• 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:
Oh dear. You haven't grasped that Bjorkman was using graphics recreated by some university research bods (Edinburgh IIRC) based on what the JAIC said in its report. So if Bjorkman shows a pic of the MV Estonia it becomes his property, according to your logic.
Click to expand...
Nope, you haven't grasped that you were repeatedly asked where YOU got the diagram from, and said you didn't get it from Bjorkman.

Which you did, you got the image from Bjorkman's website, because you posted his image with his graphics overlaid on it. And you then lie and said it wasn't from Bjorkman, and said that you couldn't remember what website you got it from, and then claimed that you "knew it was from Edinburgh University", which it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Some friends back in the UK report British Mensa recently consented to another psychologist sending members a questionnaire based on her theory that high IQ is linked to autism.
Click to expand...
So what? What exactly are you trying to prove by telling us stories about psychologists using the Myer-Briggs test at British Mensa? I suspect you've got no point whatsoever here and are just waffling to avoid answering direct questions, which you seem pathologically incapable of.
 
JayUtah said:
We'll get to ships in a minute. My question has to do with two cars of identical mass that collide with the same object at the same velocity, 10 meters per second. Make them airplanes, if you want. The circumstances that led to the collisions were different in each case. But the physical parameters are identical. You seem to be arguing that the circumstances change the physics. Explain.
Click to expand...
No, that is not being argued at all. (1) Firstly, in a crash as described by yourself, the immoveable barrier is not the cause of the accident and (2) it could be argued there are other variables as to the outcome other than the two you have restricted it to. But ceteris paribus the end result is the same.
 
JesseCuster said:
Nope, you haven't grasped that you were repeatedly asked where YOU got the diagram from, and said you didn't get it from Bjorkman.

Which you did, you got the image from Bjorkman's website, because you posted his image with his graphics overlaid on it. And you then lie and said it wasn't from Bjorkman, and said that you couldn't remember what website you got it from, and then claimed that you "knew it was from Edinburgh University", which it isn't.
Click to expand...
I see. So if Bjorkman cites JAIC direct, it becomes Bjorkman's own.
 
Vixen said:
It doesn't rhyme does it? It's a play on words.
Click to expand...
Watch as I make Vixen avoid answering another question and avoid giving a citation or reference for a claim of hers.

Vixen, I challenge you to provide a reference (any reliable reference whatsover) for "kemo sabe" is Cockney slang for "understand?" and which is a play on words. You're so predictable with your inability to backup your claims and with your inability to answer direct questions, that you're going to respond, but not actually provide the reference or citation that would prove you right.
 
Vixen said:
A vessel is deliberately designed to be buoyant. A car is not. So you are not comparing like for like. Try sinking a plastic duck in the bath.
Click to expand...
You are completely incapable of answering a straight question.

Since we're talking about a ship hitting a rock at the bottom of the sea, buoyancy is clearly no longer a factor. The momentum of the object is, however, which depends on mass.
 
Vixen said:
If the duck's head is above the water line, you would need to cheat and push it down forcibly.
Click to expand...
Or splash the duck repeatedly with water high enough to enter the opening.

Once the vessel (or duck) takes on enough water, it floats like a brick. The design for buoyancy depends on the "keeping water out" part.
 
Vixen said:
Sorry if you've never had the pleasure of hearing it but I have. So bad luck.
Click to expand...
No, you haven't. Or if you have it was a peculiarity of one person that isn't part of actual cockney slang. You're either misremembering something (probably savvy) or you're lying.
 
JesseCuster said:
So what? What exactly are you trying to prove by telling us stories about psychologists using the Myer-Briggs test at British Mensa? I suspect you've got no point whatsoever here and are just waffling to avoid answering direct questions, which you seem pathologically incapable of.
Click to expand...
A poster asked where I first heard of Myers-Briggs and was it part of my psychology course and I politely told him.
 
Vixen said:
A poster asked where I first heard of Myers-Briggs and was it part of my psychology course and I politely told him.
Click to expand...
No, that isn't what happened. Do you genuinely think that anyone will buy the obvious gaslighting you hamfistedly attempt? It's just ridiculous.
 
Vixen said:
I see. So if Bjorkman cites JAIC direct, it becomes Bjorkman's own.
Click to expand...
That's either a completely dishonest interpretation of what I said, or your reading comprehension is truly abysmal.

You used an image from Bjorkman's website, and then explicitly denied that you got it from Bjorkman's website. You were caught out again being sleazy and dishonest about your sources.

I bet you can't and won't say where you actually got the image from.
 
Vixen said:
Ah but the head didn't fall off by itself did it?
Click to expand...
No, it failed due to external factors (the waves in the rough seas) and internal factors (bad maintenance, possibly a design deficit). But if you're talking about floating once the vessel has taken on enough water and gone under the reason it has no head doesn't affect how it sinks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom