The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Abby Normal]

Pettifogging. Hyphenated or not, the use of the term referring to something unique was not used outside of the Maybrick Diary before the 20th century. You can believe that this term has been conveniently lost or that Maybrick was the Shakespeare of his time, but when weighed against that improbability, the dubious origin of the diary, and the other errors, it really is hard to see why anyone thinks it's legit.

Hope springs eternal*







*usually followed by disappointment

[The Baron]

That's honestly your argument, then? We've lost almost all of the relevant evidence but the answer almost certainly lies amongst the little bit we've got left?

That reminds me of the guy who was found searching for his keys in a posh neighbourhood as it was growing dark. When asked where he lost them, he said some other, rougher place. When asked why he was looking here instead of there, he replied that he felt safer here. [I've heard Buddhist versions where it's the light that's better 'here'].

So we look for the keys where we feel safe - where there is some evidence; but not where we need them to be, where the evidence is more or less all gone ...

And what will be easier than Jack the ripper telling us all who he was, and writing a diary!


No need to search at all!


The Baron

[Sam Flynn]

Even those on the fence don't escape.

What's worse, they get piles - as some among us will already know

[Harry D]

How can you assert this is categorically true if you don't have access to the written documents and letters of that time? Orsam checked in an online database of published works. That was it.

Absence of evidence is an argument from ignorance.

There might be a miraculous archaeological discovery of a unicorn waiting to happen, but until such time we accept that unicorns don't exist.

[Iconoclast]

Absence of evidence is an argument from ignorance.

There might be a miraculous archaeological discovery of a unicorn waiting to happen, but until such time we accept that unicorns don't exist.

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!

'Absence of evidence is an argument from ignorance', by the way, is what you are doing not what I am doing!

[Abby Normal]

Well, would you credit it? A wee nudge from a private correspondent sent me off to the dark side - yes, The Jack the Ripper Forums - and there I found a short exchange regarding the problematic nature of "one-off" which was quickly dispelled by the identification of the expression "one-off standpoint" in an engineering text dated 1904.



The actual thread can be found here: https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=28835&page=4

Now there's a small degree of embarrassed 'counter argument' which quickly fizzles out. Why does it fizzle out so quickly? Well, it is primarily because the argument was clearly shot to pieces. You can all read it for yourselves.

So it's mentioned by an engineer therefore it was not commonly available (even though that engineer had made the leap from "one-off" as a process to "one-off" as a position). Well, it's an engineering journal so we shouldn't get too excited there. The fact that an engineer could use that phrase so unselfconsciously in 1904 is all the evidence that we need that the stylised version of the old 'process' had reached common parlance. Unless we are arguing that only engineers could possibly have adapted an engineering phrase like "one-off" as a process to mean "one-off" as a position?

You know what, everyone, I think we all need to revisit The Greatest Thread of All as it is clearly not as moribund as Orsam and Flynn think!

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?





and speaking of cows-the Shirley Harrison/Traynors bull shite nonsense has already been cleaned up. another made up fantasy-it never ends.

[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?

[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

[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!

[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.

[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]

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?

[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?

[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]

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 ...