One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

Oh dear ...

Why do you say "Oh dear"?

Because it is an incontrovertible fact that the diary is not genuine?

[Abby Normal]

I really enjoy threads on the diary and also Bury my favourite suspect.
This thread has been enjoyable so far and am sure it will roll on and on, hopefully.
I have no idea weather the diary is a forgery or genuine ,I am not that clever.
However so far no one has posted one incontrovertible fact that the diary is not genuine which is the title of the thread .

handwriting dosnt match maybricks-no need to go any farther than that really.

[Iconoclast]

handwriting dosnt match maybricks-no need to go any farther than that really.

Fair enough. Off we all go then ...

[paul g]

Fact

Hi Abby is that a incontrovertible fact , or could it be stated that the diary does not match any known examples of Maybricks handwriting from 1888- to death.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Abby is that a incontrovertible fact , or could it be stated that the diary does not match any known examples of Maybricks handwriting from 1888- to death.

It's what's called an incontrovertible opinion, paul g.

Loving your contribution - rare to get any balance around here - so please keep it up!

Ike

[David Orsam]

Hello? Am I invisible?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby is that a incontrovertible fact , or could it be stated that the diary does not match any known examples of Maybricks handwriting from 1888- to death.

whats the difference? and yes its a fact.

[Iconoclast]

whats the difference? and yes its a fact.

It's an absolute, incontrovertible fact that one, paul g.

I've got me coat on, the taxi's on its way ("Taxi for O'Noclast!"), and the slightly larger than average lady has almost finished belting out 'Nessun Dorma'.

It's all over. Hat-trick to Hurst and some people are on the pitch and all that.

But - soft! - maybe 'twas not thus: Maybe Hurst only scored twice?

Nothing is always as it seems ...

[David Orsam]

Handwriting is one thing but including an unhistorical expression in the diary - one that simply did not exist in 1888 - is quite another.

Using an expression that did not exist must prove that the diary is not genuine, surely.

[paul g]

One off

Hi David The phrase "one off as you correctly point out was not in common use in 1888. I found via google first known use was in 1934.
While this is a valid point it does seem a good point to debate on ,or to put it another way needs counteracting by those that support the diary theory.
I guess it is similar to having something like lol in today's terms.

How would a counter aurgument counteract.
By saying the words "one and off" were inexsistence at that time ?

This enjoyable thread has come up with two suggestions to the original posters question.

1 Writing in the diary does not match known handwriting of Maybrick.
2 The term/saying "one off" was not known to be used in the English language at the time the diary is supposed to be written .

Both are valid counter arguments that would need to be explained by someone who knows what there talking about
I.e not me (or Pierre).

[David Orsam]

The term/saying "one off" was not known to be used in the English language at the time the diary is supposed to be written .

That's not quite what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that the expression "one off instance" or similar ("one off occasion", "one off occurrence", "one off happening" etc.) did not exist in the nineteenth century so that its appearance in the diary is entirely unhistorical and anachronistic, thus proving the diary was not written in 1888.

[spyglass]

Hi David The phrase "one off as you correctly point out was not in common use in 1888. I found via google first known use was in 1934.
While this is a valid point it does seem a good point to debate on ,or to put it another way needs counteracting by those that support the diary theory.
I guess it is similar to having something like lol in today's terms.

How would a counter aurgument counteract.
By saying the words "one and off" were inexsistence at that time ?

This enjoyable thread has come up with two suggestions to the original posters question.

1 Writing in the diary does not match known handwriting of Maybrick.
2 The term/saying "one off" was not known to be used in the English language at the time the diary is supposed to be written .

Both are valid counter arguments that would need to be explained by someone who knows what there talking about
I.e not me (or Pierre).

Hi,
If you were to change LOL for OMG as an example, this was first used by a high ranking Naval officer in telex form way back to the Battle of Jutland.

As for "one off " I'm sure there are examples that have been found in use back in 1888.

Regards.

[paul g]

One off

Firstly thanks David for clarifying ,appreciated.

Secondly hi Spyglass.
Indeed if correct then that would counter the counter argument.

I would never of though OMG would of been used so long ago , just goes to show not everything we think is modern is actually modern.

A example of " one off being used commonly prior to or around 1888 would be helpful if anyone can find anything.
Google not putting much forward.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi,
If you were to change LOL for OMG as an example, this was first used by a high ranking Naval officer in telex form way back to the Battle of Jutland

That's right, Stephen Fry said so.

[Purkis]

Harrison finds several examples of 'one-off' being used pre- 1888:
It was used in prison slang, it meant 'one only' when ordering building materials, it referred to a unique example or prototype in engineering, and it was an ornamental brick used in Victorian canals.