Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[caz]

Ah yes, Ike, because post offices were often sourced by keen drinkers, privy to the secret knowledge that they served ale for one's refreshment! lol.

Gosh, Mike, are you really that ignorant or were you joking?

Before post offices there were post houses, typically inns, serving food and drink, where the post was delivered or picked up, and if it was a coaching inn the horses could be watered while their riders took a spot of liquid refreshment. When the railways came, things changed and the old post houses gradually lost their postal services to post offices built for purpose, while retaining their status as public houses or hotels.

Ike, the clue is in the fact that Maybrick supposedly "took refreshment" there. The fact that you laughably have to invent a story about the writer actually meaning to claim Sir Jim was sitting in a post office having a glass of beer in a fruitless attempt to try and quash the fact that the writer actually made a staggering, factual error, is nothing short of embarrassing, but whatever keeps this dream alive for you, mate.

Now that is embarrassing, Mike, unless you really were joking. Nobody is suggesting Sir Jim was sitting in a post office supping his beer. When the real JM was born, in 1838, the main Liverpool post office was adjacent to an old inn on School Lane, a stone's throw from his childhood home and very close to Whitechapel. In 1839 the post office separated off and moved to a different location, leaving the original inn to serve up alcoholic refreshments to the regulars who used to combine a drink with all their postal needs. The directories for 1888 give this old inn's name as the Post Office Tavern, showing that it was still associated with those old postal services, fifty years after the last person had used them. Easy to see how it might have been referred to by its regulars back in the day as "the post house". And that's where Robert Smith was directed by a former landlord of Rigby's in Dale Street, when he asked for "the post house". I also gave you the name and phone number, by private message, of the old chap I met, who said exactly the same to me when I asked him if Liverpool had a "post house". Yet you cheekily refer to him as some 'random' chap and ignore Robert Smith's experience, as if we both invented our sources.

'Sir Jim' misspells 'post haste' with a rogue e: 'poste haste', so there's no reason why a hoaxer couldn't have done the same with post house, to produce the 'Poste House'. There used to be a sign 'Poste Restante', where postal services were offered, so anyone, including the real JM, might have picked up the rogue e from that. If this is what our hoaxer had in mind, I would suggest they were creating the text at a time when the pub in Cumberland Street was yet to be renamed the Poste House, so they had no idea this would trip them up when their hoax emerged in 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

exactly. which shows it wasnt written at the time and that the hoaxer wasnt very good.

I didn't say it was written 'at the time', Abby. Nor did I say the hoaxer was 'very good'. In fact I'm not sure you understood a word of what I did say. So I wouldn't advise you or Mike to try creating a hoax anytime soon.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I didn't say it was written 'at the time', Abby. Nor did I say the hoaxer was 'very good'. In fact I'm not sure you understood a word of what I did say. So I wouldn't advise you or Mike to try creating a hoax anytime soon.

Love,

Caz
X

i didnt say you said those things caz. I was just making general points.

[Iconoclast]

I didn't say it was written 'at the time', Abby. Nor did I say the hoaxer was 'very good'. In fact I'm not sure you understood a word of what I did say. So I wouldn't advise you or Mike to try creating a hoax anytime soon.

Love,

Caz
X

Honestly, Caz, I think we are being trolled. Nobody - three sheets to the wind most of the time or not - could ever be so ignorantly ignorant! They must be meaning to be?

I suspect it would be very dangerous for me to accept Mike's generous offer of a night on the lash in Liverpool as I still rather value my teeth, but I have to say that on the few occasions I too have been three sheets to the wind in Scouseland Central, it's been a right good night. It's very much like Glasgow, Newcastle, etc. - rough as a badger's, but remarkably tolerant. Maybe we should all get together in the Philharmonic (I think that's the one I was tying to remember the other day), sing Beatles songs, and remember to duck once Mike starts 'arguing the case' for the Victorian scrapbook of James Maybrick being a hoax?

Abby, honestly mate, I value your wit and wisdom, but - like Caz - that last poste of yours was ever so cryptic.

PS [Addendum] I wasn't meaning that the Scousers would have my teeth for garters - I was suggesting that Mike might given my slightly less than generous comments about me old mucker from the midden.

Ike

[Abby Normal]

general note-I find it very interesting that caz and other diary defenders, who dont think the diary was written by maybrick, rarely, if ever, debate and or reply with snarky remarks and insults with those who do. I mean its a hoax right? shouldnt that be a much more a point of contention then the comparatively minor question* of who hoaxed it?

curious that.


*and its not even a question/mystery who hoaxed it anyway.

[Iconoclast]

general note-I find it very interesting that caz and other diary defenders, who dont think the diary was written by maybrick, rarely, if ever, debate and or reply with snarky remarks and insults with those who do. I mean its a hoax right? shouldnt that be a much more a point of contention then the comparatively minor question* of who hoaxed it?

curious that.


*and its not even a question/mystery who hoaxed it anyway.

Perhaps they are sufficiently open-minded that they can at least entertain the possibility (however unlikely in their opinion) that the jury remains out on the truth of the matter so that someone arguing for Maybrick is not really rattling their cages and irritating them. Maybe they are freer of thought and therefore don't have cages to rattle?

On the other hand, those who have boxed themselves into cages (in this, I include myself, of course) very much have cages to get rattled and walls to defend so we get personally affronted by the moots of the other side?

I find that Caz - like many people on the site, scrapbook defenders or not - simply address the evidence and if someone posts in a 'bigoted' or tunnel-visioned way, they get rightly motivated to correct the misinformation and closed thinking. Maybe it comes across as 'snarky' in the case of Caz because she's pretty fearless in her approach. Personally I both admire her for it and am very scared of her at the same time. Maybe one person's 'snarky' (such a great word, by the way, where on earth did you get it from?) is another person's 'passion'?

Take your post (quoted). You haven't allowed for any possibility that it is not a hoax and have even closed off who the hoaxer was even though the rest of us know that that has not yet been established (28 years and counting, by the way). I don't think Caz has ever said that she knows beyond any doubt that it is a hoax. I suspect other agnostics (this is probably not the best term but it's as good as I've got at the minute) take a similar view. I'm sure Caz has posted before that she believes it to be an old hoax (Victorian period) but that she doesn't care either way - she just wants to know the truth one day. For the record, I'm convinced it's not a hoax but I too desperately hope for the truth one day regardless of its nature and I cannot simply settle for the dark corners of misinformation, poorly-constructed opinion, bald-ass assertions, and presuppositions. Hold on, am I plagiarising from 'The Atheist Experience' here???

This argument would suggest that scrapbook agnostics and defenders argue with a closer eye to a fair interpretation of the available evidence, of course, which would be a wonderfully covert-snarky way of my saying we use our brains more.

Not that I would ever suggest that, of course!



PS I also find that people of all persuasions (including me) are never 'snarky' in private correspondence. It's like we all agree to play out a certain character in our public fora, but are minded to be our socially-adjusted selves in PMs/emails (even whilst still in character). I think psychologists call the former 'deindividuation'.

[caz]

i didnt say you said those things caz. I was just making general points.

Fair enough, Abby. Have a lovely Easter.

[caz]

general note-I find it very interesting that caz and other diary defenders, who dont think the diary was written by maybrick, rarely, if ever, debate and or reply with snarky remarks and insults with those who do. I mean its a hoax right? shouldnt that be a much more a point of contention then the comparatively minor question* of who hoaxed it?

curious that.


*and its not even a question/mystery who hoaxed it anyway.

Your final words, Abby, demonstrate perfectly why you may occasionally be the receiver of a snarky remark or an insult. Think about it. It's not hard.

[caz]

And on that note, Abby, why are you here, if it's not to make snarky remarks and poke fun at the posters who, unlike yourself, have not been able to solve the mystery of who created the diary or why? If that is your idea of entertainment, you go for it, but don't expect a warm reception.

[caz]

In case I didn't make it clear enough, when Liverpool's main post office relocated in 1894 to Victoria Street, the pub in nearby Cumberland Street was renamed The New Post Office Hotel in its honour. At the same time, the Post Office Tavern on School Lane was renamed The Old Post Office Hotel, in honour of Liverpool's original post office which had stood on the same site as the old inn until 1839, where people could pick up and post their mail and enjoy a pint or three at the same time.

In short, when The New Post Office Hotel finally became The Poste House, this would have been a nod to Liverpool's original post house on School Lane. The pub still on that site today is simply called The Old Post Office, but what might JM's father have known it as in the early 1800s?

By the way, one of my favourite Liverpool pubs is Ye Cracke in Rice Street. Note the e on the end of Crack, which is not as far as I know a modern affectation. Maybe someone will correct me on that point?

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

And on that note, Abby, why are you here, if it's not to make snarky remarks and poke fun at the posters who, unlike yourself, have not been able to solve the mystery of who created the diary or why? .

With regard to the diary. When do you think it was created? I know you have expressed your thoughts on the this issue before, but could you just refresh our memories.

[rjpalmer]

Hello Ike.

There’s nothing quite like having the morning’s first cup of coffee, while checking in on the progress (?) in Diaryland.

Regarding your post #171:

Declaring oneself a diary ‘agnostic’ is a bit like declaring oneself an invertebrate. It’s rhetorical self-protectionism. “Sticks and stones can never break my bones because I don’t have any.” Having a belief, on the other hand, is like having an actual backbone.

(Don't sell yourself short! Don't praise those lower on the food chain!)

Caz scolds Mike for not sticking around to ask Keith ‘tough’ questions. But how do you ask tough questions to a self-proclaimed agnostic who insists that he has no hound in the hunt, only mild preferences? You might as well swordfight with the ghost of Hamlet’s father. Tough questions do not come into play if someone insists they have no answers—only more questions.

I’ve been following this ‘debate’ (is it a debate?) off and on for nearly 20 years and make no mistake about it: the agnostics are the ones who get to ask the questions, they need not answer any. That’s the essence and the reward of being an agnostic. Their creed has learned that a jellyfish is far more difficult to break than a Sumo wrestler. This, as you rightly note, this represents superior intelligence and insight.

I don’t know if you saw my comment on the Piltdown Man hoax on the other site. The hoax was accepted for decades before someone noticed the file marks and realized that old Pithy had the jawbone of an orangutan. Only then did the business of unmasking the hoaxer really kick into gear, but by then the trail was as cold as a Diary debunker’s heart. In subsequent years books came forward naming various conspirators—trying to explain who did what at Piltdown pit.

Now, I could sit back and say, “You see! The Piltdown debunkers can’t even agree on who dunnit! Some say Teilhard de Chardin, some say Dawson, and, lordy, some dumb-arse even says Conan Doyle! And if they can’t agree, well my dear fellow, then why not face the reality—or at least the POSSIBILITY-- that Piltdown Man IS REAL!”

This may be a delightful and joyful and wise argument, perhaps even convincing to certain folks chewing popcorn in the upper decks, but it doesn’t make the jawbone any less orangutan.

I suspect that this is the secret belief of the Diary agnostic:

“I have no pony in the race. Any old nag can win and I’m as happy as a clam, just as long as it’s not Barrett’s filly, True Confessions.”

Can it really be agnosticism if one has a secret belief? Answer: of course not.

[c.d.]

Hold on, am I plagiarising from 'The Atheist Experience' here???

Hello Ike,

I am a fan of that show as well and watch it religiously (pun intended). I am always amazed at the absolute lack of critical thinking skills of the believers who call in. I am also in awe of the responses of Matt Dillahunty. That is a man who knows how to think clearly and logically.

c.d.

[Observer]

I suspect that this is the secret belief of the Diary agnostic:

“I have no pony in the race. Any old nag can win and I’m as happy as a clam, just as long as it’s not Barrett’s filly, True Confessions.”

Can it really be agnosticism if one has a secret belief? Answer: of course not.

Put that horse in the Grande National. I've stuck an e on the end of Grand by the way it's de rigueur around these parts at the moment it seems. The thing is it's an easy shot for the National, lets make it more interesting. How about we make it run backwards blindfolded wearing oversize wellington boots with a 15 stone penalty. I'd still put my shirt on it.

[Iconoclast]

Hold on, am I plagiarising from 'The Atheist Experience' here???

Hello Ike,

I am a fan of that show as well and watch it religiously (pun intended). I am always amazed at the absolute lack of critical thinking skills of the believers who call in. I am also in awe of the responses of Matt Dillahunty. That is a man who knows how to think clearly and logically.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

Well it's one of life's ironies, coming from me, but sometimes Old Mattahunty irritates me with his egotistical rants. He's very very clever but his arguments always feel extremely defensive to me, like every criticism is a criticism of him, and every failed piece of logic (and - Lord - there are so many) from a theist caller is a personal affront to him. Nevertheless, the rhetoric from Austin (of all places!) has definitely informed some of the tone of mine over the last year or so. I love the show, but there may as well just be Matt on when Matt's on (for those who don't watch it, there are always two presenters - a host and a guest, though when Mattahunty's on it's impossible to tell the difference between the two because he just takes over).

Right now, I'm watching a brilliant video on YouTube ('Everything and Nothing: What is Nothing? (Jim Al-Khalili) | Science Documentary | Science') and all I can hear in my head is "Welllll, what else COULD it be????" (said in a southern drawl whist cleaning old Martha's howitzer whilst she's skinning that poor raccoon's she just shot). There's so much information out there for folk to consider, but so many simply absorb their views from what most of the folks around them say. To me, it is the birth of tragedy, over and over again, every day.

'Talk Heathen' is awesome too, though less so when Rantahunty is invited on.

Ike
Incredibly Clever Too but Honestly Never Mentions It