Special Announcement

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The current usage developed from an obscure engineering term. Why couldn’t the term to describe an immature horse have developed into a description of an immature person or his actions?

As I say, what’s of most interest is that David doesn’t mention the equine usage when ‘proving’ the diary to be a fake because of the use of the term ‘one-off’.

Why?

Hi Gary, I'm not wanting to get drawn into a debate about this particular explanation, how language develops is an entirely organic thing. As I said, I've a cognitive dissonance on the whole "one off", it's never been comprehensively disproved, but it's such an innocuous phrase. Shakespeare is credited with introducing many phrases to the English language. Were they unknown before he penned them? How did his audience understand his plays?

The equine use relates to age, and as such immaturity of a horse. It's not a solid argument to disprove the the "one off" anachronism. Even if it was, is that all that is needed to prove the Diary to be genuine?

Also, David has argued his case against the equine use. Since he chose to do so in a way that is, I feel, disrespectful, I'm not going to link or such, we have exchanged posts without me feeling the need to refer to you by derogatory names, and I hope to maintain that level of respect.

If David has some genuinely revelatory findings, then by all means, let's hear them, let's debate them based on his actual findings, but let's not let our personal grievances cloud that debate. David has his supporters on this site. He has his detractors. He's a capable man, a great researcher and a knowledgeable scholar. If what he has found is earth shatteringly amazing, or a biased opion of a jaded man, let's see it for what it is. But I don't think anyone should automatically discredit him before that point, or based on any pre conceptions of his previous work.

He's put the ball squarely in his court, it's up to him to make his case.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary, I'm not wanting to get drawn into a debate about this particular explanation, how language develops is an entirely organic thing. As I said, I've a cognitive dissonance on the whole "one off", it's never been comprehensively disproved, but it's such an innocuous phrase. Shakespeare is credited with introducing many phrases to the English language. Were they unknown before he penned them? How did his audience understand his plays?

The equine use relates to age, and as such immaturity of a horse. It's not a solid argument to disprove the the "one off" anachronism. Even if it was, is that all that is needed to prove the Diary to be genuine?

Also, David has argued his case against the equine use. Since he chose to do so in a way that is, I feel, disrespectful, I'm not going to link or such, we have exchanged posts without me feeling the need to refer to you by derogatory names, and I hope to maintain that level of respect.

If David has some genuinely revelatory findings, then by all means, let's hear them, let's debate them based on his actual findings, but let's not let our personal grievances cloud that debate. David has his supporters on this site. He has his detractors. He's a capable man, a great researcher and a knowledgeable scholar. If what he has found is earth shatteringly amazing, or a biased opion of a jaded man, let's see it for what it is. But I don't think anyone should automatically discredit him before that point, or based on any pre conceptions of his previous work.

He's put the ball squarely in his court, it's up to him to make his case.

I hadn’t realised that David had responded to the discovery of the equine usage, but knowing his methods, I think I’ll pass on checking it out. He usually distorts others’ points and launches smokescreens of personal insults to disguise the fact.

My belief is that all David has proved is that he has been unable to find examples of a usage of ‘one-off’ that aren’t anachronistic.

Fine. But it doesn’t follow that the usage is anachronistic. David has proved nothing.

Out of interest, did he explain why there’s no mention of the equine usage in his magisterial ‘one-off’ article.

That should be of more interest to seekers after truth than the question of whether a Victorian horse owner might have used the equine term figuratively.

[MrBarnett]

I should add, that if David has found ‘proof’ that the diary is modern, I shall be the first to congratulate him. It would come as no great surprise to me.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I hadn’t realised that David had responded to the discovery of the equine usage, but knowing his methods, I think I’ll pass on checking it out. He usually distorts others’ points and launches smokescreens of personal insults to disguise the fact.

My belief is that all David has proved is that he has been unable to find examples of a usage of ‘one-off’ that aren’t anachronistic.

Fine. But it doesn’t follow that the usage is andachronistic. David has proved nothing.

Out of interest, did he explain why there’s no mention of the equine usage in his magisterial ‘one-off’ article.

That should be of more interest to seekers after truth than the question of whether a Victorian horse owner might have used the equine term figuratively.

At a guess, because your discovery of the equine usage post dates his article. He presumably wouldn't include it, if he found it, because it's a different context.

Gary, let's not bog down in this, David "Lord" Orsam isn't claiming to have concrete evidence that the equine argument is irrelevant, or maybe he is, we don't know, because he hasn't published his article. Let's wait until it's published, then see it for what it is.

It has to be noted, Orsam didn't originally identify the anachronism.

This is a thread of total supposition, those believing David must be bang on, so there goes the diary, and those believing he has to be wrong because he's a one sided bitter git. If nothing else he provokes discussion.

And I stress, I've had, and hope to continue to have, exchanges with forum members that David refers to by names that I wouldn't repeat. I respect his contributions when they are impartial and based solely on his research. His personal style of address, no, I've not got time for. But, and I stress but, if he has something valid to contribute, then let's hear it for what it is.

Ok, until he actually publishes, I'm out of this one.

[MrBarnett]

Don’t blame you, Al.

My point, which I’ll make one last time, is that David didn’t mention the equine usage in his original article, the article that he claims ‘proves’ the diary is modern.

Why might that have been?

Either he missed it or he spotted it but for some reason decided not to mention it. Either of those possibilities should give even those who were convinced by his ‘proof’ pause for thought. Except, of course, those who are are prepared to accept his theories without having seen the details. It seems we have at least one such believer on here.

As I said earlier, if David presents us with genuine proof that the diary is modern, it would be no great to surprise to me that such proof exists or that it was David who had found it.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi All,

Wether Lord O has something of interest or not remains to be seen, so until he puts up, I'll shut up.

The horse reference is not the same context. Through my own cognitive dissonance, I'm not a huge fan of the whole "one off instance" debate, but the horse reference is to do with teeth growth?

By the by, until David reveals his new revelation, we can't shoot it down. More so, why automatically discredit his findings, when we don't know what they are?

Save face and grace. If his "special announcement" is a crock, let's see it for what it is. Until then, I'd reiterate to say, "David, mighty big words preacher. Now put up or shut up"

Wise words!

I'm with you, Al!

Anytime I see a proclamation of a breakthrough, not immediately followed by an immediate reveal, I just recall Pierre's posts, **** an eyebrow, yawn and immediately drift off into a fog of ennui.

Get on with it!

Make the revelation, and it will be judged on it's merits.

I've been in the pub for the first time since lockdown started, and require instant gratification!

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Don’t blame you, Al.

My point, which I’ll make one last time, is that David didn’t mention the equine usage in his original article, the article that he claims ‘proves’ the diary is modern.

Why might that have been?

Either he missed it or he spotted it but for some reason decided not to mention it.

One last time, he didn't mention it because it it hadn't been brought up until it was found after he wrote his article. So he missed it, fair shout, but it's a moot point because the context is different, or he found it but didn't mention it, because the context is different?

And honestly, I'm not "one such believer", or trying to promote David's as yet undisclosed revelation, which might in all fairness be total bullshit and him just pulling the strings, because let's face it, for a guy who voluntarily left the boards, he cares a great deal about the boards.

I can only reference his article on his site, and it doesn't mention horses. There's no agenda here. And I'll return to an earlier point, I've had alot of good discourse without reverting to personal attacks (WWH being an exception, but I did apologise to him), and I've no desire to change that, and certainly I wouldn't want to create some "us Vs them" mentality, all I'm getting at is that we can't discredit this as yet undisclosed revelation until David actually puts it out there.

And, also, would it be entirely unlikely for Lord O to make such a massive, yet likely bullshit statement just to get a reaction from the boards, which he doesn't care about but avidly dissects?

Seriously, hang fire.

[MrBarnett]

What is the context?

The equestrian term ‘one-off’ would almost certainly have been known to Maybrick and it could have been used figuratively to describe a regrettable incident of domestic violence.

It’s as simple as that.

Either, despite his endless Googling of ‘one-off’, David missed it, or he found it but thought better of mentioning it.

Surely, it would at least be worth a mention.

[Iconoclast]

I should add, that if David has found ‘proof’ that the diary is modern, I shall be the first to congratulate him. It would come as no great surprise to me.

MrBarnett,

We agree, and we disagree. Personally, I would be completed 'corked' if he can show that the scrapbook is even a hoax never mind a modern one.

Maybe he's planning to repeat the 'Damn Michael Barrett' spot that was identified in the much-maligned 'Imagine' thread?

By the way, 'magisterial' is such a good word! Is it better than 'brilliant', though?

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

And I stress, I've had, and hope to continue to have, exchanges with forum members that David refers to by names that I wouldn't repeat.

Hey Abe,

I trust His Lordship hasn't been His Lordshit and dissed his old mate Ike?

I've invited that man to every party I've ever had. Sometimes he's the only person I've invited. I am his social circle for goodness sake!

What's he said about me? What's he called me?

Not that I'm bothered.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

And honestly, I'm not "one such believer", or trying to promote David's as yet undisclosed revelation, which might in all fairness be total bullshit and him just pulling the strings, because let's face it, for a guy who voluntarily left the boards, he cares a great deal about the boards.

Abe,

I think MrBarnett was referring to The Baron not your good self.

And, I think the official line is that he resigned to spend more time with his family.

Cheers,

Ike

[MrBarnett]

Abe,

I think MrBarnett was referring to The Baron not your good self.

And, I think the official line is that he resigned to spend more time with his family.

Cheers,

Ike

Yes, I was referring to Baron. Apologies, Al, if you you thought I might have been referring to you.

David first came to my attention when he described those who post on JTRF as ‘muppets’.

[MrBarnett]

MrBarnett,

We agree, and we disagree. Personally, I would be completed 'corked' if he can show that the scrapbook is even a hoax never mind a modern one.

Maybe he's planning to repeat the 'Damn Michael Barrett' spot that was identified in the much-maligned 'Imagine' thread?

By the way, 'magisterial' is such a good word! Is it better than 'brilliant', though?

Cheers,

Ike

‘Magisterial’ has to shade its eyes to look up to ‘brilliant’.

[drstrange169]

I don't understand Gary, are you saying Maybrick was referring to a one year old murder?

[MrBarnett]

I don't understand Gary, are you saying Maybrick was referring to a one year old murder?

Hi Dusty,

No, I’m saying:


“I’m sure we’re all familiar with the adjective ‘coltish’:


colt·ish | \ ˈkōl-tish \
Definition of coltish
1a : not subjected to discipline
b : FRISKY, PLAYFUL
coltish antics
2 : of, relating to, or resembling a colt
coltish legs

A one-off would be a very young colt, and the term might without too much of a stretch be used, particularly by a horsey person, to describe very indisciplined behaviour. A one-off instance might be a description of a single example of extremely coltish behaviour.

I’m not saying it was used that way in the diary, just that there’s nothing outrageous in the suggestion that it might have been.”

(From JTR Forums)


Maybrick might have used it to describe, to play down in some way, his behaviour towards his wife.

The way the ‘one-off’ question has been considered until now has been to assume the term was being used in the way we would use it today and to attempt to demonstrate its modern origins. Not totally successfully in my opinion because we can never know when it began to be used orally.

What amazes me is that despite the hours (days) David Orsam must have spent Googling ‘one-off’ he either didn’t spot this equine usage or he chose not to mention it. Either way, his readers weren’t given the full picture. It’s a usage that would almost certainly have been known to Maybrick and which could quite easily have been attached to ‘instance’ to explain away an example of bad behaviour.

https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=33982&highlight=Coltish&page=8