The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[John Wheat]

Quite a bit actually, John.

Both are divisive and infuriating, with people on either side of the fence accusing those on the other side of deluding themselves. Even those on the fence don't escape.

The difference is that the diary will not affect anyone's health, wealth or happiness in a bad way unless they let it, so it is [or ought to be] of very little importance.

Have a restful weekend.

Love,

Caz
X

Well I rarely comment on the diary. As for Brexit seeing as you brought it up. I think it should be scrapped. It was sold to gullible people on lies.

[Abby Normal]

Who knows how many times "one-off instance", "one-off standpoint", "one-off event" et cetera were used in unpublished documents and letters between 1888 and 1904.

Probably quite a lot I'd circumspectly suggest ...

and im sure there is even more times when someone just thought of those phrases. good grief.

[Iconoclast]

so are trolls....wait maybe not

This is my favourite type of passive-aggressive attack from a scrapbook-disbeliever. You want to undermine someone's argument but you're really struggling to muster up the case for it? I know, let's just say we're being trolled!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How dare anyone put forward an argument that I don't agree with!

It's as predictable as the sun rising in the east, it really is ...

[John Wheat]

I think holding and expressing a belief - any belief - is fine. It's only when someone claims that what they believe is the truth that they need to come up with the goods to prove it. That applies whether one is claiming Maybrick undoubtedly wrote the diary, or the Barretts were undoubtedly involved in its creation. But this thread asks the question: old hoax or new? So by rights, the onus is on those who are claiming it to be 'undoubtedly' a modern hoax [usually defined as post-1987], or 'undoubtedly' an older hoax, to back up their case with the evidence.

As I don't personally claim to know what the diary is 'undoubtedly', [but believe it was most probably created before 1987 by person or persons yet to be identified] there is no onus on me to prove anything.

Love,

Caz
X

Considering the **** and bull story concerning where the diary came from my point still stands that it is up to those that believe Maybrick wrote the diary to prove it. And I've yet to see anything approaching proof. As for the diary not being a modern forgery again the proof is sorely lacking.

[caz]

Not when "regards" is a known tic of Mike Barrett.

Really, Gareth? And where, pray tell, did you find Mike exercising his tic before he had already pored over the diary night and day and absorbed so much of it that quoting 'Sir Jim' became pretty much second nature? Hmm?

You'll have me the author of Macbeth next, for saying "Out damned spot!" whenever I reach for the Vanish.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Isn't that what we call a false dichotomy?

no Einstein its not-one is doing it on purpose but dosnt really believe what they are saying and the other truly believes but is wrong.
they are mutually exclusive.

for all your vain glorious back patting youre not really that smart are you?

[Iconoclast]

Who knows how many times "one-off instance", "one-off standpoint", "one-off event" et cetera were used in unpublished documents and letters between 1888 and 1904.

Probably quite a lot I'd circumspectly suggest ...

[Abby Normal]

Honestly Harry, I would just move on from this gaff of yours. You used as an analogy something which has never been shown to exist (ever) and compared it with something which clearly has been shown to exist ("one-off" as an event in common parlance). What you needed was an analogy where something is now known to exist but wasn't always known to exist - but instead you concocted an illogical argument about unicorns which (I'm sure you know) are simply made up animals.

so are trolls....wait maybe not

[Iconoclast]

Hey - I think we should have a special Darwin Award for the first poster to come on here and attempt to argue that the phrase "one-off standpoint" (1904) is materially different from "one off instance" (1888). What does everyone think?

Shall we take bets on who the first person will be?

[Iconoclast]

no Sam was the only one with any sense in that circle jerk of despair. and I applaud his patience.

and your either trolling or seriously deluded

Isn't that what we call a false dichotomy?

[Abby Normal]

Well well well, the odd diary-defender amongst hundreds and thousands and you get petty about it! I'm truly unsurprised by the desperation of your argument. Interestingly, the argument centres on the comments of Sam Flynn - yes, that old milker of the cash cow himself! That famous diary-defender!

Wonderful stuff. The "one off instance" (without the hyphenation) is well and truly buried. Now that the sideshow is over it can be packed away and we can focus on the real issue which is that the scrapbook is rather obviously written by James Maybrick and the long search for Jack the Ripper is over.

Oh happy days!

no Sam was the only one with any sense in that circle jerk of despair. and I applaud his patience.

and your either trolling or seriously deluded

[Iconoclast]

Where is the evidence that "one off instance" was used in the 19th century? The diary doesn't count because its origin is unproven.

You are arguing that because we haven't found something yet, it doesn't prove its nonexistence. That's the argument from ignorance in a nutshell.

Have you attempted to find it, Ike?

Honestly Harry, I would just move on from this gaff of yours. You used as an analogy something which has never been shown to exist (ever) and compared it with something which clearly has been shown to exist ("one-off" as an event in common parlance). What you needed was an analogy where something is now known to exist but wasn't always known to exist - but instead you concocted an illogical argument about unicorns which (I'm sure you know) are simply made up animals.

[Iconoclast]

You mean that echo chamber of Diary Defenders? lol

At least the admin has some sense:

title of maybrick section

James Maybrick

It should really be called the Maybrick Dairy; where else would you expect to find a cash cow being milked?

Well well well, the odd diary-defender amongst hundreds and thousands and you get petty about it! I'm truly unsurprised by the desperation of your argument. Interestingly, the argument centres on the comments of Sam Flynn - yes, that old milker of the cash cow himself! That famous diary-defender!

Wonderful stuff. The "one off instance" (without the hyphenation) is well and truly buried. Now that the sideshow is over it can be packed away and we can focus on the real issue which is that the scrapbook is rather obviously written by James Maybrick and the long search for Jack the Ripper is over.

Oh happy days!

[caz]

I knew exactly what Caz was trying to say. The onus is on those that believe the diary was written by Maybrick to back that up with evidence and not on those who believe its a modern forgery. So provide some evidence it's genuine or shut up.

I think holding and expressing a belief - any belief - is fine. It's only when someone claims that what they believe is the truth that they need to come up with the goods to prove it. That applies whether one is claiming Maybrick undoubtedly wrote the diary, or the Barretts were undoubtedly involved in its creation. But this thread asks the question: old hoax or new? So by rights, the onus is on those who are claiming it to be 'undoubtedly' a modern hoax [usually defined as post-1987], or 'undoubtedly' an older hoax, to back up their case with the evidence.

As I don't personally claim to know what the diary is 'undoubtedly', [but believe it was most probably created before 1987 by person or persons yet to be identified] there is no onus on me to prove anything.

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

But there is no evidence for unicorns at all! For this analogy to work, there would have to be evidence for unicorns in 1984, but none in 1888!

Where is the evidence that "one off instance" was used in the 19th century? The diary doesn't count because its origin is unproven.

You are arguing that because we haven't found something yet, it doesn't prove its nonexistence. That's the argument from ignorance in a nutshell.

Have you attempted to find it, Ike?