extends no further than the conspiracy theories you raise here. Insofar as you behave like a conspiracy theorist, skeptics will treat you as one.
Click to expand...

I would stick my neck out and say I am the sceptic here.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh my! You actually believe this has anything to do with why a poster named Vixen has used Bjorkman as a source over 200 times, don't you? In fact you used him because you believe, absent any actual supporting evidence at all, what he had to say. A genuinely interested person, be they Bjorkman or Vixen, would look at the overwhelming evidence available here and elsewhere and realize that they are being presented with a scenario that accurately reflects reality. Broken windows, tracked submarines, radioactive material, "disappeared" people, what the bridge crew was wearing, murdered captains, and your myriad other strange ideas are totally disconnected from each other and from reality. There is a consistent narrative available for the events related to the sinking. You have no such narrative and are reduced to pathetic JAQing of increasingly bizarre ideas.
 
It is amusing that so many 'conspiracy theorists' all behave in a very similar if not identical manner- almost always denying that they 'are' conspiracy theorists, and are 'Just Asking Questions' (a tactic so common it has its own wikipedia entry), often claim advanced or high level qualifications- almost always never verified or verifiable, and usually self proclaimed 'intelligence' well above average and of anyone else posting...
 
JimOfAllTrades said:
You're in luck, then.

The problem is not that you present "alternate" theories about things, the problem is that you present them as if they were reasonable when you apparently don't have the knowledge or expertise to determine if they're reasonable or not. Then when people with that expertise (or at least the expertise to know where to look for people who do have the expertise) tell you why what you've presented is not reasonable you cry that you're being repressed because you do have the expertise and by the way you never said you believed in what you presented anyway so it's not your fault and everyone just doesn't understand!

It's not good debate, it's just... Well, whatever it is it's not good debate or good conversation.
Click to expand...
I don't agree one should abnegate reasoning to others. If someone presents a view and gives their reasoning, that's fine by me. When people come out with logical fallacies instead of reasoning, it 's twitter (cesspit)-style flaming, more because it is fun (for them) rather than any real interest in the issue, or a bowlderised view of what the issue is. So I found Evertsson's documentary fascinating and gave reasoning, including what various experts and eye-witnesses related, arising from it. AFAICS this is a perfectly reasonable method of debating. Not sure why I anyone should get upset about it.
 
Vixen said:
I followed the cases of Jeremy Bamber, Lucy Letby and Amanda Knox et al closely and I came to my opinion - which of course might be wrong - by a process of weighing up the evidence presented in court together with the arguments of the counsel and by doing my own delving.
Click to expand...
Wrong on all three - why should this be any different?
 
Steve said:
Oh my! You actually believe this has anything to do with why a poster named Vixen has used Bjorkman as a source over 200 times, don't you? In fact you used him because you believe, absent any actual supporting evidence at all, what he had to say. A genuinely interested person, be they Bjorkman or Vixen, would look at the overwhelming evidence available here and elsewhere and realize that they are being presented with a scenario that accurately reflects reality. Broken windows, tracked submarines, radioactive material, "disappeared" people, what the bridge crew was wearing, murdered captains, and your myriad other strange ideas are totally disconnected from each other and from reality. There is a consistent narrative available for the events related to the sinking. You have no such narrative and are reduced to pathetic JAQing of increasingly bizarre ideas.
Click to expand...
Yes, I note people enjoy that kind of language. Identification of the bodies on the bridge (or lack thereof) is a real thing to those of us interested in it. Amazing you think you can order me not to care about it.
 
Vixen said:
I have never said anything of the sort. As my Yorkie friend used to say, 'Shut t'gob, pin back t'lugg'oles and put t'brain in gear'. LISTEN. I am following the news - nota bene - and please do go back to my exercise in revisiting the reasons I gave for being interested in it. Can you name any of them? If not, you are just relying on stonewalling and a refusal to believe I am interested for reasons given, preferring to believe in my being some kind of whipping boy for some mythical 'conspiracy theorist' whom you wished existed, so you can mock with impunity. As long as we are all in agreement about this.
Click to expand...
Question: are the conspiracy theories you have presented here your own opinions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom