Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Diary—Old Hoax or New?
Collapse
X
-
The Barretts wrote the diary and the Watch markings were not written by James Maybrick.
- Likes 1
-
Originally posted by erobitha View Post
This response to me sums everything up about you on this thread, John.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by erobitha View Post
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
You still have not given any reasons as to why the watch markings are genuine.
Whilst the Maybrick Diary continues to divide experts over 30 years on, the other artefact of the watch remains inconvenient. Jay Hartley investigates.
I look forward to your detailed counter-arguments. I guess I might be waiting some time, though.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by erobitha View Post
To educate means to impart some knowledge. Something you have severely lacked in this discussion.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by erobitha View Post
You clearly think the Barretts wrote the diary (they didn't) so who do you think "forged" the scratches? Robbie or Albert Johnson?
If so, one very simple question, why?
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by erobitha View Post
In this game of debate, I show you reasons why they are genuine, and you show us your reasons as to why they are not.
You should understand that basic concept unless your debating skills ended at pre-school.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
Because they were forged by someone they are not genuine. By the way you have shown no reasons why they are genuine to me atleast.
If so, one very simple question, why?
- Likes 3
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by erobitha View Post
In this game of debate, I show you reasons why they are genuine, and you show us your reasons as to why they are not.
You should understand that basic concept unless your debating skills ended at pre-school.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
But the watch markings are not genuine. So you're wrong on all levels.
You should understand that basic concept unless your debating skills ended at pre-school.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by erobitha View Post
It's those depths of the debate you go to that really win people over.
If I believed you genuinely wanted to discuss the watch for one second, I would, but your only ambition is posting one-liners of nonsense.
You might enjoy the art of trolling, but I have faith that people with more critical thinking than you can present an open mind for discussion. Right now, you sound like a demented Parrott offering nothing of any value.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
It is interesting to take some time away from the debate and then return to it. I see Owly Owl maintaining a very creditable calmness in the face of the child’s one-liners (have you ever noticed how a child is absolutely incapable of taking a hint?) and ero b’s more strident - but utterly logical - defence of the watch despite The Baron’s boring, tunnel-visioned (just like drainpipes one might say) pursuit of the unproven as God’s Truth.
Obviously, I will be accused of bias here, but I couldn’t give a **** - the clickbait wind-ups and the cut and paste one liners give themselves away time and time again. Dilettantes.
Ike
- Likes 3
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: