One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Just for my on sanity Ike, can you confirm that the post shared by The Barret with regards to Stewart Evans was from 6 years ago? I thought for a second it was a recent post.

Yes, he's poking the fire even though it's not going out. It's a disruptive tactic. I suspect he's just plain niggled that his Auntie's Bollocks story didn't take off so he's avenging himself in this puerile way.

I couldn't give a toss myself but I'm offended for decent people like you who want to engage in a rational debate.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Stewart,I always thought Mr Barrett forged the diary I held that believe for years untill I met him and then realised he could not be a master forger and anybody with any sense would not involve him in any scheme or scam at any level.

This was the post immediately before Stewart's, by the way. Nice bit of selective quoting, say I, to quote from the man who never met Bongo not the man who did.

[Iconoclast]

Read my email.

'Post', obviously (I haven't PM'd you [John Wheat]) ...

[John Wheat]

'Post', obviously (I haven't PM'd you [John Wheat]) ...

I have read your post.

[Iconoclast]

I have read your post.

To John Wheat and The Baron,

So at what point in my post do I accuse Stewart Evans of being a liar?

And at what point do I demonstrate double standards?

Ike

[John Wheat]

To John Wheat and The Baron,

So at what point in my post do I accuse Stewart Evans of being a liar?

And at what point do I demonstrate double standards?

Ike

I think it's obvious.

[Iconoclast]

I think it's obvious.

Ah ha - he's spotted his mistake but he's not man enough to just own it. How predictable!

The Baron at least had the decency of not bothering to reply having already realised his own error, but you evidently wish to use the old evasiveness technique, hoping no doubt that your failure to understand the post goes away.

[John Wheat]

Ah ha - he's spotted his mistake but he's not man enough to just own it. How predictable!

The Baron at least had the decency of not bothering to reply having already realised his own error, but you evidently wish to use the old evasiveness technique, hoping no doubt that your failure to understand the post goes away.

No I understand the post perfectly. You however seem to be having problems understanding your own post. Either that or your not the only wind up merchant on the boards.

[Iconoclast]

No I understand the post perfectly. You however seem to be having problems understanding your own post. Either that or your not the only wind up merchant on the boards.

And that's all we need to understand that you didn't understand the nature of my post.

What actually happened was that The Baron made a mistake and - without bothering to check his or your facts - you leapt in like a seven year old trying to impress a ten year old with your support.

That's what happened, and everyone reading this stuff can see it. Your complete inability to tell us where I accused another poster of lying is all the confirmation that we need that your contribution to this Casebook is of limited utility to anyone.

[Iconoclast]

No I understand the post perfectly. You however seem to be having problems understanding your own post. Either that or your not the only wind up merchant on the boards.

I should have add that you rather obviously do not understand the post and everyone reading this can see it.

[John Wheat]

I should have add that you rather obviously do not understand the post and everyone reading this can see it.

No I understood your post entirely.

[Iconoclast]

No I understood your post entirely.

Well you may certainly think you did (you did not) and - if you did think this (hey, I'm not accusing you of lying here) - then you'll just keep repeating yourself so I'll have to reluctantly allow you to get away with accusing me incorrectly of accusing someone else of lying. I strongly recommend that you take greater care in your interpretation of posts and your subsequent accusations as Admin - I'm sure - wouldn't be happy with posters falsely accusing other posters of accusing others of lying. Hope you're keeping up there.

The fact that you can't tell us what it was that The Baron was accusing me of accusing Stewart Evans of speaks volumes about how you just jumped-in for a bit of a wind-up.

[John Wheat]

Well you may certainly think you did (you did not) and - if you did think this (hey, I'm not accusing you of lying here) - then you'll just keep repeating yourself so I'll have to reluctantly allow you to get away with accusing me incorrectly of accusing someone else of lying. I strongly recommend that you take greater care in your interpretation of posts and your subsequent accusations as Admin - I'm sure - wouldn't be happy with posters falsely accusing other posters of accusing others of lying. Hope you're keeping up there.

The fact that you can't tell us what it was that The Baron was accusing me of accusing Stewart Evans of speaks volumes about how you just jumped-in for a bit of a wind-up.

You're contradicting yourself here.

[Iconoclast]

Now that we have shown conclusively that the Maybrick scrapbook is authentic after all, do we need to retire this, The Greatest Thread of All?

And - in truth therefore - all threads throughout the Casebook?

Can anyone think of a good reason why we wouldn't?

Cheers,

Ike

[Scott Nelson]

No, you've conclusively proven it Ike. Good work.