|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Okie from Muskogee
Joined: 30 Jan 2014
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mayorgc wrote: |
| sweetrevenge wrote: |
| Quote: |
1. He abandoned ship instead of assisting passengers
2. He passed himself off as a passenger to the rescue boat
3. He was drying off his money after being rescued |
I don't wanna take sides in all this fiasco, but its hard to take your post seriously when you list a fault of the captain was drying his wet money on his hospital bed. Really? Cuz thats what got people killed? We should focus on the topic on hand and discuss why the captain did not prepare to evacuate the boat when that should be standard procedure for a sinking ship. But then again this has been discussed to death already in this thread and like somebody else said opinions may change when we get new information on the timeline of events. |
You'd be a dolt if that's how you interpreted that statement. The drying of the money is to show what type of character he really is. Because he is drying his money, while kids are dying, basically means he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. The drying of the money had nothing to do with the sinking. It pertains to his character. |
I think he was drying off his money so that when he goes to buy a pack of gum, he. can pay with dry money. I don't think Koreans accept wet money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You are what you post. My comments are based on that.
Again, he should have had them on deck. That's self-evident, and no matter how much conjecture you post, it still holds. That was the rational course of action.
|
So if the captain had ordered them on deck and some fell overboard and drowned, you wouldn't hold him responsible and blame him for making a bad decision?
| Quote: |
| I have no version of events. Neither do you. I posted very early on that it was best to wait until all the facts are in. But you, self-proclaimed expert, sail away on your half-baked timelines and fantasies. |
These aren't "half-baked". This is the official transcript of communications between Sewol and Jeju/Jindo VTS. It is documented the ship made a second dramatic turn at 8:52, 4 minutes after the first one. This coincides with a telephone call from a passenger to an emergency number. These are government records.
| Quote: |
| What I'm attacking is your continual efforts to muddy the waters |
How is posting the official transcript and a timeline of events muddying the waters?
==============================================
| Quote: |
| But in the court of public opinion, we have more than enough information to pass judgement. |
Well, I like my public opinion to follow guidelines closer to those of the courts and science rather than the guidelines of the mob and the media. Saying "We're in the court of public opinion and therefore don't have to follow standards" is just being intellectually lazy.
| Quote: |
| To even entertain the notion that the announcement to stay in the rooms was a calculated decision by the captain to save the ship is laughable. It's obvious to almost everybody that the order was given because the captain/people in charge had no clue what happened or what to do. |
But that's not what the official transcript indicates. That is a more accurate depiction than what you just wrote.
9:00 a.m.
Jeju Vessel Traffic Services Center: Yes, OK. Please put on the life vests and get ready as people may have to abandon ship.
Sewol: It is hard for people to move.
9:12 a.m.
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Sewol, this is Jindo VTS. Did the passengers board life raft or rescue boats?
Sewol: No, they haven't yet. They can't move because the vessel has listed.
9:14 a.m.
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: We are reaching out to nearby fishing boats. ...Please approach as quick as possible. Please actively cooperate in rescue operation. ...Are the passengers able to escape?
Sewol: The ship listed too much so it is impossible.
9:17 a.m.
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Sewol, this is Jindo VTS, do you copy? How is the flooded condition?
Sewol: It is listed more than 50 degrees to the port side and people are not able to move from left to right. We've alerted the crew members to wear life jacket and wait. It is impossible to confirm whether or not they wore (life jackets). Crew members are at the bridge and are unable to move. Please hurry.
9:18 a.m.
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Roger that. How is the flooded situation?
Sewol: It cannot be confirmed either. We confirmed that several containers on the deck fell, but because we cannot move, we cannot move even by one step from the bridge, we are able to stand by holding onto the wall.
9:23 a.m.
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Patrol boat ETA is 15 minutes. Please broadcast and tell the passengers to wear life jackets.
Sewol: We are unable to broadcast.
9:24 a.m.
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Even if you can't broadcast, please send someone to inform the passengers to wear life jacket or thick clothes.
Sewol: If passengers escape from the ship, will they be rescued immediately?
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Dispatch the lift ring. Quickly!
9:26 a.m.
Sewol: That's not what I meant. If passengers escape, can they be immediately rescued?
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Patrol ship should arrive in 10 minutes.
Sewol: 10 minutes?
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Yes 10 minutes! 10 minutes!
This is the point where the evacuation was ordered.
What is clear is that the captain repeatedly emphasizes that there is virtually no ability to move on the ship. He also repeatedly queries as to the ETA of rescue vessels. When he finally does get an ETA, the evacuation order is given shortly thereafter. We can see that his decision to not order an abandon ship is predicated on two things- The inability to move (and thus for the crew to assist), and the lack of rescue vessels.
Prior to that, the decision to not have people going to evacuation points is unknown, however it is known to have had a four minute window of possibility, thanks to the emergency call and the 2nd turn. However we can reasonably assume that it took the captain at least a minute or two to reach the bridge and ascertain the situation, and then the next two minutes were likely spent trying to stabilize the vessel.
As I've already said, there are good reasons for being reluctant to unleash 400 panicked people on deck when you are commencing stabilizing procedures, need freedom of access for your crew, are listing, and face potential falling containers. Now, there are also good reasons for ordering your passengers on deck. If the captain had ordered them on deck and they got thrown overboard and drowned, I would still argue that that was a rational decision. It's possible to have multiple rational choices in a given situation. Others would chastise the captain for panicking, ordering a hasty evacuation, and not caring about safety and putting people in danger. The same people condemning him for not ordering an evacuation would be condemning him for ordering too hasty a one.
| Quote: |
| Park Jiyoung spent the last hour of her life trying to save as many kids as possible. If the captain had done the right thing (what all the experts are pointing out), there is a good chance Park Jiyoung wouldn't have been scrambling to pass out life jackets. All the kids would have been prepared to evacuate, with life jackets on, near the decks and not sitting in their rooms. |
How the heck would they accomplish that in 4 minutes? And remember at least 2 of those we have to assume that the captain needs to get up to the bridge and gather information about what went on. For all he knew, the ship might have just gotten battered by a tsunami wave. Certainly not a situation where you would want people on deck.
| Quote: |
We have established the following:
1. He abandoned ship instead of assisting passengers
2. He passed himself off as a passenger to the rescue boat
3. He was drying off his money after being rescued |
None of which speaks to the events between 8:48 and 9:26. As I've said, he already deserves condemnation for points one and two. But that doesn't make him necessarily guilty of what happened before that.
| Quote: |
| Taking all that into account, I can't believe anybody can even try to defend the Captain's initial actions. |
Why? It's possible for someone to make fine decisions at one point in time and make awful ones at another. Just because someone makes an awful decision now, doesn't mean all previous decisions must have been bad.
| Quote: |
| What's even worse is the fact that you are trying to defend the Captain's idiocy with "what if's" and "conjecture". |
Well, part of decision making is "what ifs". And the difference between my conjecture and some others on this thread is that mine is supported by evidence, public record, and a rational relationship between events.
If we went by what other people said, the following that have all been since debunked would be assumed to be true-
1)The ship hit a rock
2)The captain not being on the bridge at all times is wrong
3)A Captain should always be at the wheel
4)The 3rd mate was at the wheel
5)The 3rd mate should not have been a watch officer
6)The ship slowly sank over two hours and people could just hop off
7)It was possible to launch the lifeboats
 It was easy to move about
9)This was a slow event
10)This event started at 800 a.m.
11)Park Ji-Young was the only member of the crew that died.
12)Park Ji-Young was the only member of the crew that tried to save people.
Why don't you go after the posters who posted all of that nonsense? Sorry, it wasn't you or atwood or anyone else on this thread pointing out the how those claims were invalid. I was the only person here pointing out the flaws in those assumptions. And you dare to accuse me of conjecture? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
You are what you post. My comments are based on that.
Again, he should have had them on deck. That's self-evident, and no matter how much conjecture you post, it still holds. That was the rational course of action.
|
So if the captain had ordered them on deck and some fell overboard and drowned, you wouldn't hold him responsible and blame him for making a bad decision?
| Quote: |
| I have no version of events. Neither do you. I posted very early on that it was best to wait until all the facts are in. But you, self-proclaimed expert, sail away on your half-baked timelines and fantasies. |
These aren't "half-baked". This is the official transcript of communications between Sewol and Jeju/Jindo VTS. It is documented the ship made a second dramatic turn at 8:52, 4 minutes after the first one. This coincides with a telephone call from a passenger to an emergency number. These are government records.
| Quote: |
| What I'm attacking is your continual efforts to muddy the waters |
How is posting the official transcript and a timeline of events muddying the waters?
==============================================
| Quote: |
| But in the court of public opinion, we have more than enough information to pass judgement. |
Well, I like my public opinion to follow guidelines closer to those of the courts and science rather than the guidelines of the mob and the media. Saying "We're in the court of public opinion and therefore don't have to follow standards" is just being intellectually lazy.
| Quote: |
| To even entertain the notion that the announcement to stay in the rooms was a calculated decision by the captain to save the ship is laughable. It's obvious to almost everybody that the order was given because the captain/people in charge had no clue what happened or what to do. |
But that's not what the official transcript indicates. That is a more accurate depiction than what you just wrote.
9:00 a.m.
Jeju Vessel Traffic Services Center: Yes, OK. Please put on the life vests and get ready as people may have to abandon ship.
Sewol: It is hard for people to move.
9:12 a.m.
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Sewol, this is Jindo VTS. Did the passengers board life raft or rescue boats?
Sewol: No, they haven't yet. They can't move because the vessel has listed.
9:14 a.m.
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: We are reaching out to nearby fishing boats. ...Please approach as quick as possible. Please actively cooperate in rescue operation. ...Are the passengers able to escape?
Sewol: The ship listed too much so it is impossible.
9:17 a.m.
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Sewol, this is Jindo VTS, do you copy? How is the flooded condition?
Sewol: It is listed more than 50 degrees to the port side and people are not able to move from left to right. We've alerted the crew members to wear life jacket and wait. It is impossible to confirm whether or not they wore (life jackets). Crew members are at the bridge and are unable to move. Please hurry.
9:18 a.m.
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Roger that. How is the flooded situation?
Sewol: It cannot be confirmed either. We confirmed that several containers on the deck fell, but because we cannot move, we cannot move even by one step from the bridge, we are able to stand by holding onto the wall.
9:23 a.m.
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Patrol boat ETA is 15 minutes. Please broadcast and tell the passengers to wear life jackets.
Sewol: We are unable to broadcast.
9:24 a.m.
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Even if you can't broadcast, please send someone to inform the passengers to wear life jacket or thick clothes.
Sewol: If passengers escape from the ship, will they be rescued immediately?
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Dispatch the lift ring. Quickly!
9:26 a.m.
Sewol: That's not what I meant. If passengers escape, can they be immediately rescued?
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Patrol ship should arrive in 10 minutes.
Sewol: 10 minutes?
Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Center: Yes 10 minutes! 10 minutes!
This is the point where the evacuation was ordered.
What is clear is that the captain repeatedly emphasizes that there is virtually no ability to move on the ship. He also repeatedly queries as to the ETA of rescue vessels. When he finally does get an ETA, the evacuation order is given shortly thereafter. We can see that his decision to not order an abandon ship is predicated on two things- The inability to move (and thus for the crew to assist), and the lack of rescue vessels.
Prior to that, the decision to not have people going to evacuation points is unknown, however it is known to have had a four minute window of possibility, thanks to the emergency call and the 2nd turn. However we can reasonably assume that it took the captain at least a minute or two to reach the bridge and ascertain the situation, and then the next two minutes were likely spent trying to stabilize the vessel.
As I've already said, there are good reasons for being reluctant to unleash 400 panicked people on deck when you are commencing stabilizing procedures, need freedom of access for your crew, are listing, and face potential falling containers. Now, there are also good reasons for ordering your passengers on deck. If the captain had ordered them on deck and they got thrown overboard and drowned, I would still argue that that was a rational decision. It's possible to have multiple rational choices in a given situation. Others would chastise the captain for panicking, ordering a hasty evacuation, and not caring about safety and putting people in danger. The same people condemning him for not ordering an evacuation would be condemning him for ordering too hasty a one.
| Quote: |
| Park Jiyoung spent the last hour of her life trying to save as many kids as possible. If the captain had done the right thing (what all the experts are pointing out), there is a good chance Park Jiyoung wouldn't have been scrambling to pass out life jackets. All the kids would have been prepared to evacuate, with life jackets on, near the decks and not sitting in their rooms. |
How the heck would they accomplish that in 4 minutes? And remember at least 2 of those we have to assume that the captain needs to get up to the bridge and gather information about what went on. For all he knew, the ship might have just gotten battered by a tsunami wave. Certainly not a situation where you would want people on deck.
| Quote: |
We have established the following:
1. He abandoned ship instead of assisting passengers
2. He passed himself off as a passenger to the rescue boat
3. He was drying off his money after being rescued |
None of which speaks to the events between 8:48 and 9:26. As I've said, he already deserves condemnation for points one and two. But that doesn't make him necessarily guilty of what happened before that.
| Quote: |
| Taking all that into account, I can't believe anybody can even try to defend the Captain's initial actions. |
Why? It's possible for someone to make fine decisions at one point in time and make awful ones at another. Just because someone makes an awful decision now, doesn't mean all previous decisions must have been bad.
| Quote: |
| What's even worse is the fact that you are trying to defend the Captain's idiocy with "what if's" and "conjecture". |
Well, part of decision making is "what ifs". And the difference between my conjecture and some others on this thread is that mine is supported by evidence, public record, and a rational relationship between events.
If we went by what other people said, the following that have all been since debunked would be assumed to be true-
1)The ship hit a rock
2)The captain not being on the bridge at all times is wrong
3)A Captain should always be at the wheel
4)The 3rd mate was at the wheel
5)The 3rd mate should not have been a watch officer
6)The ship slowly sank over two hours and people could just hop off
7)It was possible to launch the lifeboats
It was easy to move about
9)This was a slow event
10)This event started at 800 a.m.
11)Park Ji-Young was the only member of the crew that died.
12)Park Ji-Young was the only member of the crew that tried to save people.
Why don't you go after the posters who posted all of that nonsense? Sorry, it wasn't you or atwood or anyone else on this thread pointing out the how those claims were invalid. I was the only person here pointing out the flaws in those assumptions. [b]And you dare to accuse me of conjecture?[/b] |
Yes, all anyone can do at this point is conjecture. You're not there, you weren't there, you aren't part of any investigative team, nor will you be. All you can do is conjecture.
As to your idiotic question, if some fell off the deck they could still be rescued. Even if a few drowned, if it resulted in saving hundreds of lives, as it most likely would have, how could anyone find fault with the decision?
I could go on regarding the ridiculousness of your posts, but there's no need.
I will say one last thing. There is something very distasteful, if not macabre, about your Monday morning quarterbacking of what is a tragic incident. You've taken rubbernecking to a whole new level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radish kimchi
Joined: 20 Mar 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lazio wrote: |
| radish kimchi wrote: |
250 people, 100-150 pounds, 31,250 total.
If cargo moving caused this, how much does the cargo weigh?
Deck cargo 30,000 kg (52 people) ( http://www.b2bage.com/product-passenger-ship/333751/36m-ferry-boat-crew-boat-design.html )
This is 66,138.7 pounds.
So, half of the cargo limit. But was the cargo limit reached 100% on the Sewold? Even if it was, then half would have been on the other side and the weight of another half pushing down on it would drive it into the water faster.
Seems like they wanted whatever weight they had spread out and the parts of the boat not filled with water to keep them afloat until being rescued. |
What exactly are you trying to prove with those numbers? That’s for a much smaller ship. 30 tonnes of cargo!? Sewol had easily 1,500 tonnes including the cargo and the vehicles.
The passengers weighed less than 2% of that.
“After the accident, the company revealed the actual numbers were 477 passengers, 124 passenger cars, 22 one-tonne trucks, 34 cargo trucks of more than 2.5-tonne capacity, and 1,157 tonnes of cargo.”
http://www.asianewsnet.net/SEWOL-DISASTER-Ferry-was-overloaded--crew-may-have-59441.html |
“After the accident, the company revealed the actual numbers were 477 passengers, 124 passenger cars, 22 one-tonne trucks, 34 cargo trucks of more than 2.5-tonne capacity, and 1,157 tonnes of cargo.”
2.5 ton capacity, on CNN it reports 3.9 http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/24/world/asia/south-korea-ship-sinking/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
So....
| Quote: |
| What exactly are you trying to prove with those numbers? |
Does the size matter if the weight is relatively the same? Water would fill the boat and increase the weight with the cargo.
"Investigators want to know if the modifications made the ferry more likely to capsize." - (site above) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sweetrevenge
Joined: 24 Dec 2013
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
As to your idiotic question, if some fell off the deck they could still be rescued. Even if a few drowned, if it resulted in saving hundreds of lives, as it most likely would have, how could anyone find fault with the decision?
I could go on regarding the ridiculousness of your posts, but there's no need.
I will say one last thing. There is something very distasteful, if not macabre, about your Monday morning quarterbacking of what is a tragic incident. You've taken rubbernecking to a whole new level. |
The ad hominen is strong with this one huh. If you gys are gonna devolve into mudslinging at each other you should at least admit that nobody has the full story of what went down and that the captain/crew fucked up by not broadcasting a "all passengers prepare yourselves for evacuation" message. Although if this incident escalated as fast as I'm led to believe it seems that preventing all of the deaths may not have been impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sweetrevenge wrote: |
| Quote: |
As to your idiotic question, if some fell off the deck they could still be rescued. Even if a few drowned, if it resulted in saving hundreds of lives, as it most likely would have, how could anyone find fault with the decision?
I could go on regarding the ridiculousness of your posts, but there's no need.
I will say one last thing. There is something very distasteful, if not macabre, about your Monday morning quarterbacking of what is a tragic incident. You've taken rubbernecking to a whole new level. |
The ad hominen is strong with this one huh. If you gys are gonna devolve into mudslinging at each other you should at least admit that nobody has the full story of what went down and that the captain/crew fucked up by not broadcasting a "all passengers prepare yourselves for evacuation" message. Although if this incident escalated as fast as I'm led to believe it seems that preventing all of the deaths may not have been impossible. |
Exactly what I've been saying.
As for the ad hominem, you gotta kick a mule in the ass to get moving in the right direction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
byrddogs
Joined: 19 Jun 2009
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's too bad what happened. I feel for everyone involved.
Here is what I've gathered from this thread. There is one guy that no matter what the topic is will keep posting just for the sake of arguing and trying to win. He's admitted to doing this prior (like a hobby or even an obsession of sorts). I find it bad forum in threads like this.
Again, I hope that families find solace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greatunknown
Joined: 04 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
99% of this thread is of extremely bad taste in my opinion..
You guys enjoy debating about this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metalhead
Joined: 18 May 2010
Location: Toilet
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greatunknown wrote: |
99% of this thread is of extremely bad taste in my opinion..
You guys enjoy debating about this? |
Yeah really, Steelrails has been absolutely disgusting in this thread. The guy cares more about arguing for the sake of arguing than anything else. Would hate to have know a pompous clown like him in real-life, can see why he has no friends/lover and posts essays on here all the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| metalhead wrote: |
| greatunknown wrote: |
99% of this thread is of extremely bad taste in my opinion..
You guys enjoy debating about this? |
Yeah really, Steelrails has been absolutely disgusting in this thread. The guy cares more about arguing for the sake of arguing than anything else. Would hate to have know a pompous clown like him in real-life, can see why he has no friends/lover and posts essays on here all the time. |
Disagree with him if you want, but how has he been disgusting? That's pretty strong, don't you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metalhead
Joined: 18 May 2010
Location: Toilet
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well he certainly disgusts me, ergo, he is disgusting to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
grnmle
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| After reading this thread for, it feels like years, I can safely conclude that the biggest hero to emerge from this tragedy is Steel Rails. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yes, all anyone can do at this point is conjecture. You're not there, you weren't there, you aren't part of any investigative team, nor will you be. All you can do is conjecture. |
Right, but that applies both ways. Also, a sure sign that someone is losing an argument is when they start the "well how do you know that's true?" line concerning basic factual things. At some point you have to accept things like government released transcripts of things as at least a starting point and things like a dramatic 2nd turn 4 minutes in accompanied by the first emergency call as an indication of something catastrophic happening. "Saying, well you're just conjecturing" isn't really engaging in critical thinking, it's throwing out a line to win an argument.
| Quote: |
As to your idiotic question, if some fell off the deck they could still be rescued. Even if a few drowned, if it resulted in saving hundreds of lives, as it most likely would have, how could anyone find fault with the decision?
|
If the crew had managed to stabilize the vessel and it didn't sink?
"15 high schoolers drown due to captain's recklessness"
| Quote: |
| As for the ad hominem, you gotta kick a mule in the ass to get moving in the right direction. |
atwood, I don't insult you and I don't name call. I have posted a timeline and a theory of events. You are free to post alternative theories and flaws with the argument. I don't understand why the need for mudslinging?
I also don't see how indicating that things rapidly escalating into catastrophe and the captain potentially not being at fault for a more hasty evacuation is so angering to everyone. If that's the truth of the situation, and right now, there is evidence to support that theory, then why get upset about that?
==============================================
| Quote: |
| can see why he has no friends/lover |
Nice, make up lies about me.
| Quote: |
| There is one guy that no matter what the topic is will keep posting just for the sake of arguing and trying to win |
| Quote: |
Yeah really, Steelrails has been absolutely disgusting in this thread. The guy cares more about arguing for the sake of arguing than anything else. |
We were trying to analyze the events and why they occurred. In the first couple of days, there was a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of people were saying "this is wrong" when in fact it was not or didn't even take place.
What exactly is wrong with posting information or pointing out the flaws in things that are factually inaccurate or wild rumor? This tragedy doesn't need anymore wild speculation or rumor.
Regardless, I would be absolutely terrified to have some of you on a jury. To continue with the analogy it seems you're not even paying attention to the factual evidence, you're going after the attorney or the character of the defendant. His attorney may be a slimeball and the defendant may be a drunken coward, but you can't blame a guy for not launching lifeboats if it wasn't physically possible to launch the lifeboats. But it seems you want to declare him guilty of that, in spite of the evidence, simply because he is a drunken coward and his attorney is a slimeball.
Stick to the evidence, not your issues with me, please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes, all anyone can do at this point is conjecture. You're not there, you weren't there, you aren't part of any investigative team, nor will you be. All you can do is conjecture. |
Right, but that applies both ways. Also, a sure sign that someone is losing an argument is when they start the "well how do you know that's true?" line concerning basic factual things. At some point you have to accept things like government released transcripts of things as at least a starting point and things like a dramatic 2nd turn 4 minutes in accompanied by the first emergency call as an indication of something catastrophic happening. "Saying, well you're just conjecturing" isn't really engaging in critical thinking, it's throwing out a line to win an argument.
| Quote: |
As to your idiotic question, if some fell off the deck they could still be rescued. Even if a few drowned, if it resulted in saving hundreds of lives, as it most likely would have, how could anyone find fault with the decision?
|
If the crew had managed to stabilize the vessel and it didn't sink?
"15 high schoolers drown due to captain's recklessness"
| Quote: |
| As for the ad hominem, you gotta kick a mule in the ass to get moving in the right direction. |
atwood, I don't insult you and I don't name call. I have posted a timeline and a theory of events. You are free to post alternative theories and flaws with the argument. I don't understand why the need for mudslinging?
I also don't see how indicating that things rapidly escalating into catastrophe and the captain potentially not being at fault for a more hasty evacuation is so angering to everyone. If that's the truth of the situation, and right now, there is evidence to support that theory, then why get upset about that?
==============================================
| Quote: |
| can see why he has no friends/lover |
Nice, make up lies about me.
| Quote: |
| There is one guy that no matter what the topic is will keep posting just for the sake of arguing and trying to win |
| Quote: |
Yeah really, Steelrails has been absolutely disgusting in this thread. The guy cares more about arguing for the sake of arguing than anything else. |
We were trying to analyze the events and why they occurred. In the first couple of days, there was a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of people were saying "this is wrong" when in fact it was not or didn't even take place.
What exactly is wrong with posting information or pointing out the flaws in things that are factually inaccurate or wild rumor? This tragedy doesn't need anymore wild speculation or rumor.
Regardless, I would be absolutely terrified to have some of you on a jury. To continue with the analogy it seems you're not even paying attention to the factual evidence, you're going after the attorney or the character of the defendant. His attorney may be a slimeball and the defendant may be a drunken coward, but you can't blame a guy for not launching lifeboats if it wasn't physically possible to launch the lifeboats. But it seems you want to declare him guilty of that, in spite of the evidence, simply because he is a drunken coward and his attorney is a slimeball.
Stick to the evidence, not your issues with me, please. |
The issues with you are pertinent. As you post above, you're trying to win an argument. I, and others, find that distasteful under the circumstances.
You are also trying to control the discussion. This is a forum, not a seminar being led by you. You are, in addition, twisting others words.
As for what you consider insults, I'm just calling a spade a spade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
byrddogs
Joined: 19 Jun 2009
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Regardless, I would be absolutely terrified to have some of you on a jury |
Likewise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
