The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here’s an appropriate analogy of what’s going on here:

We’re still here talking about the existence of dragons.

Two people are “proving” the existence of dragons by explaining the physics of dragon flight.

Caz and Ike are showing them that this doesn’t fly.

Thank you.

Just to try and explain to you what's going on in this thread, Lombro...

I'm not trying to prove anything about the identity of the forger(s). All I'm doing is saying that Michael Barrett's attempt to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 seems mighty suspicious considering that a few weeks after he started doing so he presented a literary agent in London with a hitherto unknown diary of Jack the Ripper which a forger could have created quite simply by acquiring an old Victorian or Edwardian photograph album with blank pages, ripping out the pages with photographs on them, removing any identifying labels on the inside cover, obtaining some commercially available ink with Victorian properties along with some nibs and using two or three books on Jack the Ripper and the Maybrick murder case to draft a fictional story whereby James Maybrick was the Whitechapel murderer.

Even you could not have failed to notice that Ike's supposed explanation as to why Mike attempted to a acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 is totally different to Caz's supposed explanation. Each seems to reject the other's explanation, which is no wonder because neither makes any sense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I posted the above on the wrong thread. Ignore.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here’s an appropriate analogy of what’s going on here:

We’re still here talking about the existence of dragons.

Two people are “proving” the existence of dragons by explaining the physics of dragon flight.

Caz and Ike are showing them that this doesn’t fly.

Thank you.

Whoaa, hold on there, Lombro. What are you talking about?

I've not rattled off any examples of "one of" referring to something spectacularly unique. I can't even work out if you made a typo or you meant "one off", which is worrying.

What Victorian books have "of" spelled as "off"?

What do you mean by "your meltdown" over "one off instance"? I didn't start this thread. I haven't had a meltdown.

What does "There’s nothing “one of” or “one off” about “one off instance”" actually mean?

If your posts are being written in a language other than English, could you please identify it so that I can try and find an online translator for it.

[rjpalmer]

Ike - apparently my response has disappeared into the ether, and I can't be arsed to write it again.

Maybe next week or the week after.

[rjpalmer]

something amiss with the software

[Lombro2]

Here’s an appropriate analogy of what’s going on here:

We’re still here talking about the existence of dragons.

Two people are “proving” the existence of dragons by explaining the physics of dragon flight.

Caz and Ike are showing them that this doesn’t fly.

Thank you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You don't have to believe that James Maybrick wrote the James Maybrick scrapbook, dear readers, but if you think Mike and/or Anne Barrett did, you're backing the wrong horse.

Don't say you weren't warned ...

If your dear readers don't think that James Maybrick wrote the scrapbook they must surely think you're nuts, mustn't they?

[Iconoclast]

You don't have to believe that James Maybrick wrote the James Maybrick scrapbook, dear readers, but if you think Mike and/or Anne Barrett did, you're backing the wrong horse.

Don't say you weren't warned ...

[Iconoclast]

Good morning, Ike.

I can't get this image out of my mind.




Spoiler alert: 'Sholmes' wins the wrestling match.

Ah ha- I knew you'd do it, RJ!

I 100% knew that if I taunted Sholmes that no-one was supporting his argument, you'd be straight in there with some attempt to fill the gap!

Showing your support after the event is hardly showing support!

[Herlock Sholmes]

How the hell do you 'Ignore' a poster these days??? Has that facility been removed or something?

"You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality" (Ayn Rand, attrib).

[Herlock Sholmes]

A quick read of the house rules suggests to me that I need to be careful what I say here.

I have been previously asked by you to account for Barrett's purchase and I have given you my position and that of others and yet still you seek to claim that none has been provided. I believe that you have intentionally attempted to mislead your audience.

You may not like the explanations you have been given (based upon your obvious bias), but do not attempt to claim that one or more has not been put to you. I don't like yours but I have not said you haven't attempted one - albeit a desperately lame explanation for why a man might purchase an expensive, tiny 1891 diary with '1891' printed on every page for an 1888 hoax. Your argument is pathetic in the extreme, and now when it suits you your memory fails (which I don't believe for a moment) therefore I have to conclude that you are prepared to knowingly mislead your audience.

I'm starting to sound like RJ, but this time I really mean it: I cannot waste any more of my time on the inane and utterly fanciful posts you subject us all to here, although your blatant act of attempting to mislead your audience is undoubtedly the final straw.

You really need to sharpen up your comprehension skills, Ike. I didn't say that you haven't provided an explanation. I said you've failed to explain it. That remains the position. The explanation you provided made no sense therefore it doesn't explain why Barrett was seeking a diary from 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What an extraordinary way to think logic works! I can't believe I'm having to spell this out to you like I'm talking to a child (which is why I actually suspect you're just taking the piss now).

Have you noticed, Dear Readers, how often Herlock uses 'If' in its prepositional form? And then everything he then goes on to propose essentially consists of ... me auntie had bollocks she'd be me uncle.

He does it all the time.

And then - without any apparent sense of irony (unless he's genuinely dense or just taking the piss), he then suggests that my lack of certainty over a preposition he has assumed is some sort of proof-positive that his argument has 'won the day'.

I said it's an extraordinary way to think logic works but the truth is that it's a very childish, inept way to think logic works.

Herlock gets to assume that Mike Barrett assumed that dated diaries were a 20th century invention in order to show that my lack of certainty concerning what Barrett knew or did not know makes his argument conclusive and mine inconclusive.

And we all know he won't stop doing it. He'll just keep coming back with his cake-and-eat-it prepositions which just keep working in favour of his theory.

To take this to its logical extreme, I put it to you all that it won't be long before Herlock claims that, If a bee buzzed past his ear just as Martin Earl was speaking, he might not have heard him say '1891' and if he assumed the diary was blank in both meanings of the word (unprinted in as well as unwritten in), then it is a certainty that he would not think he would need to ask any clarifying questions and would happily incur the debt of £66 in order to further his hoax.

I'll say it again, he has absolutely nae mates on this point, but still he keeps on imagining how Mike Barrett must have thought in order that his desperately failed theory of a Barrett hoax can be pursued.

Of course I use the word "if" because neither of us know what assumptions Mike was making in 1992. Do you understand what a premise is, Ike?

I have to say again that it's not for me to prove or demonstrate anything. I'm simply explaining how easy it would have been for Mike to have agreed to buy the 1891 diary from Martin Earl.

You've got nothing in response other than a bouquet of waffle and blah blah.

[rjpalmer]

Good morning, Ike.

I can't get this image out of my mind.




Spoiler alert: 'Sholmes' wins the wrestling match.

[Iconoclast]

How the hell do you 'Ignore' a poster these days??? Has that facility been removed or something?

[Iconoclast]

This whole discussion is about you desperately trying to prove that by acquiring the 1891 diary Mike wasn't seeking a Victorian diary with blank pages in order to forge the Maybrick diary, which is something you are unable to explain. But you have no evidence to support anything you're saying, so that your argument on this issue is an abject failure.

A quick read of the house rules suggests to me that I need to be careful what I say here.

I have been previously asked by you to account for Barrett's purchase and I have given you my position and that of others and yet still you seek to claim that none has been provided. I believe that you have intentionally attempted to mislead your audience.

You may not like the explanations you have been given (based upon your obvious bias), but do not attempt to claim that one or more has not been put to you. I don't like yours but I have not said you haven't attempted one - albeit a desperately lame explanation for why a man might purchase an expensive, tiny 1891 diary with '1891' printed on every page for an 1888 hoax. Your argument is pathetic in the extreme, and now when it suits you your memory fails (which I don't believe for a moment) therefore I have to conclude that you are prepared to knowingly mislead your audience.

I'm starting to sound like RJ, but this time I really mean it: I cannot waste any more of my time on the inane and utterly fanciful posts you subject us all to here, although your blatant act of attempting to mislead your audience is undoubtedly the final straw.