One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike and thanks for the reply. Though I can see where your coming from with the above post it remains a major obstacle to overcome . The three words in question is a counter argument that will and is a sticking point
While you may be correct and David wrong or vica Verca the obstacle could be removed if evidence was produced to contradict that the three words were in use or had been used at the time or previously.

Not sure how to put things into words but my thinking regarding the three words. I am questioning and trying to reason that even "one off" was not in common use in 1888.
Regards
Paul .

Hi paul g,

In my defence, I didn't say it wasn't a major obstacle to overcome. I accept that it categorically is a major obstacle to overcome. I'm suggesting that we shouldn't leap too quickly to a conclusion here however compelling the ungrateful (and dismissive of my efforts on his behalf) guy may make his case.

Cheers, Ike

PS Newcastle are coming to Burton today - five miles from where I live. They've never been before. And guess what? I'm going to Newcastle! You couldn't write this stuff. Let's hope it's a one-off instance, though.

[Iconoclast]

Are you seriously suggesting that Maybrick was the first person in history to have used the phrase?

Probably not, though the principle holds that someone, somewhere presumably did.

[David Orsam]

I'm really struggling to understand why you think the addition of the word 'instance' to the phrase 'one-off' would make the whole thing incomprehensible. Surely anyone who was familiar with the fact that 'one-off' meant happening once and 'instance,' meant occurrence would have been able to get their head round this strange new phrase, or even have been the first to use it. That's the way language works and evolves.

Language does indeed evolve but that is the point I am making. When you trace the actual evolution of the English language, the type of expression such as 'one off instance' did not evolve until after the Second World War.

It's all very well referring to "anyone who was familiar with the fact that 'one-off' meant happening once' - but there is not a jot of evidence that it meant such a thing to anyone alive in 1888. The earliest we have it is from the early twentieth century, and then only confined to obscure engineering journals showing that it was familiar only to a small number of people and in a specific trade context.

It was only ever applied by anyone in the early 1900s to mean an actual unique physical product or design. The point is that if it was so easy and straightforward to widen this meaning to the more general concept of occurrence or instance much earlier in 1888, why did no-one else do it for more than 50 years?

It is the complete absence of anyone else using the expression in writing for such a long period which means it is totally unrealistic to say that Maybrick was the first person to use it and then no-one else did for half a century (at least).

'One off instance' would have meant nothing to anyone in 1888. Even if Maybrick was like Shakespeare in devising new expressions it would have needed to be explained otherwise it would not have been understood. For that reason, as I have said, the expression is unhistorical and anachronistic.

[David Orsam]

the ungrateful (and dismissive of my efforts on his behalf) guy may make his case.

If you are going to keep saying this I am going to have to point out that I have never asked you make any efforts on my behalf and you have not in fact posted a single thing on this forum on my behalf.

You asked for an incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which refutes the diary. It is disappointing that when someone provides one they are met with a hail of silly insults, repeated now in every post it seems.

Can we keep this discussion at an adult level please?

[David Orsam]

I accept that it categorically is a major obstacle to overcome. I'm suggesting that we shouldn't leap too quickly to a conclusion here.

I suppose for every undeniable fact presented which refutes the diary you can say "we shouldn't leap too quickly to a conclusion".

The examination of the diary started in 1992. It is now 24 years later. How long do you actually need to come to a conclusion?

[paul g]

I'm not far from burton , Telford but originally from Newcastle.
Went up for the Blackburn game two weeks ago.

[Iconoclast]

I suppose for every undeniable fact presented which refutes the diary you can say "we shouldn't leap too quickly to a conclusion".

The examination of the diary started in 1992. It is now 24 years later. How long do you actually need to come to a conclusion?

Twenty four years we've debated the journal. Twenty four hours you've made your case.

Might want to let us all chew it over?

[Abby Normal]

If you are going to keep saying this I am going to have to point out that I have never asked you make any efforts on my behalf and you have not in fact posted a single thing on this forum on my behalf.

You asked for an incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which refutes the diary. It is disappointing that when someone provides one they are met with a hail of silly insults, repeated now in every post it seems.

Can we keep this discussion at an adult level please?

I'm amazed at how many people on here react so defensively when confronted with the truth, and or there own mistakes.

[Iconoclast]

If you are going to keep saying this I am going to have to point out that I have never asked you make any efforts on my behalf and you have not in fact posted a single thing on this forum on my behalf.

You asked for an incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which refutes the diary. It is disappointing that when someone provides one they are met with a hail of silly insults, repeated now in every post it seems.

Can we keep this discussion at an adult level please?

You thank someone for the intention (which they can control) not the outcome (which they can't).

I am therefore due a thank you.

[Harry D]

I'm amazed at how many people on here react so defensively when confronted with the truth, and or there own mistakes.

Yes, Iconoclast's behaviour in this thread is quite bemusing. It's almost as if he takes every thwarted falsification as some kind of personal victory. He takes great pride in thumbing his nose at critics of the diary's authenticity instead of respecting the scientific process. Hence why I expressed my curiosity at his comment that it would "worry" him if an example of Maybrick's private handwriting conflicted with the diary's, when that would bring us much closer to the truth.

[Iconoclast]

I'm amazed at how many people on here react so defensively when confronted with the truth, and or there own mistakes.

Oh dear.

[Iconoclast]

Yes, Iconoclast's behaviour in this thread is quite bemusing. It's almost as if he takes every thwarted falsification as some kind of personal victory. He takes great pride in thumbing his nose at critics of the diary's authenticity instead of respecting the scientific process. Hence why I expressed my curiosity at his comment that it would "worry" him if an example of Maybrick's private handwriting conflicted with the diary's, when that would bring us much closer to the truth.

No conspiracy or confusion. It would 'worry' me because I believe the journal to be authentic.

[David Orsam]

You thank someone for the intention (which they can control) not the outcome (which they can't).

I am therefore due a thank you.

You are not due a thank you because the thing you said you were looking for (which you never actually managed to find) is something that I did not ask you to look for and something that I had already posted on this forum some months ago.

If you intended to look for something, it can only have been for your own benefit, not mine.

I do hope that has cleared the matter up.

[David Orsam]

Twenty four years we've debated the journal. Twenty four hours you've made your case.

Might want to let us all chew it over?

I've made in essence the same case made by Dr Kate Flint back in 1993.

I remind you that this is a thread for one incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which refutes the diary. Until this fact can be controverted, equivocated or denied I'm not really sure there is anything satisfactory you can post.

But, hey, take as long as you need.

[pinkmoon]

How about the one simple fact that the diary has no history prior to its "discovery" in the early 1990s.