The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Iconoclast]

And to Ike -- I am trying to keep an open mind on this so much so that I will probably order the book from amazon. You are right that I lean towards the diary being a fake. The provenance seems awfully shaky to me. But I try to call 'em as I see 'em and just don't buy the smoking gun argument.

c.d.

This could be the start of a great relationship, c.d. (although there is a Mrs Iconoclast so don't get your hopes up too much).

Which book are you thinking of ordering from Amazon (I may want to get it too)?

Rootin' Tootin' Six-Gun Ike

[c.d.]

Oh Lord, I knew I would regret getting involved in this discussion. Now if Maybrick stated that he wrote the diary to impress Jodi Foster (I think the Americans will get that reference) then I would absolutely conclude that it is fake. However, I am not aware of millions of undercover grammar police that secretly listen and record every conversation (much like Santa's elves) and list first instances of expressions being used. How many books, magazines and publications have been reviewed to reach a conclusion on this? And why does it have to be Maybrick that originated the phrase? He didn't live in a bubble but had an extensive social life and rubbed elbows with a lot of people in the cotton industry. Could he have simply picked it up from them? I have used expressions I got from my friends and vice versa so it needn't be the case that this was solely a Maybrick invention. If you want to argue that the scarcity of this expression casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the diary I have no problem with that. I just think the whole smoking gun conclusion is unwarranted.

And to Ike -- I am trying to keep an open mind on this so much so that I will probably order the book from amazon. You are right that I lean towards the diary being a fake. The provenance seems awfully shaky to me. But I try to call 'em as I see 'em and just don't buy the smoking gun argument.

c.d.

[Harry D]

"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"!

But again, the context of the "one-off standpoint" was from a manufacturing/design point of view, and there's no proof they were referring to a "unique" event. Mr Orsam has already addressed all of this. It does nothing to validate the claim that "one off instance" was a nineteenth century term.

[Abby Normal]

Oh - just in case anyone was wondering who was confused here, it was Abby Normal.

A 'false dichotomy' is where you offer someone only two options, neither one of which may be the correct or appropriate one. They can be as mutually exclusive as you want, but they've got to at least include all of the possible options otherwise you're creating a limited-choice. When you only offer two such choices, they become a false dichotomy.

Turns out I am that smart after all - such a relief!

no because your apparently the second of the two options---deluded.

and since you apparently do believe the diary is authentic then i actually feel sorry for you.

but at least your not a troll.

[Iconoclast]

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

And - if they just thought of those phrases - does that not simply go to the argument that those phrases were possible to think? And - if they were possible to think - does that not go to the possibility that they were written down occasionally? Good grief.