No, that isn't the issue. The issue is your failure to back up your opinions with reliable evidence.
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.
Please advise what 'conspiracy theories' you believe I subscribe to, so that we can all be aware of what you are referring to.
No.
No.
You're in luck, then.
See the previous 800 or so pages of this thread.
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.
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.
No.
The word, as you have already been told, is contrarian.
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.
Wrong on all three - why should this be any different?
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.
Question: are the conspiracy theories you have presented here your own opinions?
Expressing initial surprise at the speed of the sinking before the cause was known does not mean doubt in the cause.
It's the sort of argument we often see presented by creationists, where any questioning of or disagreement about the details by scientists mean that evolution is somehow questionable.