Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    Ah, yes, you're right - you were paraphrasing RJ supposed argument. I was reading too quickly and missed that, I do apologize for my sarcastic comment, which was uncalled for.
    I'm not entirely certain where your paraphrase ends and your own argument starts, but I'll be sure to check up on RJs argument later tonight.

    And you need wonder no more: yes, I am a real historian.
    Hi Kattrup,

    What is a ‘real’ historian?

    I only ask because we seem to be overrun with historians these days.

    Would you class Pierre/Kris, Drew Grey (head of history at a UK university) and Hallie Rubenhold as ‘real’ historians?

    Gary

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

      Is that how you interpret

      Unused or partly used Diary, must have at least 20 blank pages

      ?!

      You never stop to amaze me Caz!

      But I understand, it is difficult for you to admit, not after all this time.


      The Baron
      So when Mike asked for an unused or partly used 'Diary', must have at least 20 blank pages, he wasn't actually asking for a 'Diary' at all!

      Well I never did.

      And you're not asking for a thick ear I suppose.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        You have it arse about face, because it was RJ Palmer who said MB wanted blank sheets of Victorian paper to turn into The Diary of Jack the Ripper.

        He didn't. He asked for an actual diary.
        Ok, I tried finding this argument by RJ, and failed. I think RJ’s mention of MB looking for blank Victorian paper just means that MB knew the paper had to pass muster with testing. Not that MB was looking for sheets of paper.



        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

          Hi Kattrup,

          What is a ‘real’ historian?

          I only ask because we seem to be overrun with historians these days.

          Would you class Pierre/Kris, Drew Grey (head of history at a UK university) and Hallie Rubenhold as ‘real’ historians?

          Gary
          Hi Gary

          As you know, there are several ways to be a historian, it’s not unfortunately a protected title so anyone can claim to be one.
          I interpreted Caz’s question as meaning “Do you actually have a degree as an historian?” which is one definition of being a real historian.

          By that definition Pierre/Kris is also a real historian, as are Drew Gray and Hallie R.

          Fortunately, one can also be a real historian by writing books on history.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            And you're not asking for a thick ear I suppose.
            Love,
            Caz
            X
            Genius!

            Come on, everyone, let's just have one big pagga and get it over with.

            Rolling up my sleeves,

            Ike
            Iconoclast

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

              Genius!

              Come on, everyone, let's just have one big pagga and get it over with.

              Rolling up my sleeves,

              Ike
              A good old fashioned pub brawl?

              "Hey Ike, I've seen your diary, and she's a right minger. What you gonna do about it?"
              Thems the Vagaries.....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                A good old fashioned pub brawl?

                "Hey Ike, I've seen your diary, and she's a right minger. What you gonna do about it?"
                Plenty!

                Did you spill my pint, mate?

                Plus, I'm willing to engage in a drawn out quasi-existentialist debate about the historical merits of my ******* minger.
                Last edited by Iconoclast; 08-07-2020, 11:45 AM.
                Iconoclast

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                  Ah, yes, you're right - you were paraphrasing RJ supposed argument. I was reading too quickly and missed that, I do apologize for my sarcastic comment, which was uncalled for.
                  I'm not entirely certain where your paraphrase ends and your own argument starts, but I'll be sure to check up on RJs argument later tonight.

                  And you need wonder no more: yes, I am a real historian.
                  Nobody else seems to have any problem distinguishing between a piece of information and an argument based on it.

                  Maybe only a real historian would have this difficulty.

                  RJ put a spin on what Mike asked for, which was an actual diary, by describing what he wanted as 'blank Victorian paper' - a neat conjuring trick, designed to lead the unwary to the desired conclusion about Mike's motives: what else could Mike possibly have wanted 'blank Victorian paper' for, if not to create the Maybrick diary, which RJ believes was sitting in draft form on the word 'prosser'? Two horrible history moments for the price of one. RJ has no proof of the latter, but he doesn't need it if the motive can be constructed artificially - out of blank Victorian paper - to act as a back up which only appears to lead naturally to the other desired conclusion. It's an illusion, not backed up by what Mike actually asked for.

                  It seems both you and the Baron were misled by this, which I'm sure was not RJ's intention. I don't even suppose he was consciously manipulating the evidence to imply a motive which has not been established. But it's misleading nonetheless.

                  In short, Mike asked for a 'diary', so we are obliged to presume that it was a 'diary' he wanted, and not just 'paper'. We know what his request produced, and it really should be obvious why an actual diary, in any shape or form, would have been no good to man nor beast, for creating what we read in the "old book" known as the Maybrick diary.

                  If time was already as tight as [insert your own version here], just think how much tighter it would have been for Mike to realise his mistake; work out that what he really really wanted was an "old book", with enough consecutive blank pages after any used ones, to house his DAiry comfortably with room to spare; go out and try to find one locally; get to the auction on time; and with a bit of luck and a following wind - find himself face to face with precisely what was needed for the job.

                  It's almost like the "old book" cottoned on before Mike, and was now just waiting for its new owner to snap up a real bargain for 25.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                    Ok, I tried finding this argument by RJ, and failed. I think RJ’s mention of MB looking for blank Victorian paper just means that MB knew the paper had to pass muster with testing. Not that MB was looking for sheets of paper.
                    How loyal of you, Kattrup.

                    You don't think RJ was rather jumping the gun, by attributing such a motive to Mike so it would inevitably lead to the desired conclusion - that he wanted the 'paper' to create the Maybrick diary?

                    Goodness, that was easy.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X


                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      How loyal of you, Kattrup.

                      You don't think RJ was rather jumping the gun, by attributing such a motive to Mike so it would inevitably lead to the desired conclusion - that he wanted the 'paper' to create the Maybrick diary?

                      Goodness, that was easy.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X

                      Why would Mike have wanted a diary in the first place? Was he planning to write the narrative by date, day by day? Or has this already been discussed?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                        Why would Mike have wanted a diary in the first place? Was he planning to write the narrative by date, day by day? Or has this already been discussed?
                        It is a damned good question Paul. Why on earth did Mike ask Martin Earl to get him an authentic Victorian diary - even one from an impossible year (1890)? According to the dark matter, Mike had already composed the text on his word prosser and it must have been self-evident to him that he had not just completed a 'DAiry', so why request one all of a sudden, and not "Blank Victorian paper required, at least 20 pages, bound or loose"?

                        It's easy to get sucked-in to the black hole that is the historical use of the 'Diary' by Robert Smith and assume that that was the singularity that started the mess in the first place.

                        It's irrelevant to me, obviously, as I am as certain as it is possible to get that the Victorian scrapbook was written by James Maybrick, but it really should cause a few more sleepless nights than it evidently does amongst the idle musers and the chattering classes.

                        Cheers,

                        Ike
                        Iconoclast

                        Comment


                        • Hi Paul,

                          Your question is my point in a nutshell. Why would Mike have wanted, or asked for, an actual diary, on or around 9th March 1992, if - as RJ, Kattrup, the Baron, Orsam, Abby Normal, Observer, Harry D and many others now believe - the Maybrick diary as we know it, with its undated entries spanning two calendar years, from Spring 1888 to May 1889, was all typed up and ready to go, with a literary agent's interest piqued?

                          Time would have been tight enough, when Mike was finally sent the tiny 1891 diary on 26th March, without him having to rewrite the entire narrative to fit in with the printed dates, 3 or 4 to a page, for two years after Maybrick died.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • January 1st 1891:

                            If they had known what they had in store for them three years ago...

                            ...bugger, running out of space, this isn't going to work, damn it.

                            January 2nd 1891:

                            Yours truly,

                            ​​​​​​​The Ghost of Jack the Ripper
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                              Why would Mike have wanted a diary in the first place? Was he planning to write the narrative by date, day by day? Or has this already been discussed?
                              I think it has. A diary can be with or without printed dates, even if he was offered one with it’s possible he could have cut them out (for instance remove the top inch containing dates).

                              Failing that, he could have just tried to adjust his draft with work with dates, only a few dates in the diary are set in stone so it would have been possible.
                              Obviously using actual dates would increase the chance of detectable error, but in short: he didn’t know he was going to get, but clearly there were options. His ad was perfect for obtaining what was needed, namely a blank diary from the relevant period. If he were to be offered more than one, he could choose the most suitable. In the end, he found a solution anyway.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                                I think it has. A diary can be with or without printed dates, even if he was offered one with it’s possible he could have cut them out (for instance remove the top inch containing dates).

                                Failing that, he could have just tried to adjust his draft with work with dates, only a few dates in the diary are set in stone so it would have been possible.
                                Obviously using actual dates would increase the chance of detectable error, but in short: he didn’t know he was going to get, but clearly there were options. His ad was perfect for obtaining what was needed, namely a blank diary from the relevant period. If he were to be offered more than one, he could choose the most suitable. In the end, he found a solution anyway.
                                I think the question is why did he ever need an actual diary for a text he had written which could - and ultimately was - recorded in a non-diary?
                                Iconoclast

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X