One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

Honestly, I'm no apologist for Mr Orsam (the irony of my being so would crack a techtonic plate) and I have no idea what the two of you are talking about bee-journalwise, but when I read his comment ("I know, it's embarrassing"), I took that to mean that it was embarrassing that someone had posted such an error on the JtR Forum rather than that you - or anyone else - had taken it at face value and quoted it.

Exactly!

By the way, was the 1975 version simply an historical reprinting of an 1888 version??? We can live in hope ...

No, it wasn't.

[Iconoclast]

Consequently the occurrence of this expression to mean a unique person in 1882 – or to mean a unique occurrence - would be unhistorical and anachronistic and, therefore, impossible[/I].

Nay, nay, and thrice nay!

You can say that a reference to 'cannon' in Macbeth (or whichever play it was) is an anachronism. If Maybrick had said that he went to see Liverpool FC play before he died, that would be an anachronsm. But a couple of words juxtaposed in an historically unlikely way cannot be anachronistic nor impossible - just implausible.

Keep a steady hand on the tiller, mate ...

[David Orsam]

David, I'm not in the slightest bit embarrassed by the 'bee journal' thing. In a short space of time I flicked over to the JTR Forum and saw it and assumed the post was correct (you should never assume, I know.)

There was a bunch of muppets who posted some absolute nonsense over on JTR Forums in response to my posts on this forum. I'm not a member of that forum so couldn't reply directly but I did attempt to correct the record in this thread. Someone, however, did realise it was a 1975 journal before I was able to correct them and, if you were to read on in that thread over in JTR Forums, you will find the correction.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Ike: I just don't like being spoken down to by anyone. The whole tone lead me to think this.

Herlock

[David Orsam]

In post 2253 You said that by adding one to off to get the phrase 'one off,' was indicative of 'one off the stock.' I quote " There was no meaning there at all of unique." Obvious;y the phrases are still in use and I can see no reason why they should have different meanings then compared to now. From personal experience in the industry the phrase 'one off,' means, in the vast majority of cases, a unique item. The customer pays for the pattern. The pattern creates a sand mould into which molten metal is poured to create the casting. The mould is destroyed to retrieve the casting and the wooden pattern is the property of the customer because it's highly unlikely ever to be used again. Because it's unique. A one off in fact.

You still don't seem to quite understand the point. I'm saying that in its original form "one off" denoted no more than a quantity.

One as opposed to two or three.

Nothing special or unique.

Later, however, which is how you understand it and how it is understood today, it took on a quality of uniqueness. But that understanding did not arise until the 20th century.

I am saying that the modern definition of "a one off" is different to the original "one off" which was no different to "two off" or "three off" other than in quantity.

You need to grasp this point, and understand what I'm saying, if you want to try and counter it.

[David Orsam]

Hi Ike: I just don't like being spoken down to by anyone.

Welcome to the forum.

[David Orsam]

You also say that no example of the phrase has been found that early but you agree that it must have existed but it was " very obscure and understood as a notation of quantity by engineers, foundrymen and pattern makers etc." You also say, and as an ex- Foundryman I could also take this as an insult :"Normal human beings would not have had a clue in the 19th century that one off meant one." Nice. I actually consider foundrymen, engineers and pattern makers as normal people but I guess you don't move in those circles? So, this gives us, literally thousands of 'normal' people aware of this phrase and it's meaning. I.e. Something unique.

"I could also take this as an insult". Don't be silly. I'm saying it was an obscure technical term which had nothing to do with uniqueness. In fact, it is so obscure and technical that no-one has produced a single example of it ever being used in the nineteenth century!

[David Orsam]

As a Cotton Merchant, visiting manufacturing plants, it is not impossible, indeed it's likely, that Maybrick would have met a very 'normal' engineer or three. He may even have spoken to them. He may even have used the phrase 'one off shipment.'

No! Because 'one off shipment' means a special or unique shipment. But the meaning of 'one off' at that time had, as far as we know, no connection with special or unique. It was nothing more than a technical notation on a plan or diagram, meaning "one off the stocklist", just like "two off the stocklist". So it only meant one or two. Basically it was just another way of writing "1" but in a different form so that it was clear to the reader that it was requirement for the use of one item without creating confusion by having random numbers on the plans.

In any event, it is still a long way from a 'one off job' to a 'one off shipment and a very very long way from a 'one off shipment' to use that phrase as a metaphor for other events such as only hitting someone once, let alone as a metaphor that would be understood by anyone else.

[David Orsam]

If only a small percentage of the population were aware of the phrase only a percentage of that percentage would have been able or likely to use it in written correspondence. Correspondence that would have been read and then binned. Not preserved for future researchers.
Surely not being able to find something is not proof of its non existence. Especially when it might only have been used by a relatively tiny amount of people who's correspondence wouldn't have been important enough to preserve.

Please understand my argument. It's not just absence of the existence of this expression, it's that I have worked out the evolution of the phrase through from what I have described as "phase 1" (nineteenth century) to "phase 2" (early 20th century) to "phase 3" (later 20th century).

The language found in the 1975 bee journal was phase 3. It could not possibly have come before phase 2. In other words, you can't have a "one off instance" coming before a "one off job" which is what you are trying to suggest.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike: I just don't like being spoken down to by anyone. The whole tone lead me to think this.

Herlock

Honestly Herlock, you need to rise above it - it can be so brutal on here that you can end up being suspended for long periods or even banned from posting. Best not to get sucked in. Your posts are interesting, and David is - honestly - completely indefatiguable. When he dies, we'll turn him into a quarry and build houses out of him. You ever been to Aberdeen? It's made out of granite. In fifty years time, they'll be calling it Orsamdeen, I promise you.

Hey - since when did I become the voice of reason? (Probably after my latest suspension, I imagine) ...

Ike

[David Orsam]

Finally, is Shirley Harrison definately being untruthful? She said she saw, or at least had information about Traynors using the phrase in the 1860s. Maybe she didn't but I'm reluctant to believe that a researcher would just make that up. Maybe I'm naive. Maybe researchers aren't always perfect.

I haven't said Harrison is being untruthful. I haven't said she has made anything up.

It's obvious she got into a terrible muddle with her notes and her memory. She was told something in 1993 by Dr Tony Deeson, who might have found something in Traynors' archives, but she never managed to verify it. In 2003 she seems to think she got the information directly from Traynors but probably forgot it was from Deeson. She never saw any document herself.

The end result is that we cannot rely on this supposed information.

[David Orsam]

Nay, nay, and thrice nay!

You can say that a reference to 'cannon' in Macbeth (or whichever play it was) is an anachronism. If Maybrick had said that he went to see Liverpool FC play before he died, that would be an anachronsm. But a couple of words juxtaposed in an historically unlikely way cannot be anachronistic nor impossible - just implausible.

Keep a steady hand on the tiller, mate ...

No, I insist it's impossible. That's because I have worked out how the expression evolved. It's why that supposed 1882 bee journal quote could never possibly have come from an 1882 document in a million years.

I love the way you said earlier that no-one has really been looking for this expression properly for the last 20 years and well perhaps now some proper research will begin! It doesn't matter how long you look you will never find it. Because the idea of referring (metaphorically) to a person or an event as a "one off" didn't occur to anyone until the mid twentieth century.

[Iconoclast]

No, I insist it's impossible. That's because I have worked out how the expression evolved. It's why that supposed 1882 bee journal quote could never possibly have come from an 1882 document in a million years.

I love the way you said earlier that no-one has really been looking for this expression properly for the last 20 years and well perhaps now some proper research will begin! It doesn't matter how long you look you will never find it. Because the idea of referring (metaphorically) to a person or an event as a "one off" didn't occur to anyone until the mid twentieth century.

Where is Livia Trivia when you need her???????

[Herlock Sholmes]

How have you worked out how the expression evolved? How can you know that the earliest use of 'one off' ,that you admit must have existed, must only have meant 'one off the stock list?' And not a unique item/object/part?

And when you say welcome to the forum I'm assuming that you mean that anyone entering here should expect to be spoken down to?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You said 'as far as we know.' When making your point about this phrase and it's meaning 'one' as opposed to 'unique'. So, what you mean is, you don't know. Not for certain.

Herlock