Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Iconoclast]

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.

Oooh oooh, I know - ask me sir, ask me!!!

[Graham]

Oooh dear....a phrase containing the words 'touched' and 'sore point' springs to mind. I wish a 'debate' would begin, because thus far from the Barrettites we've had only statements.

Graham

[rjpalmer]

To those posters who are totally convinced that the Diary was a merry money-making jape conceived and executed by Mike "Fitzgerald" Barrett and no other - why do you still post here if your minds really are made up? What are you trying to acheive, if anything? Why don't you leave the debate between those silly people who believe that Jim really did write it and that he really was the Ripper, and those even sillier persons who think that it might just be an old creation that just may have been passed down through the Graham family? Trying to convert us, or what? I mean, it's not as if you're prepared to actually debate the issue - you just make statements and not much else. Or is it that most of you are not quite as convinced about Barrett as you'd have us believe?

Graham

Oh, I get it now. You want to play tennis without a net.

Okay then, carry on. Let's watch Caz and Icon go at it in full debate, and let the best debater win! I promise to sit by as silently as Anne Graham for the next six months, and Lord Orsam is banned and Mike is busy with the Liverpool pub scene, so there shall be no interruptions. Let the debate begin!

[Iconoclast]

Hello Ike.
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!”

Entertaining post, rj. Always well thought out, even though we rarely agree on anything.

Can I just remind those who cite hoaxes in order - bizarrely - to prove that there are hoaxes (Mike J.G. and the others who gloat with this empty logic), this one has already been shown to be a hoax, categorically, so it ain't the same as the scrapbook which has not been. I don't have to be a member of the same Club as those who believed P Man to be genuine simply because I believe in something else which ain't yet proven. I might be wrong in my belief, but someone else previously being suckered-in by some other belief and then being shown to be wrong ain't proof that I've been. Amen to that!

Why am I saying 'ain't' all of a sudden? "Martha!!!"

[Iconoclast]

To those posters who are totally convinced that the Diary was a merry money-making jape conceived and executed by Mike "Fitzgerald" Barrett and no other - why do you still post here if your minds really are made up? What are you trying to acheive, if anything? Why don't you leave the debate between those silly people who believe that Jim really did write it and that he really was the Ripper, and those even sillier persons who think that it might just be an old creation that just may have been passed down through the Graham family? Trying to convert us, or what? I mean, it's not as if you're prepared to actually debate the issue - you just make statements and not much else. Or is it that most of you are not quite as convinced about Barrett as you'd have us believe?

Graham

"Wellllll, what else COULD it be?????"

Tee hee ...

[Graham]

To those posters who are totally convinced that the Diary was a merry money-making jape conceived and executed by Mike "Fitzgerald" Barrett and no other - why do you still post here if your minds really are made up? What are you trying to acheive, if anything? Why don't you leave the debate between those silly people who believe that Jim really did write it and that he really was the Ripper, and those even sillier persons who think that it might just be an old creation that just may have been passed down through the Graham family? Trying to convert us, or what? I mean, it's not as if you're prepared to actually debate the issue - you just make statements and not much else. Or is it that most of you are not quite as convinced about Barrett as you'd have us believe?

Graham

[Iconoclast]

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.

I'd be willing to consider investing a proportion of Ms Iconoclast's inheritance on the self-same nag were it to be ridden by anyone other than Bongo Barrett.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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.