One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[John G]

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

That's a very good point. Do you think it also undermines the argument that the diary is an old, as opposed to a relatively recent, forgery?

[Iconoclast]

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.

I think for all decent-minded folk, it certainly has.

[Iconoclast]

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.

I know the thread rather well, thank you. Only the most successful thread in the history of the Casebook! So many posts, so many views! Can any other thread match it? It is an honour to post to it with my usual wit, insight, and genius.

Thank you (I wouldn't wish to appear ungrateful ), I'll definitely take as long as I need, I promise you.

[Harry D]

Delusions of grandeur. Newcastle fan. It all makes sense now.

[Iconoclast]

Delusions of grandeur. Newcastle fan. It all makes sense now.

Fair point.

[Purkis]

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.

What other phrases or expressions have you found in the diary that are unhistorical or anachronistic?

[Iconoclast]

What other phrases or expressions have you found in the diary that are unhistorical or anachronistic?

I think that was just a one-off instance ...

[John G]

I think that was just a one-off instance ...

Are you now saying that you require two or more pieces of "incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable" evidence? Moreover, how does that make any logical sense? I mean, it's like saying, "give me proof of a falsehood", and when the proof is provided you respond by saying, " okay, but what other proof do you have?" At which point this entire thread enters the realm of absurdity.

[David Orsam]

What other phrases or expressions have you found in the diary that are unhistorical or anachronistic?

Following on from John's post, please note the title of this thread:

"One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary"

[Iconoclast]

Are you now saying that you require two or more pieces of "incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable" evidence? Moreover, how does that make any logical sense? I mean, it's like saying, "give me proof of a falsehood", and when the proof is provided you respond by saying, " okay, but what other proof do you have?" At which point this entire thread enters the realm of absurdity.

It was a joke, man.

[Iconoclast]

Following on from John's post, please note the title of this thread:

"One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary"

You know what? I'm just not hearing the chimes of doom here.

Maybe the general consensus is that you've provided a very thought-provoking case whilst stopping ever-so short of one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable one?

You might have imagined more of a fanfare for the journal's farewell, perhaps? Does it - in truth - ring still of 'theory' rather than solid fact?

Just a thought.

Ike Still-Got-Skin-In-The-Game O'Noclast

[David Orsam]

It was a joke, man.

Gallows humour?

[Iconoclast]

Gallows humour?

Gallowgate humour ...

[David Orsam]

Talking of funny things, I am amused to note that the legendary OP, Soothsayer, who loved the word "iconoclast" (#938 and #1062), was also a big Newcastle fan, referring to "my beloved Newcastle" in this thread (#434) and "the might that is Newcastle United Football Club" (#342).

I think we can safely say that the spirit of Soothsayer (a.k.a.Tom) very much lives on in this thread.

[Iconoclast]

Talking of funny things, I am amused to note that the legendary OP, Soothsayer, who loved the word "iconoclast" (#938 and #1062), was also a big Newcastle fan, referring to "my beloved Newcastle" in this thread (#434) and "the might that is Newcastle United Football Club" (#342).

I think we can safely say that the spirit of Soothsayer (a.k.a.Tom) very much lives on in this thread.

We Geordies just get everywhere, eh?