Who were they?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

"What a load of toss" - Can someone help me out here. As a Yank, I am having trouble understanding this expression. I know what a tosser is. Great expression by the way. And I assume that load of toss means it is nonsense, garbage, b.s. etc. But how does that derive from the expression itself?

c.d.

If a tosser tells you something that's a load of toss, you can tell them you couldn't give a toss and politely tell the toss pot to toss off.

[Iconoclast]

That is a very pertinent question, but one which could and should be asked about the other popular suspects.
I have been criticised for arguing that Druitt was so busy teaching at a public school, practising as a barrister, and playing cricket, that he would not have had time to walk the streets of Whitechapel at night, looking for victims.
The fact that he was in Dorset at the time of the first murder underlines that point.
How could Druitt also have been finding time to study human anatomy?
Where is the evidence that Aaron Kosminski had anatomical knowledge?
We are told that as a hairdresser, he was practically working in a paramedical field.
Where is the evidence that Victorian hairdressers knew how to locate a human kidney?
We are told that he once worked in a hospital in Poland.
How do we know he was not a porter?
Where is the evidence that Lechmere knew how to locate a human kidney?
We are told that he must have worn a bloodstained apron from handling meat.
How would that enable him to locate human organs?
Where is the evidence that Sickert knew how to locate a human kidney?
He was an artist and the closest he came to a course in human anatomy was the sessions he had with nude models in his studio.

Finally, a post we can all agree with.

[erobitha]

Actually, he's right. The hoaxer got it wrong.

Describing the Kelly murder, the diarist writes:

"I placed it all over the room, time was on my hands, like the other whore I cut off the bitches nose, all of it this time."

Yet, Dr. Thomas Bond, in describing the Kelly murder scene, writes:

"The face was gashed in all directions the nose [,] cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partially removed..."

Oops. Partially removed?

The hoaxer not only got it wrong, but emphatically wrong, because she/he stupidly stressed that "all of it" had been cut off.

As for 'placing it all over the room,' for those who have read Lord Orsam's Diary Deep Dive, this is almost certainly an error borrowed from Odell.

Alas, considering that the bogus handwriting and the provenance, etc., doesn't faze the True Believer, he will hardly balk at swallowing this small embarrassment--a willing appetite for swallowing embarrassments being the key attribute of a Diary True Believer.

It's kind of like Kipling's 'If"

If you can swallow twenty pounds of blather before breakfast
If you can turn a blind eye to the pen
If you can twist logic into pretzels
You'll can be a Maybricknick, my son!

If I cut the the tip or even a little more off your nose RJ, as a layman it is perfectly plausible I would declare I cut your nose off. If I am not 100% medically correct I do not care. The intention was there. You love using intent as an argument.

Also you mention the strewn around the room again. If the hoaxer was gong from a modern reference of Dr Bond’s report why did they not use the information? The hoaxer also missed Dr Bond’s breasts location.

By the way, what is crossed out in the original text of the diary in relation to the breasts? Perhaps you could share with the class?

[Iconoclast]

eddowes nose was cut off. so was kellys. also, part of eddowes ear was cut off. get your **** straight before you go up against the diary defenders lol

I'm starting to think I'm still asleep (perfectly possible) - another post we can all agree with!

[Iconoclast]

Actually, he's right. The hoaxer got it wrong.
Describing the Kelly murder, the diarist writes:
"I placed it all over the room, time was on my hands, like the other whore I cut off the bitches nose, all of it this time."
Yet, Dr. Thomas Bond, in describing the Kelly murder scene, writes:
"The face was gashed in all directions the nose [,] cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partially removed..."
Oops. Partially removed?
The hoaxer not only got it wrong, but emphatically wrong, because she/he stupidly stressed that "all of it" had been cut off.
As for 'placing it all over the room,' for those who have read Lord Orsam's Diary Deep Dive, this is almost certainly an error borrowed from Odell.
Alas, considering that the bogus handwriting and the provenance, etc., doesn't faze the True Believer, he will hardly balk at swallowing this small embarrassment--a willing appetite for swallowing embarrassments being the key attribute of a Diary True Believer.
It's kind of like Kipling's 'If"
If you can swallow twenty pounds of blather before breakfast
If you can turn a blind eye to the pen
If you can twist logic into pretzels
You'll can be a Maybricknick, my son!

Trust you to spoil the harmony ...

[erobitha]

Finally, a post we can all agree with.

I gave up reading their posts after my insomnia was cured.

[Iconoclast]

Hello again,

"Top Myself" is one of the poorer anachronisms in my opinion.

If anyone has found "bumbling buffoon" yet, or "one off" that doesn't involve horses ages or bees from the 1970's I'd be interested to see it.

I've said it before, it doesn't seem implausible for either phrase to have been in use, 'bumbling buffoon' sounds quintessentially Victorian, and yet, not one single example found. The earliest, by a long shot, use of both phrases, is in the Maybrick diary. Cotton merchant, serial killer, pioneer of the English language.

Or it was written in the latter 20th century.

ââââââWhatever happened to The Baron?

'Top myself' is done and dusted, Abe. Do you not recall Gary Barnett's splendid find of a Victorian usage a few years back now?

I would have stored it had I thought for a moment it would rear its head again so long later ...

[Iconoclast]

If I cut the the tip or even a little more off your nose RJ, as a layman it is perfectly plausible I would declare I cut your nose off. If I am not 100% medically correct I do not care. The intention was there. You love using intent as an argument.
Also you mention the strewn around the room again. If the hoaxer was gong from a modern reference of Dr Bond’s report why did they not use the information? The hoaxer also missed Dr Bond’s breasts location.

By the way, what is crossed out in the original text of the diary in relation to the breasts? Perhaps you could share with the class?

Ooh, me sir, me sir, pick me!

He said he thought about leaving Kelly's breasts by her feet, sir! And that's really strange because he did leave one of her breasts by her foot, sir. So the hoaxer followed all the newspaper reports (and books) and said the breasts were located on the table, sir, and yet he wrote a bit of doggerel which he then crossed-out, sir, and it seems that he also knew about the breast at her foot, sir! That's just pure dead weird, sir!

[erobitha]

Ooh, me sir, me sir, pick me!

He said he thought about leaving Kelly's breasts by her feet, sir! And that's really strange because he did leave one of her breasts by her foot, sir. So the hoaxer followed all the newspaper reports (and books) and said the breasts were located on the table, sir, and yet he wrote a bit of doggerel which he then crossed-out, sir, and it seems that he also knew about the breast at her foot, sir! That's just pure dead weird, sir!

Gold star for Ike!

[The Baron]

Whatever happened to The Baron?

Still around BE, but nothing is catching my interest lately.

"Topping oneself" was not exactly a victorian expression either, the author of the article had to explain it to the readers, it doesn't directly prove the diary is a hoax the way "one off instance" or "bumbling buffoon" dose, but it is another good example of the modernity inside it.


The Baron

[c.d.]

Hi c.d,

I believe that in this context the use of "toss" as a noun refers to the....errrrm..... end product of tossing as performed by the aforementioned tosser.

Thank you for that, Ms. Diddles. And a special thanks for the particularly delicate nature of the response. I guess there are some things that one is simply better off not knowing.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

eddowes nose was cut off. so was kellys. also, part of eddowes ear was cut off. get your **** straight before you go up against the diary defenders lol

Eddowes' nose was not cut off.

The tip of it was cut off, but the nose is visible in the photographs of her.

What happened to her ear is irrelevant.

What happened to Kelly is irrelevant.

You are the one who ought to get his facts straight before purporting to correct me.

At the same time, you might do some reading and learn how to spell the word 'facts', which unlike the word 'fact', which you appear to have attempted to spell, contains five letters.

[c.d.]

If a tosser tells you something that's a load of toss, you can tell them you couldn't give a toss and politely tell the toss pot to toss off.

Thank you, A.B. that really helps clear it up. Well, sort of.

I hope you don't consider me a tosser for simply asking the question and I appreciate that you took the time to respond as opposed to not giving a toss and that you didn't respond with lot of toss.

Now "toss pot"..."toss pot"....let's see....

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Finally, a post we can all agree with.

Here is another post for you to agree with:


But I am clever. Although the gentle man has turned, I did not show my hand true. I apologized, a one off instance, I said, which I regretted and I assured the whore it would never happen again. The stupid bitch believed me.

('Maybrick' diary)


According to Curzan, 'one off' first shows up in 1934, and it means 'made or done as only one of its kind', and it's not repeated - it's a one-off product, a one-off event. Its origins are British, but has been in use in American English since the 1980s.

https://www.michiganradio.org/arts-culture/2014-06-29/the-difference-between-one-off-and-one-of-a-kind

The phrase “one-off” (it’s used as both an adjective and a noun) originated in Britain in the 1930s and appears to be gaining popularity here. It refers to something that is one of a kind or is occurring or being produced only once.

https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2008/11/one-off.html

one-off (n.)

"single example of a manufactured product," by 1927, from one + off. Later given figurative extension. also from 1927



Although the definition of one-off contains the word of, the expression has always been one-off.

The expression is fairly new in American usage. It began as a British expression and derives from manufacturing jargon. Its first recorded date of use is 1934.

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/one-off-is-not-a-new-expression/

A one-off was just a single item, used in particular to refer to a prototype. The first known example appeared in the Proceedings of the Institute of British Foundrymen in 1934: “A splendid one-off pattern can be swept up in very little time.” (The reference is to a casting mould formed in sand.)

https://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-one4.htm

I do not know what your response will be, but I imagine it will be that Maybrick was 45 years ahead of his time, that he was a time traveller, or that he was clairvoyant and used the expression to wind me up, in anticipation of this thread's coming into existence.

[rjpalmer]

"Topping oneself" was not exactly a victorian expression either, the author of the article had to explain it to the readers, it doesn't directly prove the diary is a hoax the way "one off instance" or "bumbling buffoon" dose, but it is another good example of the modernity inside it.

The Baron

Here it is, again, Baron. Ike sometimes struggles coming up with the goods.






Yes, the witness had to explain the phrase to the court, but I think there can be little doubt that Sir Jim was on the cutting edge of modern language, being the originator of the slang terms you mention (wink wink), as well as the quoter of obscure phrases from Roman Catholic metaphysical poets such as Richard Crashaw, despite the meager and utterly bourgeoise library he left behind at his death.

I was once guffawed by Mr. Barnett for suggesting that Maybrick wouldn't have read a Roman Catholic poet of this type, and he retorted how ludicrous this suggestion was, non-Jews reading Philip Roth or Saul Bellow, etc.

Those are apples and oranges, however, and Mr. Barnett missed the point in his eagerness to defend the Maybrick Hoax. Crashaw wasn't merely a Catholic, he wrote on deeply Catholic themes: the ascendancy of the Virgin Mary, etc. I'm fine with Tricky Dicky Crashaw, of course, but this would have grated on the nerves of a C of E stuffed shirt like Sir James.

Maybrick was a member of a Masonic lodge. If one doubts that the Freemasons were at loggerheads with the Roman Catholics to the point of bitterness, especially in the 1880s and 1890s, do some research. There was open hostility between the two groups, as reported in contemporary newspapers. The Pope spoke against Freemasonry, and this intensified the clash. Some Masons published anti-Catholic tracts. Crashaw, beyond being obscure (the Maybricknicks claim otherwise, but read John Omlor and Martin Fido on this point--both Professors of English Literature), Crashaw's themes and focus would have been distasteful to a man like Maybrick. Sir Jim wouldn't have had him in his library, but we know one man who did: Michael John Barrett.

But such startling revelations are mere water-off-the-proverbial-duck's back to those who wish to believe. Not you, nor I, nor anyone, not even Lord Orsam or Melvin Harris, can shake their belief. You might as well try converting a Mormon to Scientology, or a Scientologist to the Church of Latter-Day Saints. It aint happening until the Old Girl Sings, and even then, I have my doubts they will believe her.