The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Iconoclast]

Except the 1904 example does not use "one off" in the same context as the diarist. As Mr Orsam already highlighted, it is being used in a manufacturing sense, and not for someone's actions or behaviour. It's also enclosed in inverted commas, which would suggest the phrase was not particularly common at that time.

"One-off standpoint" is unequivocally a 'position' (or 'event' or however you wish to describe it). You may argue that the 'standpoint' is regarding a "one-off" process, and I can see how that works, but it is also a juxtaposition of the process term "one-off" with an event term which is exactly what "one off instance" is. We are told that that wasn't possible in 1888 and yet it happened in 1904, regardless of how you interpret the intent of the author of it. Doesn't seem such a great leap of faith anymore when the gap shrinks so greatly down to about 15 or 16 years.

And that's even assuming that "one off instance" was intended as "one-off instance"!

[Sam Flynn]

This is what I read on the internet.
'The problem is that there is not a single recorded use of the expression'One off' in the nineteenth century
Now the expression I use,dealing' One Off' the bottom of the deck,does relate to card cheats,and was an expression in use in the nineteenth century,as much as it is today.

But that's not "one off", but specifically "one off the bottom of the deck" - which means you've been slipped a card deliberately by the dealer, a totally different scenario to "one off" being used to refer to a unique thing or event.

[Harry D]

I think you'll find that the only real stick Orsam wielded whilst screaming 'hoax' like a Braveheart banshee was his far from one-off insistence that "one off instance" was a concept Maybrick simply could not have had (or had to have been the first to have it by about 100 years). All of his other claims are essentially opinions, unproven.

Obviously, we now all know that the concept that Maybrick used in 1888 was formally in print (as "one-off standpoint") as soon after Maybrick's time as 1904. I think we can safely suggest that the 1904 use was not the first use of the concept (of a "one-off" situation rather than a "one-off" process) so there does not appear to be any issue at all with James Maybrick associating the principle of the "one-off" with a situation (instance, event, standpoint, et cetera) which is what he has been so vilified for doing.

Except the 1904 example does not use "one off" in the same context as the diarist. As Mr Orsam already highlighted, it is being used in a manufacturing sense, and not for someone's actions or behaviour. It's also enclosed in inverted commas, which would suggest the phrase was not particularly common at that time.

[harry]

This is what I read on the internet.
'The problem is that there is not a single recorded use of the expression'One off' in the nineteenth century
Now the expression I use,dealing' One Off' the bottom of the deck,does relate to card cheats,and was an expression in use in the nineteenth century,as much as it is today.
Argue as much as you will,as I use the term,it was available.Whether it has a bearing on the Diary,I have no idea.

[Sam Flynn]

I did read of a man who dealt 'One off' the bottom of the deck.Only time he ever did so.His playing partner shot him.1865.Did Maybrick play cards?

The expression "one off" doesn't relate to dodgy card dealers, where being dealt a card from the bottom of a deck means you've been cheated.

[Iconoclast]

fyi if anyone wants to really know the history of the phrase one off instance and how it proves the diary is a hoax (like if you actiually needed yet another fact that does that) all they need to do is google orsam books and click on articles.

the definitive answer to the maybrick nonsense(and many ripper related bull shite) will be found here.

I think you'll find that the only real stick Orsam wielded whilst screaming 'hoax' like a Braveheart banshee was his far from one-off insistence that "one off instance" was a concept Maybrick simply could not have had (or had to have been the first to have it by about 100 years). All of his other claims are essentially opinions, unproven.

Obviously, we now all know that the concept that Maybrick used in 1888 was formally in print (as "one-off standpoint") as soon after Maybrick's time as 1904. I think we can safely suggest that the 1904 use was not the first use of the concept (of a "one-off" situation rather than a "one-off" process) so there does not appear to be any issue at all with James Maybrick associating the principle of the "one-off" with a situation (instance, event, standpoint, et cetera) which is what he has been so vilified for doing.

Whenever an anti-Maybrick position is shot down, the anti-Maybricks tend to simply 'shut up' about it conveniently and move on to their next 'evidence' of a hoax. Let's just watch it in action!

Keep an eye out on the Society's Pillar thread - Maybrick's about to go back to the top of the Jack parade.

[Abby Normal]

fyi if anyone wants to really know the history of the phrase one off instance and how it proves the diary is a hoax (like if you actiually needed yet another fact that does that) all they need to do is google orsam books and click on articles.

the definitive answer to the maybrick nonsense(and many ripper related bull shite) will be found here.

[harry]

I did read of a man who dealt 'One off' the bottom of the deck.Only time he ever did so.His playing partner shot him.1865.Did Maybrick play cards?

[Iconoclast]

There are some people on this thread who clearly believe that it is perfectly plausible that James Maybrick would have originated a phrase, or be the first person in recorded history to use such a phrase, in a book of dubious, that is to say non existent, provenance. A phrase that no one of the period would have understood, and would have considered to he gobbledygook.

There are some people on here who believe it perfectly plausible that such a phrase would not he used again, in recorded history, for half a century, and then in a strict technical sense, only to be found in obscure publications.

There are some people on here who believe it perfectly plausible that, in recorded history, no one else would use such a phrase, in the context used in the "Maybrick" diary, for about a century.

There are some people on here who clearly believe that it is perfectly plausible that, in 27 years, no-one has been able to find such a phrase in common usage, or any usage, at the time the Diary was supposedly written.

There are some people on here who clearly believe that it is perfectly plausible that in 27 years no one has been able to find a single recorded example of the phrase being used again in the same context as used in the Diary for around a century.

There are some people on here who clearly believe that it is perfectly plausible that the phrase has not been found, in 27 years, for about half a century in any context.

Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

There are some people on this thread who have been able to show that "one off instance" was repeated (in effect) just 15 years after Maybrick's death which implies that Maybrick's using it in 1888 was no great shakes.

I honestly have struggled to follow your post (above) and your previous couple so - rather than attempt to work them out - I'm just going to move on, delighted in the knowledge that nothing you have posted could have altered the rather obvious fact that "one off instance" did not wait a century before being captured (in effect) in print. Lord Orsam must be seriously pissed off tonight.

Happy days.

[Iconoclast]

Great. So list twenty examples. Or, if that's too difficult, one example.

Well I can't! But the great news is that I don't have to - it just doesn't matter because we know an example was given in 1904! Just 15 short years after Maybrick's death, and surely not the first such example in reality (if not in print)?

Nothing more to prove there. The principle of a one-off 'event' (in this case 'standpoint') was given no later than 1904. That's all we needed to know. What a palaver over nothing!

[John G]

Speculation my arse....I Googled it, and what I posted is what I found!

Graham

That was obviously too simple. What about frabbblw? Google that!

Anf just out of interest, why in God's earth did you think it reasonable/ sensible that I would use an obscure phrase, in completely the wrong context?

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, without knowing precisely when the phrase 'one off' was first coined - and I think you'll understand why I claim it was a long time before 1888 - we can't really take a view as to when it entered everyday usage. But I do believe it was well before 1888

It's not just "one-off [physical artefact]" though, but "one-off [abstract entity]". Besides, I don't see any reason to believe, or evidence to suggest, that even "one-off [physical artefact]" would have been in everyday use before the 20th century, never mind its abstract mutation.

[John G]

There are some people on this thread who clearly believe that it is perfectly plausible that James Maybrick would have originated a phrase, or be the first person in recorded history to use such a phrase, in a book of dubious, that is to say non existent, provenance. A phrase that no one of the period would have understood, and would have considered to he gobbledygook.

There are some people on here who believe it perfectly plausible that such a phrase would not he used again, in recorded history, for half a century, and then in a strict technical sense, only to be found in obscure publications.

There are some people on here who believe it perfectly plausible that, in recorded history, no one else would use such a phrase, in the context used in the "Maybrick" diary, for about a century.

There are some people on here who clearly believe that it is perfectly plausible that, in 27 years, no-one has been able to find such a phrase in common usage, or any usage, at the time the Diary was supposedly written.

There are some people on here who clearly believe that it is perfectly plausible that in 27 years no one has been able to find a single recorded example of the phrase being used again in the same context as used in the Diary for around a century.

There are some people on here who clearly believe that it is perfectly plausible that the phrase has not been found, in 27 years, for about half a century in any context.

Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

[Graham]

And it appears that I am the originator of the phrase, and the first person in recorded history to use such a phrase! And I am not acknowledging that your interpretation is correct...that's pure speculation.

Speculation my arse....I Googled it, and what I posted is what I found!

Graham

[John G]

Driggle

{v. intr.} to laugh unintentionally at the same time as taking a sip of ones drink, so as to create a bubble pool in said drink. The word is an amalgamation of the words Drink and Giggle. This is often done at parties where amusing stories will occur alongside communal alcohol consumption, although the act of driggling is not solely exclusive to alcoholic beverages.

I need say no more.

Graham

And it appears that I am the originator of the phrase, and the first person in recorded history to use such a phrase! And I am not acknowledging that your interpretation is correct...that's pure speculation.