Tweet
Originally posted by Aethelwulf
View Post
-
Not gutting in the slightest. 'Gutting' is having to reply to you lot with your ill-thought-through misinformation in case anyone makes the mistake of thinking my failure to reply represents an inability to reply ... -
Rather put me in mind another easily-achieved conundrum (once you think really hard about it like you must have done there, Fishy) ...Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
"But, first, here's Fishy to tell you how to rid the world of all known diseases".
Comment
-
-
Comment
-
What a shame real posters like this character appear to no longer be with us.
Well worth a read, but the idiotic responses from Boris Badenough are priceless!Comment
-
I noticed this comment by Caroline Brown over at “the other place.”
“I think the onus of proof should work both ways, whether it's James Maybrick being accused of serial murder, or the Barretts and the Johnsons being accused of faking the diary and watch.”
This is a very telling comment, if not by design.
Both ways? This implies that the “onus of proof” only applies to two positions—those who think the diary is real and those who think it is a modern fake by the Barretts.
Caz's own position, conveniently enough, doesn’t require any proof.
What about the onus of proof for those who argue in favor of the Battlecrease provenance?
What about Eddie Lyons being accused of theft, or the Murphys being accused of lying about where and how they obtained the watch? Or the Barretts being accused of profiting off of stolen goods? Or Anne Graham being accused of lying about her 'in the family' provenance--which Caz is just as guilty of as the most skeptical of the diary skeptics?
Clearly, the ‘onus of proof’ applies to everyone but Caz.
Rather convenient, I should think.
Last edited by rjpalmer; 03-31-2023, 06:04 PM.Comment
-
-
-
Ahh going done the totally irrelevant off topic road are we Ike.? PityOriginally posted by Iconoclast View PostComment
-
-
After 9460 who cares?Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
The topic has become like a reality t.v saga . Both fake .Comment
-
Here's something I don't recall ever seeing in any book about the Maybrick Diary.
Even Robert Smith's chief scientific advisor, Dr. Nicholas Eastaugh, thought the diary was a hoax. I wonder if 'Iconoclast' will now throw Dr. E under the same bus as he has already thrown Baxendale, Rendell, Chittenden, Warren, Fido, Nickell, Giles, Casey Owens, or his favorite, Melvin Harris.
Comment
-
Why did you not show the whole article Roger out of interest? I quite like the bit above it that shows me that Albert claims he wanted to give some of the money, if sold, to charity. Wouldn't be nice to make money out of it he said.Originally posted by rjpalmer View PostHere's something I don't recall ever seeing in any book about the Maybrick Diary.
Even Robert Smith's chief scientific advisor, Dr. Nicholas Eastaugh, thought the diary was a hoax. I wonder if 'Iconoclast' will now throw Dr. E under the same bus as he has already thrown Baxendale, Rendell, Chittenden, Warren, Fido, Nickell, Giles, Casey Owens, or his favorite, Melvin Harris.
First time I saw that. I'm not surprised. It would be something Albert probably would do. Thanks for the heads up.
Last edited by erobitha; 04-04-2023, 07:46 PM.Comment
-
Personally, I enjoyed the bit where Dr. Forshaw states that "If it is a hoax, it is extremely cleverly done". Not "sort of cleverly" but extremely cleverly, note.Originally posted by erobitha View Post
Where's your 13-year old on a wet weekend now, RJ?Comment
-
13-year-old? Wet weekend? Is that someone's suggestion, Ike?
I'm not surprised that you embrace Dr. Forshaw's quote, though.
It must be a great consolation to believe that if you've been bamboozled, you've been bamboozled by someone extremely clever.
Comment
Comment