One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

I think you'll find just about every one on the site thinks you're a guliable idiot.

Guliable?

Use a spell checker, mate, and have a bit of dignity. It's not a good look for anyone who wants to argue that Mike Barrett could have written the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

People who "who believe the diary is genuine" do NOT have any burden of proof whatsoever. Not even vaguely. As long as all they do is hold a belief, they have no obligation to demonstrate the proof of that belief to anyone if they choose not to.

If anyone wants to dispute this, Ike, and still claims that a 'belief' has to be proved by the believer, they might want to ask Abby Normal, while he's still here on holiday by accident, for his proof that almighty God witnessed the Barretts faking the diary.

I would think He had better things to do, like watching out for dangerous drivers on Mount Sinai. When Moses came down the mountain in his Triumph, I doubt he was doing less than a ton. I can't prove it, of course, unless God sees fit to produce the speeding ticket.

But I reserve the right to believe it, and it's as likely to have existed as Bongo the Bamboozler's auction ticket.

And here endeth another lesson.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

But you don't pass Ike's fish tank, do you? You jump right in, fart and jump out again, making your tracky bottoms all wet to contribute nothing but a nasty smell.

Love,

Caz
X

I had to laugh .

[caz]

Say it how it is John. I feel a bit sorry for Ike actually - just think how many seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, years of his life he has wasted on this nonsense.

I imagine Ike as a goldfish in his little tank constantly swimming backwards and forwards between a replica watch and little stone book, open in the middle. There might be a little figure dressed in Victorian clothes in amongst some plastic weeds. Meanwhile, we all pass the fish tank thinking, what on earth is he doing in there? Trapped in his own little world.

But you don't pass Ike's fish tank, do you? You jump right in, fart and jump out again, making your tracky bottoms all wet to contribute nothing but a nasty smell.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”


― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

That's got a certain ring to it, Abby.

Bongo Barrett the Bamboozler - par excellence.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoepistemic_logic

I ero,

I suspect you were on a hiding to nothing posting that link for anyone who reads 'provenance' as Provence.

I'm reasonably confident that nobody comes here to discuss a scenic area of France.

Mind you, some posters have a habit of wandering in here every so often, and then complain about the scenery, as if they came here on holiday by mistake. Thinking about it, there is probably an argument for them misreading the road signs.

But nobody is making them stay against their will.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

I imagine Ike as a goldfish in his little tank constantly swimming backwards and forwards between a replica watch and little stone book, open in the middle. There might be a little figure dressed in Victorian clothes in amongst some plastic weeds. Meanwhile, we all pass the fish tank thinking, what on earth is he doing in there? Trapped in his own little world.

With only two core themes going on as I swim from one to 't'other.

How did the hoaxer manage to know that Florence Maybrick's initials were on Mary Kelly's wall when no-one else had ever spotted this?

And how on earth did the hoaxer of such a cheap and shoddy hoax as the scrapbook manage to get such a felicitous signature of James Maybrick into the back of that watch?

Every twenty seconds the mystery would renew. It's enough to keep a fish busy for years, it is true.

[FISHY1118]

Say it how it is John. I feel a bit sorry for Ike actually - just think how many seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, years of his life he has wasted on this nonsense.

I imagine Ike as a goldfish in his little tank constantly swimming backwards and forwards between a replica watch and little stone book, open in the middle. There might be a little figure dressed in Victorian clothes in amongst some plastic weeds. Meanwhile, we all pass the fish tank thinking, what on earth is he doing in there? Trapped in his own little world.

I had to laugh .

[Aethelwulf]

I think you'll find just about every one on the site thinks you're a guliable idiot.

Say it how it is John. I feel a bit sorry for Ike actually - just think how many seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, years of his life he has wasted on this nonsense.

I imagine Ike as a goldfish in his little tank constantly swimming backwards and forwards between a replica watch and little stone book, open in the middle. There might be a little figure dressed in Victorian clothes in amongst some plastic weeds. Meanwhile, we all pass the fish tank thinking, what on earth is he doing in there? Trapped in his own little world.

[Iconoclast]

I think you'll find just about every one on the site thinks you're a guliable idiot.

And - as long as all they do is think it - they will never have a burden of proof to justify it.

[John Wheat]

You'll notice that absolutely no-one is posting in agreement with you so you might just want to "shut up" (to quote you) on this point as you are making yourself look foolish in the extreme.

People who "who believe the diary is genuine" do NOT have any burden of proof whatsoever. Not even vaguely. As long as all they do is hold a belief, they have no obligation to demonstrate the proof of that belief to anyone if they choose not to. Burden of proof begins when one of those people make a pronouncement on the scrapbook that it is the authentic record of James Maybrick's crimes in Whitechapel in 1888. The moment they do that, they have acquired a burden of proof. Why is this? Well, in the service of investigative science, we must back up our public claims. Why is that? Well, because there are a large number of very stupid people in this world who are unable to distinguish what's real and what's not. They tend to err on the side of what they like so they believe those things they hear or read which they happen to like. It's called psychology. It's a trick that tyrants like to play.

Of course, this principle then expands more widely so that anyone holding a belief does NOT have prove their belief is true until such time as they make their belief or beliefs public. When they do that, they immediately acquire a burden of proof. This - as I said above - protects us as best science can against tyrannical untruths. Therefore, if you or anyone else posts on here to the effect of "The scrapbook is a hoax" then they immediately acquire a burden of proof to establish the veracity of the claim.

Honestly, Wheatie, unless you are seeking to make yourself appear very foolish, I'd shut up (to use your cliche).

Ike

I think you'll find just about every one on the site thinks you're a guliable idiot.

[John Wheat]

You'll notice that absolutely no-one is posting in agreement with you so you might just want to "shut up" (to quote you) on this point as you are making yourself look foolish in the extreme.

People who "who believe the diary is genuine" do NOT have any burden of proof whatsoever. Not even vaguely. As long as all they do is hold a belief, they have no obligation to demonstrate the proof of that belief to anyone if they choose not to. Burden of proof begins when one of those people make a pronouncement on the scrapbook that it is the authentic record of James Maybrick's crimes in Whitechapel in 1888. The moment they do that, they have acquired a burden of proof. Why is this? Well, in the service of investigative science, we must back up our public claims. Why is that? Well, because there are a large number of very stupid people in this world who are unable to distinguish what's real and what's not. They tend to err on the side of what they like so they believe those things they hear or read which they happen to like. It's called psychology. It's a trick that tyrants like to play.

Of course, this principle then expands more widely so that anyone holding a belief does NOT have prove their belief is true until such time as they make their belief or beliefs public. When they do that, they immediately acquire a burden of proof. This - as I said above - protects us as best science can against tyrannical untruths. Therefore, if you or anyone else posts on here to the effect of "The scrapbook is a hoax" then they immediately acquire a burden of proof to establish the veracity of the claim.

Honestly, Wheatie, unless you are seeking to make yourself appear very foolish, I'd shut up (to use your cliche).

Ike

What a load of bullshit.

[Iconoclast]

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”


― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Posted as if proof of some point or other? Or just posted to convey a smug vacuousness on this point?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

No you haven't. The burden of proof lies with those who believe the diary is genuine.

You'll notice that absolutely no-one is posting in agreement with you so you might just want to "shut up" (to quote you) on this point as you are making yourself look foolish in the extreme.

People who "who believe the diary is genuine" do NOT have any burden of proof whatsoever. Not even vaguely. As long as all they do is hold a belief, they have no obligation to demonstrate the proof of that belief to anyone if they choose not to. Burden of proof begins when one of those people make a pronouncement on the scrapbook that it is the authentic record of James Maybrick's crimes in Whitechapel in 1888. The moment they do that, they have acquired a burden of proof. Why is this? Well, in the service of investigative science, we must back up our public claims. Why is that? Well, because there are a large number of very stupid people in this world who are unable to distinguish what's real and what's not. They tend to err on the side of what they like so they believe those things they hear or read which they happen to like. It's called psychology. It's a trick that tyrants like to play.

Of course, this principle then expands more widely so that anyone holding a belief does NOT have prove their belief is true until such time as they make their belief or beliefs public. When they do that, they immediately acquire a burden of proof. This - as I said above - protects us as best science can against tyrannical untruths. Therefore, if you or anyone else posts on here to the effect of "The scrapbook is a hoax" then they immediately acquire a burden of proof to establish the veracity of the claim.

Honestly, Wheatie, unless you are seeking to make yourself appear very foolish, I'd shut up (to use your cliche).

Ike

[Abby Normal]

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”


― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark