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 rjpalmer View Post

    As recently as two days ago, you suggested that Barrett had contacted Martin Earl to ascertain the value of a blank or almost blank Victorian diary (despite Mike already knowing that the one on offer was supposedly the Diary of Jack the Ripper, per his phone call with Doreen Montgomery). It remains a thoroughly bizarre suggestion, but let's go with it.

    ...

    No, I don't see many people jumping onboard this train wreck, but perhaps you have already convinced Ike to abandon his former idea that a scrapbook found under the floorboards of Maybrick's old house was "clearly a very valuable historical document."

    To everyone but 'Fat Eddie,' that is.
    RJ,

    When you sit typing this stuff, do you actually stop to wonder if you are misrepresenting the person's comments or even just not trying hard enough to understand the point they are making?

    The mocking tone does nothing for your argument. I assume that many of your readers pity you for lacking any sort of logical rigour.

    So, let's try it again with what we actually know (for reasonably certain):

    Mar 9, Eddie Lyons possibly finds the Victorian scrapbook in Battlecrease
    Mar 9, With or without the actual scrapbook in his possession, Mike Barrett rings Rupert Crew to see if they are interested in the diary of Jack the Ripper

    Now you'll notice that I have excluded all of your mocking "dashing over to the pub to give away the crown jewels in exchange for a toilet roll" comments because - of course - we don't know exactly how it panned-out.

    We don't know if Mike didn't get the scrapbook until the Tuesday or the Wednesday of that week.
    We don't know if Eddie received 25 from Mike Barret for the scrapbook (this is just a supposition).

    What we do know - and it's crucial - is that Lyons didn't describe the scrapbook as "it might be important" for another four months (July 21 1992, IIRC) when speaking with colleague Brian Rawes as he collected the firm's van from Battlecrease House where Eddie was now definitely working (as he's in the timesheet) and very possibly bricking himself because by then it's common knowledge in the pub he favours along with Mike Barrett that the latter has taken an old book to Landarn and appears to be about to publish it. At this point, Lyons would undoubtedly have twigged-on that he had sold a potentially very valuable historical document, and that he had done so for a song, a fact which would not assuage in the slightest his fear of the consequences of his actions in Battlecrease on the morning of Monday, March 9, 1992.

    So let's not stick the "it might be important" bit in out of context to try to mock even more than you were. Let's try our best to stick with the facts and theorise around those.

    Cheers,

    Ike
    Iconoclast

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
      I'm guessing, following this logic, that you assume the Dead Sea scrolls are worthless because they were found by a shepherd who didn't know what he'd found until Someone Very Knowledgeable told him?
      Another misfire, Ike.

      The Bedouin who found the first scrolls sold them to an antiquities dealer, knowing they had value.

      By contrast, you have an 'electrician' peddling The Diary of Jack the Ripper within minutes or hours to a bar-fly for the price of a blank, worthless memo book.

      I await an explanation for the chronological difficulties that Caz's theory so obviously contains. Mike 'bought' the Diary of Jack the Ripper on March 9th, but didn't agree to a price until March 26th. Is this really the best explanation you can come up with for Mike making this purchase from Earl? What happened to your recent claim that Mike had planned to write something in this book? (Which you still haven't explained)

      Are you suggesting that at no time during those three weeks did Eddie come to his senses? The Bedouin was clearly a lot sharper than 'Fat Eddie.'

      And what about the tale of some electrician taking the diary to a university for a second opinion?

      Cheers.

      P.S.

      By the way, why do you call Eddie 'an electrician'? Was he not a day laborer working 'off the books' (hence no evidence that he was anywhere near Dodd's house on March 9th). My understanding is that Eddie was a jack-of-all-trades, who later worked for a Jaguar dealership. Are you suggesting he worked there as an electrician?

      Or do you even know who you are accusing of theft?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
        If Caz wants to change little Caroline's 'testimony' to fit her theory, rather than change her theory to fit what was actually said, I'm not going to "try hard" to twist myself into a pretzel shape.
        So does your theory fit what was actually said? No it doesn't. Your theory doesn't allow for Mike bringing the diary home one day, or pestering Tony about it. But you resist changing it with every fibre of your being. Worse than pot kettle, because at least I accept that young Caroline was honestly recalling three connected events.

        Feldman dates the car ride with Little Caroline, along with her memory of her father pestering Tony, to February 1993.
        So? That would be just under a year since the row Caroline recalled between her parents.

        There is no evidence that Eddie and Michael Barrett knew each other until four months later, June 1993 (I date this from Barrett pounding on Lyon's door and from Robert Smith meeting with Barrett & Lyons in The Saddle).

        Thus, you have the chronology backwards.

        In February 1993, Little Caroline could hardly have been misremembering Michael pestering or arguing with Eddie Lyons four months in the future.
        Eh? There is also no evidence that Eddie and Mike's paths didn't cross back in March 1992. If that's when Mike brought the diary home and rowed with Anne about it, it stands to reason that it would not have been Tony being pestered for an explanations of where it had come from. Mike may still have been pestering Eddie to come clean the following year, when he gave his curious 'skip' story to Robert Smith, but the pestering would have begun when Mike first got hold of it and rowed with Anne. And that's what Caroline would have remembered, assuming she remembered any pestering.
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          Are you saying she did remember her dad pestering Tony, which would have been prior to August 1991, and she did remember the day when her dad first brought the diary home, which would have been before that, and did remember the row her mum and dad had about it, which would have been many months later, when Tony was indeed deceased?

          If not, what would be your explanation for what young Caroline was actually recalling, if anything, and when the events happened?

          I can't make sense of her recollections because I don't personally believe Mike did pester Tony about the diary. But at least I can make sense of them if she recalled her dad pestering someone, shortly after bringing the diary home, and her mum and dad rowing around the same time - events close together in time and directly connected, not separated by many months and only indirectly connected if at all. What's in a man's name, to a youngster recalling traumatic events from a year ago?
          It's a fair question, and I can appreciate your confusion.

          There's two possibilities.

          1. That young Caroline was 'coached' by Mike and Anne to lie about Tony Devereux. That wouldn't say much for the integrity of Mike and Anne, now would it? And really, why would they have needed to take it that far? Couldn't they have come up with some strategy to keep her "memories" vague, without coaching her about specifics?

          2. That young Caroline's memory was accurate.

          What you're really asking is how Mike could have pestered Tony about the Diary, if the Diary wasn't created until 7 or 8 months after his death.

          First, we don't know if Paul and Martin used the exact word 'pestering' when quizzing Caroline about Tony; this is the way Feldman chose to portray it.

          But I am of the opinion that young Caroline may have indeed remembered there had been some discussion, or argument, or 'pestering,' between her father and the late Tony Devereux, dating to several months before March 9/10th 1992. It's a pity that no one sought specifics, but no one yet knew the 'floorboards' provenance would emerge.

          From what we are told, Barrett was often down at The Saddle with Tony, just prior to picking up Caroline from school, so why would it be outrageous to think that he may have mentioned to her his discussion with Tony?

          And since Devereux had Barrett's copy of Tales of Liverpool, with its vignette on the Maybrick case, in the Spring or early Summer of 1991, then I think this must be considered a very real possibility.

          Since, at this point, the Maybrick hoax was simply an idea--maybe just another Ripper 'theory'--there is certainly nothing untoward about Mike having discussed it with young Caroline.

          Find me a "Ripperologist" that hasn't pestered his or her family with constant chit-chat about the case (!)

          As for what you think is a contradiction: I don't consider the creation of the Maybrick Hoax to be one 'event.' I think it was a double-event. The 'idea' and the creation of the text came first; the actual creation of the artifact came later.

          Those of us who believe Barrett's shenanigans with Martin Earl were an attempt to buy the raw materials for the hoax have to dismiss Devereux from any suspicion of having created the physical diary. He had died. But that doesn't mean that he couldn't have played a role in the 'idea,' or the 'text,' or 'the theory.'

          I thought this has always been made clear.

          Harris and Gray evidently believed Devereux's role was bigger, but whether they kept to this idea, or how they reconciled this with Martin Earl's testimony, I do not know.

          Cheers.
          Last edited by rjpalmer; 06-30-2021, 06:01 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            Rather than accuse a respectable and blameless couple, the Murphys ...
            Merely because someone proposes a theory doesn't mean it necessarily has to be outlandish, even if it turns out to be wrong. If the watch was in the possession of the Murphys for years before it came to light, then this is still possible within a Maybrick framework (unless, of course, you just criticise every single idea ever made without thought for any possibility of merit, unless it's your own of course). At the risk of sounding reasonable (doing time changes a man), we should consider the possibility that the watch and the scrapbook took separate paths down the long road to the light of day in 1992 and 1993.

            As for the 'double event' of 9 March, I'll have more to add to this at a later date.
            Please don't do a statistical analysis for us, RJ. If you do, don't make your population of possible events really really small so that the probability of the first one occurring by chance alone is really really high and then publish this as some sort of meaningful insight as it would make you look really really silly.
            Iconoclast

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
              First, we don't know if Paul and Martin used the exact word 'pestering' when quizzing Caroline about Tony; this is the way Feldman chose to portray it.
              Wonderful! We don't know if Paul and Martin used the word 'pestering', but we're jolly certain they used the name 'Tony'?????????

              But I am of the opinion that young Caroline may have indeed remembered there had been some discussion, or argument, or 'pestering,' between her father and the late Tony Devereux, dating to several months before March 9/10th 1992. It's a pity that no one sought specifics, but no one yet knew the 'floorboards' provenance would emerge.
              There is no argument, of course it could have happened. In the same way, she could have been remembering someone else being pestered (before Tony died, or many months later). Would this, by the way, not totally bugger up your theory that the scrapbook was only created in April 1992?

              And since Devereux had Barrett's copy of Tales of Liverpool, with its vignette on the Maybrick case, in the Spring or early Summer of 1991, then I think this must be considered a very real possibility.
              Of course it is a possibility. It's just not the certainty you portray it as.

              Find me a "Ripperologist" that hasn't pestered his or her family with constant chit-chat about the case (!)
              There is another Viz character called - IIRC - Roger Irrelevant who would come out with completely irrelevant statements at all opportunities. Not sure why he sprang to mind there, though your 'chit-chat' notion may have helped.

              As for what you think is a contradiction: I don't consider the creation of the Maybrick Hoax to be one 'event.' I think it was a double-event. The 'idea' and the creation of the text came first; the actual creation of the artifact came later.

              Those of us who believe Barrett's shenanigans with Martin Earl were an attempt to buy the raw materials for the hoax have to dismiss Devereux from any suspicion of having created the physical diary. He had died. But that doesn't mean that he couldn't have played a role in the 'idea,' or the 'text,' or 'the theory.'

              I thought this has always been made clear.

              Harris and Gray evidently believed Devereux's role was bigger, but whether they kept to this idea, or how they reconciled this with Martin Earl's testimony, I do not know.
              Or even how they convinced themselves that they had the grounds to 'believe' it? Harris - man of integrity - 'coincidentally' about to publish a book naming an entirely different candidate for Jack, and Gray - private detective - looking for a pay day. The 'believing' bit probably came surprisingly easily to both.


              Iconoclast

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                Please don't do a statistical analysis for us, RJ. If you do, don't make your population of possible events really really small so that the probability of the first one occurring by chance alone is really really high and then publish this as some sort of meaningful insight as it would make you look really really silly.
                One of the reasons I no longer throw money on the horses is because when someone is far better at statistical reasoning and analysis and who constantly proves to me this fact by taking my money, I still kept going back to keep trying. In the end, I figured out they always win for a reason.

                I sleep easier now. Not to mention that my bank balance is healthier too.
                "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                  One of the reasons I no longer throw money on the horses is because when someone is far better at statistical reasoning and analysis and who constantly proves to me this fact by taking my money, I still kept going back to keep trying. In the end, I figured out they always win for a reason.

                  I sleep easier now. Not to mention that my bank balance is healthier too.
                  That's good to hear, erobitha, although I am concerned that your lack of good luck rather flies in the face of that famous old saying about the Irish?

                  I do love that other old line about "If it wasn't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all".

                  I think we all dodged a bullet with the statistical analysis, by the way - I think he was intending some other reference to a 'double event'. Phew, that was close (unlike the nags you backed) ...

                  Iconoclast

                  Comment


                  • Ike,

                    your own posts (and certainly those posts made by Caz) often drip with mocking and sarcastic tones, so, it if you don't mind, I'm going to dismiss your lecture as irrelevant.

                    I was merely pointing out what I see to be illogical and contradictory elements in the "Battlecrease" provenance. They were honestly given, with no attempt at deception or evasion.

                    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                    So, let's try it again with what we actually know (for reasonably certain):

                    Mar 9, Eddie Lyons possibly finds the Victorian scrapbook in Battlecrease
                    Mar 9, With or without the actual scrapbook in his possession, Mike Barrett rings Rupert Crew to see if they are interested in the diary of Jack the Ripper

                    The first statement isn't even remotely certain. It's a theory without a foundation. (But don't give up on me, Ike, read on!) Eddie's name was not even on the payroll on March 9th.

                    But, strange to say, none of my 'mocking' complaints were about the 'facts' of the theory, they were about the internal inconsistencies and absurdities of the theory, apart from their lack of empirical support.

                    Though it may shock you, Ike, this was actually a tacit acknowledgment that a theory might be worthy of consideration, even though it is still devoid of empirical support, provided that it is coherent and plausible.

                    I was simply denying that the 'Battlecrease' provenance is either coherent or plausible.

                    That's not my problem; that is the problem of the theorists.

                    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                    Now you'll notice that I have excluded all of your mocking "dashing over to the pub to give away the crown jewels in exchange for a toilet roll" comments because - of course - we don't know exactly how it panned-out.

                    We don't know if Mike didn't get the scrapbook until the Tuesday or the Wednesday of that week.
                    Hold the phone, Ike!

                    It was Caz who stated that Barrett 'bought' the diary on March 9th. Perhaps she misspoke, if so, then so be it. But you still don't seem to comprehend that the price that Barrett was willing to spend on the Diary of Jack the Ripper--a historical document of great value--was (according to Caz's theory) entirely predicated on the price of a comparable diary that he was to obtained from Martin Earl--which wouldn't occur until 3 weeks later.

                    If you can't comprehend the contradiction, or simply refuse to acknowledge it, then I can't help you.

                    But tell me this: if Barrett did not take physical possession of the Diary on March 9th (which you now suggest) how did he even know it was the Diary of Jack the Ripper?

                    If he didn't actually buy it for three or four days, then the only way he could have known it was the Ripper's diary was if Eddie Lyons told him. Yet Mike alerted Doreen Montgomery to the 'fact' that he had the Diary of Jack the Ripper that same morning or afternoon (though, to be technical, he didn't get through until the next day)

                    Which leaves you with the absurdity of Eddie Lyons handing over to Mike Barrett a book that he knew came from under the floorboards of Battlecrease, and which he knew was purporting to be the Diary of Jack the Ripper, on credit. And then, three weeks later, he also agreed to finalizing the deal for the same price that Barrett had paid for the worthless red diary.

                    That's an obvious absurdity, Ike. Can't you simply admit it?

                    If I am misunderstanding your theory, then please explain more coherently. The floor is entirely yours.

                    (P.S. My paperwork is piling up. That's enough for a couple of days. I await your explanation)

                    RP
                    Last edited by rjpalmer; 06-30-2021, 07:00 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      Hi Herlock,

                      When you say 'we know' that the prison use of the term is 'completely unrelated' and 'completely unconnected' to how 'one off' is used in the diary, what do you mean by that? This was the last of the examples Robert Smith cited, and he wasn't claiming it to be the best comparison with its appearance in the diary. The first example he mentioned was 'a one-off job', from Foundry Volume 50, in 1922.

                      Here is what Robert wrote about the prison example:

                      'The phrase was used, according to Jonathan Green's Dictionary of Jargon, in 19th century prisons, to refer to convicts being sent on "one-off" duty.'

                      I assumed this to mean a duty that, like the 1922 'job', was not one performed on a regular or routine basis, but I'm happy to be corrected.

                      In the diary, it's a slap that 'Sir Jim' assures Florie will not be repeated.

                      Oddly, another controversial phrase from the diary: 'top myself', was found by Gary Barnett in a newspaper article from the 1870s, and this was indeed an example of prison usage! A prisoner had talked about 'topping himself', meaning to hang himself, just as 'Sir Jim' does in the diary. The objection has now changed, from the phrase not being recorded until the late 1950s [the expert was only 80 years out], to the real James Maybrick not being familiar with the prison slang of his generation. I doubt he was familiar with murdering and mutilating prostitutes in crime-ridden Whitechapel either, but he is portrayed as a master criminal in the diary, so why not give him an interest in the lingo to go with it?

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      Hi Caz,

                      It looks like my memory might be ‘playing me false’ then. I could only recall him mentioning ‘one off’ being used in prisons but with no further detail. At the time I’d just read a book on the prison system and I thought I’d indulge in a bit of in depth research so I asked a bloke in the pub There was an oldish bloke in my local who’d been ‘detained’ around half a dozen times since the late 70’s purely because of his obsession for collecting (lead and copper piping mainly) A bit of a character who sadly died a couple of weeks ago. He told me that ‘one off’ was a well known and long-standing phrase in prisons but that it was to do with roll calls. Understandably prisons have to do roll calls at various times during the day to ensure that no one has ‘popped out’ so each area within the prison has to be certain of how many prisoners are there. If a prisoner has to be moved from one area to another (say for a dental appointment) the officer escorting him will say to the person in charge of the area “one off Mr ……..” Meaning “you need to take this prisoner off your roll and he’ll be added to the dentists roll.”
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                        Wonderful! We don't know if Paul and Martin used the word 'pestering', but we're jolly certain they used the name 'Tony'?????????
                        Jesus wept.

                        Are can't see the difference?

                        Are you seriously suggesting that in Febuary 1993 young Caroline Barrett informed Paul Begg, Paul Feldman, and Martin Howells that her father was pestering an electrical helper named Edward Lyons about the Maybrick Diary, and none of those three men thought to investigate this or mention the fact??

                        You got me there, Ike. I'm done.

                        Comment


                        • But tell me this: if Barrett did not take physical possession of the Diary on March 9th (which you now suggest) how did he even know it was the Diary of Jack the Ripper?
                          Well, literally off the top of my head, they happened to meet in The Saddle that day and Eddie showed Mike the book. Just showed him, mark. And Mike scuttled off to the nearest phone to see if this was possibly (he couldn't know at that moment) a valuable historical document would be of interest to those folks down in Landarn. Having established that they would be interested (the next morning, I think), he'd have suddenly had quite a wee spurt on to get his hands on the thing. Whether he offered Eddie 2.50, 25 or 250, no-one knows, but Mike had it at some point before April 13, 1992.

                          If he didn't actually buy it for three or four days, then the only way he could have known it was the Ripper's diary was if Eddie Lyons told him. Yet Mike alerted Doreen Montgomery to the 'fact' that he had the Diary of Jack the Ripper that same morning or afternoon (though, to be technical, he didn't get through until the next day)
                          No, no, no, RJ. No.

                          Which leaves you with the absurdity of Eddie Lyons handing over to Mike Barrett a book that he knew came from under the floorboards of Battlecrease, and which he knew was purporting to be the Diary of Jack the Ripper, on credit. And then, three weeks later, he also agreed to finalizing the deal for the same price that Barrett had paid for the worthless red diary.
                          Only in a world where a determined eye sees everything and yet misses everything. This is not an argument I have advocated (to the very best of my recollection).

                          That's an obvious absurdity, Ike. Can't you simply admit it?
                          I don't think you've represented my feelings about what was likely so I can't admit to anything. If there's anything absurd about it, it is because you have gone out of your way to paint it so.

                          If I am misunderstanding your theory, then please explain more coherently. The floor is entirely yours.
                          I don't think this is a particular theory of mine (the how-to-work-out-how-much-to-pay theory) so I'm going to take a raincheck on your generous offer of occupying the floor on this one.

                          Ike
                          Last edited by Iconoclast; 06-30-2021, 07:34 PM.
                          Iconoclast

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                            Jesus wept.

                            Are can't see the difference?

                            Are you seriously suggesting that in Febuary 1993 young Caroline Barrett informed Paul Begg, Paul Feldman, and Martin Howells that her father was pestering an electrical helper named Edward Lyons about the Maybrick Diary, and none of those three men thought to investigate this or mention the fact??

                            You got me there, Ike. I'm done.

                            Wow, second-guessing how you're going to read things, RJ, is becoming like a hobby for me these days - practically a full-time job, actually!

                            I was making the simple point that if there was any debate at all about whether the word 'pestering' had been used, then we have to adopt the same standards for the name 'Tony'. If Paul and Martin had not used the word 'pestering' to Caroline, they may also have forgotten to be specific about 'Tony'.

                            It's honestly not very difficult to grasp. I think that piling-up paperwork is affecting you, old boy.
                            Iconoclast

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              It looks like my memory might be ‘playing me false’ then.
                              Don't be so hard on yourself, Herlock. Your memory is fine.

                              Originally posted by caz View Post
                              'The phrase was used, according to Jonathan Green's Dictionary of Jargon, in 19th century prisons, to refer to convicts being sent on "one-off" duty.'

                              I assumed this to mean a duty that, like the 1922 'job', was not one performed on a regular or routine basis, but I'm happy to be corrected.
                              I promised to go, but this really needs to be addressed.

                              'Orsam' listed this as a 'false fact,' because Jonathan Green's Dictionary of Jargon was written in 1984 (and later revised) and the entry states nothing whatsoever about this being a 19th Century prison expression.

                              And, other than Green, Smith gives no source for his claim.

                              Further, the usage is not comparable to the way "Maybrick" uses it.

                              Nor does it refer to a duty done on an irregular basis. It is a term used when one prison guard is handing over an inmate to another guard's supervision. It is a system where they make a verbal exchange---"one off" and the other responds "one on"--so they knew they are on the same 'wavelength,' and the prisoner isn't being lost in the shuffle due to miscommunication.

                              See the link below, about a quarter of the way down, for the full discussion. Orsam's point is entirely valid.

                              MaybrickTheFalseFacts - Orsam Books

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                                It's honestly not very difficult to grasp. I think that piling-up paperwork is affecting you, old boy.
                                No, it's not difficult to grasp; it's just nuts. I guess I have more faith in the interviewing techniques of Paul Begg and Martin Howells than you do.

                                Given a private moment, they were broadly questioning Caroline Barrett to see if her memories aligned with the provenance tale Mike just told them (which included Tony Devereux).

                                You are desperately attempting to muddy the waters by implying there could have been confusion, and she may have been referring to Eddie Lyons or someone else.

                                Not really worth considering, Ike.

                                And of course, it wasn't Eddie Lyons with Mike's copy of Tales of Liverpool, it was Tony Devereux.

                                I'll see you in a couple of days! Do get some much needed rest.

                                P.S.

                                Oh, and let's make one point explicit, shall we? The only reason you don't want Tony Devereux to have been discussing the Diary with Mike in 1991 is because it is a kick in the pants to the 'March 9th 1992' provenance. It's not that the circumstances aren't reasonable in and of themselves.

                                Before the 'new' provenance emerged, Diary supporters were happy to accept it, because it seemed to support Anne Graham's tale of having given the diary to Tony, and Mike pestering him. Indeed, I don't think I exaggerate when I say that your mentor, Paul Feldman, was overjoyed to learn that Mike and Tony had discussed the diary as far back as the Summer of 1991.

                                Now it's necessary to not only sweep it under the floorboards like a hideous, vulgar, and unwanted object, but to argue with tooth & nail if someone suggests it may have occurred.

                                My how times have changed, Ike!
                                Last edited by rjpalmer; 06-30-2021, 08:21 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X