The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[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?

[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

[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.

[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 ...

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Who knows how many times "one-off instance", "one-off standpoint", "one-off event" et cetera were used in unpublished documents and letters between 1888 and 1904.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

[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.

[caz]

I think that the one off instance debate can only be settled to the satisfaction of the majority with the an injection of cash. David Orsam has provided us with, in my opinion, the strongest point against the diary being genuine. We would all have to agree that an anachronistic phrase would kill it stone dead. We can all give our opinions on the topic but the fact is that, as far as I’m aware, none of us are acknowledged experts in the evolution and usage of language. If I was Robert Smith and I was looking to prove that the diary was genuine my first move would have been to try and knock over the strongest argument against it by commissioning such an expert (or two) To be honest he did himself no favours with his attempt to disprove the point in his previous book. In short, only an expert in the field (or two) could provide us with a conclusive answer in my opinion.

Hi HS,

In the notes section at the back of Robert's 2017 book, he does cite an example from 1905 of a 'one-off job', taken from Volume 50 of a publication called Foundry.

For what it's worth.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

It's talking about engineering/manufacture (casting or moulding) so, once again, we have a specialist using "one-off" in a technical context. We'll have to wait a long time before lay-people start writing about "one-offs" to describe abstract things like instances of human behaviour. Whilst the "rough indicator" caveat still applies to Google Books, the fact remains that I didn't find examples of any of these phrases in print before the 1970s:

Sam, just read this from a few posts back. You have to bear in mind that back in the 19th and early 20th century there was a far higher proportion of the workforce at all levels engaged in engineering and manufacture than there is today. Therefore is it not to be expected that 'engineering expressions' would be in more common household usage than is the case today?

Graham

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,

In the notes section at the back of Robert's 2017 book, he does cite an example from 1905 of a 'one-off job', taken from Volume 50 of a publication called Foundry.

For what it's worth.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

I just found it difficult to see how he could have used the prison explanation without seeing how it was obviously a completely different usage. It’s difficult to put that one down to an error.

[Harry D]

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.

You've missed the point. We can't take on blind faith that things might exist because there is no categorical proof they don't, be it the term "one off instance" in the 19th century or unicorns full stop.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, just read this from a few posts back. You have to bear in mind that back in the 19th and early 20th century there was a far higher proportion of the workforce at all levels engaged in engineering and manufacture than there is today. Therefore is it not to be expected that 'engineering expressions' would be in more common household usage than is the case today?

Hello Graham

They'd still be a small minority of the population, and I see no reason why workplace jargon should be used at home, or even how much of it could be used. ("Wife, I am back from the factory. Could you make me a couple of your nice toasted cheese sandwiches please? Actually, I'm very hungry, so better make it four-off". Can't quite see that kind of thing happening somehow.)

[Sam Flynn]

In the notes section at the back of Robert's 2017 book, he does cite an example from 1905 of a 'one-off job', taken from Volume 50 of a publication called Foundry.

Hello Caz

The source of Robert Smith's information was the Wiktionary website, which indeed quotes Foundry Vol 50 p158, 1905:

"If such a casting was wanted in a hurry - a one-off job - there would be no question of molding [sic] it on a machine"

Unfortunately, as David Orsam pointed out, had Robert Smith checked on Google Books, he'd have found that Vol 50 of Foundry was actually published in March 1922. Orsam reproduces some images from the magazine, including the relevant part of p158 that does indeed mention the "one-off job", on his website.

[Iconoclast]

You've missed the point. We can't take on blind faith that things might exist because there is no categorical proof they don't, be it the term "one off instance" in the 19th century or unicorns full stop.

No I didn't. With the concept of a "one-off event" we have a reference point - those terms entered the English language at some point and that is not in debate. Unicorns have no reference point. If the point that you were trying to make was the one you state above, you should have found an analogous example rather than a totally irrelevant one.

[Iconoclast]

"One-off job" is essentially the same as "one-off" full stop. It relates to a manufacturing process and whether it was published in 1905 or 1922 (why would it be published in 1922 - was this where John Cleese got the idea for the 1967 'At Last, The 1948 Show', I wonder?) it does not help us to explain how the entirely different "one off instance" could have been used in 1888.

Fortunately, the 1904 "One-off standpoint" does that perfectly so we can all move on from that 'irrefutable' proof of a hoax to the next imagined one ...

[Graham]

Hello Graham

They'd still be a small minority of the population, and I see no reason why workplace jargon should be used at home, or even how much of it could be used. ("Wife, I am back from the factory. Could you make me a couple of your nice toasted cheese sandwiches please? Actually, I'm very hungry, so better make it four-off". Can't quite see that kind of thing happening somehow.)

Well, oddly enough, Sam, I can. I have the very distinct impression that the majority of posters to this thread are what one might call post-industrial society. I am 73, and I well remember my old man, who was an electrician, coming home from work during the 1950's and regaling my mother (and anyone else within ear-shot) of what he had done at work that day. His job was his life, and I am very certain he wasn't the only bloke who thought as such. (Not a 'one-off', you might say). When I was old enough to go down the pub with the old man, say around 1964, he had risen a bit in his work, but he and his mates had but two topics of conversation: Aston Villa FC, and their work. Maybe, Sam, your background is slightly more middle-clarse, shall we say; if, of course, there ever was a middle-class in Wales, forgive me for saying so but I can't resist it!

Graham