Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[MarkCorrigan]

Praise and criticism are all the same to me.

You know, I think that might be the first thing you've said in this thread I've agreed with.

Your attempts to shove your interlocutors into roles they have no interest in playing is clear.

 

[JayUtah]

Praise and criticism are all the same to me.

Nope. You whine like a child when the well-deserved criticism of your ignorant claims occasionally touches a nerve.

You didn't challenge any of my observations for how you really conduct yourself at this forum, so I take it you consider them accurate and fair, and that you concede them to be the true contours of your purported interest.

 

[Vixen]

If, as you imply, you were quoting an AI response to a question you asked, I think it illustrates a problem: If you hope it will give you something smart to say about a topic you really don't grasp, it tries to answer your question as posed instead of saying "What I suspect you're trying to ask me is...".

Its reply told you how to calculate some or other value you thought should apply specifically to a 15,000 ton ship, but you didn't even notice the formula took no account of the mass of the ship. That's an awfully big clue for everyone else that you really did not understand what you thought you were talking about.

Consider the following:

• You drop a feather and a stone from a tall building. Which hits the ground first?
• You drop a feather and a stone into the sea to a depth of 100 metres. Which lands at the bottom first?

To tackle the question, start by assuming fixed conditions, such as a vacuum. Once you have made this assumption, then you know your answer will be they both land at the same time, ceteris paribus.

Having ascertained that, you can then add in variables such as air pressure and water pressure, etcetera, etcetera.

I couldn't find at what force the Estonia was presumed to have hit the sea bed so I inserted the variables I did know and 800.6 meganewtons was the answer that came up. In fact, its deadweight is a further 3,000 tonnes to the 15K tonnes or so, and of course it appeared to sink stern first so who knows how it landed and at what speed given the unknown factors. The JAIC doesn't provide this information so how else is one supposed to work it out other than a heuristic estimate?

 

[Vixen]

Start reading here.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13696685&postcount=3722

You alleged a fact for which you gave no source. The allegation was that Sweden "disappeared" two Egyptians in 2001, which does not accurately describe what happened. Others discovered that the source for the particular spin you alleged was likely an article by Christopher Bollyn. You denied that Bollyn was your source, but you declined to say what your source was instead. The allegations and reasoning you deployed follows Bollyn's article reasonably closely. You asserted merely that you "looked it up" without giving important details. Absent better information from you, it's reasonable to conclude that your source was Bollyn and that you don't want to admit it, despite having apparently cited Bollyn previously as authority for a different question (per Reformed Offian).

Either your source was Bollyn, whom you you admit is not reputable, or you declined to name your source for your particular (and wrong) claim regarding Sweden. Either way, you cannot claim that all your allegations have been supported by reputable sources.

"Endorsement" is your straw man. The question is not whether you endorse his claims, or whether you stated or disavowed anywhere that you do. The question is whether he was your source for a claim that he clearly made and you repeated, and for which you provide no alternate source.

That is a post by Stamuel. The article by Christopher Bollyn is hardly original and sums up nicely the issue of the mix up over Arvo Piht.

The fact that Bollyn is a conspiracy theorist who believes 9/11 was some kind of Zionist conspiracy doesn't mean I agree with his political beliefs or theories.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

That's a good label. How many times has Vixen simply hurled the phrase, "the law of Archimedes!" irrelevantly at a question, like so much Expecto patronum?

I was sure I'd got the label from you...

But yes, the repeated claim that something violates Archimedes, followed by absolute silence when asked "how?" makes it obvious that it's just being flung out to try and silence criticism.

That's an attractive spell because people try to say they're being personally attacked simply because people oppose their claims. I've been guilty in the past of addressing claims tersely by simply giving the name of the relevant fallacy. Nowadays I try to explain why I think that was the fallacy committed. It cuts the other way too. When I name a fallacy Vixen has deployed, she digs in and insists I don't know what the named fallacy means.

Which is even more amusing because it's clear who really doesn't understand.

Jabba also threw around a lot of pseudo-statistics mumbo jumbo. He couldn't actually work the Bayesian formula or describe how it could be justifiably parameterized to achieve his results. He didn't care. It was the magic incantation that proved him right, and no amount of instruction or discussion from skeptics could shake him.

God, the Jabba thread was hilarious. Painful, but also hilarious.

Oh, sure, any of us can quickly think of a body of expertise in which we are individually all at sea (pun intended).

Absolutely. I wouldn't argue I'm an expert in anything but I can acknowledge there are certain areas I'm more adept than a layman. This absolutely is not one of them.

People desire greatness.

I guess so yes, I mean I wouldn't object to being considered great, or a polymath, but I'm not so I don't even try to claim it.

Each person defines that differently. For some people, being broadly smart or clever or especially insightful is what they think will make them great. If they can't get there legitimately, some fake it.

Which is what I don't get. I'm comfortable being how I am.

A neuroscientist named Biderman or Biederman (I forget which) found evidence of a neurological payoff from the belief that one has discovered, or is privy to, hidden or secret information. For some, I suspect greatness comes in this form.

Interesting.

Haha, exactly. Apropos, like many people, I know the rules of chess. I know there are strategies, but I don't really have a head that appreciates them. I look at openings and transcripts of great games, but it's largely chaos to me. I don't mind that this is how I perceive chess. I know that for others it is instinctive, well-ingrained, or otherwise conducive to expertise. But I know that if I tried to formulate a chess opening on my own, it would be strictly out of comparative ignorance. I don't know what makes a good opening. And certainly if Kasparov told me that my opening was gibberish, I wouldn't argue.

For me, greatness is not tied up in understanding chess or playing it especially well. If it were, I fear my mediocrity would be an impediment to genuinely achieving greatness. I might therefore behave in a way that reinforces a belief in my proficiency without regard to the real world.

Same. I can play chess, I'm tolerable at it, but I'm not particularly good and I don't care that I'm not that good.

 

[Vixen]

You know, I think that might be the first thing you've said in this thread I've agreed with.

Your attempts to shove your interlocutors into roles they have no interest in playing is clear.

<Yawn>

 

[JayUtah]

Having ascertained that, you can then add in variables such as air pressure and water pressure, etcetera, etcetera.

Water pressure is irrelevant.

...how else is one supposed to work it out other than a heuristic estimate?

By being appropriately qualified in the relevant sciences. Not by plugging various numbers and poorly-informed assumptions into ChatGPT and smugly assuming the drivel that issues forth—which you clearly don't understand—trumps the confident answers of people who actually dounderstand the problem.

You are not a physicist. You don't understand most, if not all, the real-world factors that apply to the sinking of MS Estonia and its subsequent investigations. You are not the teacher. You're not even a good student.

 

[Vixen]

Nope. You whine like a child when the well-deserved criticism of your ignorant claims occasionally touches a nerve.

You didn't challenge any of my observations for how you really conduct yourself at this forum, so I take it you consider them accurate and fair, and that you concede them to be the true contours of your purported interest.

I am not really into personal issues.

 

[JayUtah]

That is a post by Stamuel.

Correct. You asked for the post in which you were accused of using Bollyn as your source. That is the post.

The article by Christopher Bollyn is hardly original and sums up nicely the issue of the mix up over Arvo Piht.

Was Bollyn your source? If not, what other document was your source?

 

[Vixen]

Water pressure is irrelevant.



By being appropriately qualified in the relevant sciences. Not by plugging various numbers and poorly-informed assumptions into ChatGPT and smugly assuming the drivel that issues forth—which you clearly don't understand—trumps the confident answers of people who actually dounderstand the problem.

You are not a physicist. You don't understand most, if not all, the real-world factors that apply to the sinking of MS Estonia and its subsequent investigations. You are not the teacher. You're not even a good student.

It's a good job I have not claimed to be any of those things,

 

[MarkCorrigan]

<Yawn>

You do. It's really obvious Vixen. You keep arguing against things that people haven't said and insisting that their opinions are what you claim, not what they express.

For example, in the argument about the Egyptians removed from Sweden, my argument was solely that this did not meet the criteria for enforced disappearance, and repeatedly stated I thought it was a horrific decision made by the Swedes and that it shouldn't have been allowed.

Despite my very specific disavowing of the actions taken, you repeatedly and shamelessly claimed that I was arguing that it was perfectly ok, and was just an ordinary deportation. At one point you even insinuated that I was ok with the deportation because they weren't white.

 

[Vixen]

Correct. You asked for the post in which you were accused of using Bollyn as your source. That is the post.



Was Bollyn your source? If not, what other document was your source?

As I recall someone else pointed out that it had been written by Bollyn. As it was a generic piece I didn't think discovering the author was important for the quick point I was making ATT. Arvo Piht is not owned by Bollyn any more than he owns 9/11.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I am not really into personal issues.

That's a lie. You've insulted all of your interlocutors at various times in these threads, and you've made libellous allegations against several people, claiming that they were making callous jokes at the expense of the dead.

 

[Vixen]

You do. It's really obvious Vixen. You keep arguing against things that people haven't said and insisting that their opinions are what you claim, not what they express.

For example, in the argument about the Egyptians removed from Sweden, my argument was solely that this did not meet the criteria for enforced disappearance, and repeatedly stated I thought it was a horrific decision made by the Swedes and that it shouldn't have been allowed.

Despite my very specific disavowing of the actions taken, you repeatedly and shamelessly claimed that I was arguing that it was perfectly ok, and was just an ordinary deportation. At one point you even insinuated that I was ok with the deportation because they weren't white.

Given that at the time refugees and asylum seekers deported to Egypt were subjected to horrendous torture I thought it was horrifying that you insisted that they were just 'ordinary deportations'. I didn't mention race at all. I did point out it was the type of attitude of certain people on the political spectrum who believe all asylum seekers should be 'kicked out'. The fact of the matter is that Sweden accepted it had wrongly handed over the two asylum seekers by plucking them off the streets and without giving them a chance to ring their solicitors. One of them was given Swedish citizenship and a large sum of money in compensation as an apology. It was not an ordinary deportation by any means.

 

[Vixen]

That's a lie. You've insulted all of your interlocutors at various times in these threads, and you've made libellous allegations against several people, claiming that they were making callous jokes at the expense of the dead.

Perhaps concentrate on the topic thread.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Given that at the time refugees and asylum seekers deported to Egypt were subjected to horrendous torture I thought it was horrifying that you insisted that they were just 'ordinary deportations'.

But I never did. This is exactly what I mean, I never once claimed they were ordinary deportations.

I didn't mention race at all.

That is a lie.

Or is it only OK if that person is a certain demographic?

I did point out it was the type of attitude of certain people on the political spectrum who believe all asylum seekers should be 'kicked out'. The fact of the matter is that Sweden accepted it had wrongly handed over the two asylum seekers by plucking them off the streets and without giving them a chance to ring their solicitors. One of them was given Swedish citizenship and a large sum of money in compensation as an apology. It was not an ordinary deportation by any means.

Good thing I never claimed it was an ordinary deportation then, isn't it? All I stated was that they did not meet the criteria of enforced disappearance.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Perhaps concentrate on the topic thread.

I'm responding to a claim by you on how you have comported yourself in this thread. A claim that was a lie.

 

[Steve]

Perhaps concentrate on the topic thread.

There's an idea! Care to bring us up to date on the official status of "The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened" without incorporating the personal opinions of yourself or others? Because, after all, your opinions have no status or bearing on the official investigation.

 

[The Man]

There's an idea! Care to bring us up to date on the official status of "The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened" without incorporating the personal opinions of yourself or others? Because, after all, your opinions have no status or bearing on the official investigation.

Hey, don't forget 'Praise and criticism are all the same'. If Vixen criticizes the handling of the case or the investigation that's just praising the same.

 

[JayUtah]

As I recall someone else pointed out that it had been written by Bollyn. As it was a generic piece I didn't think discovering the author was important for the quick point I was making ATT. Arvo Piht is not owned by Bollyn any more than he owns 9/11.

You had previously cited Bollyn for a different question. On this point, you allege the particular spin you put on the question was widely expressed, but could not provide another source for it.

Either your claim as stated was unsourced or your source was Bollyn. Which is it?

ETA: You have a habit of withholding or concealing your sources when you know we have reason to consider them disreputable. You need to convince us that’s not what you did in this case. If your source for the claim that Sweden “disappeared” the Egyptians, instead of being deported—as all others reported—exists and was not Bollyn, tell us what it was. Otherwise the best conclusion according to the evidence is that Bollyn was your source, but you declined to tell us.