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

[Iconoclast]

He obviously means “carbon-dated” “at 1891 throughout.” Ha ha.

Now it makes sense! Uh… No. 1891 only works for Jacob Levy as a death bed confession.

And it still doesn’t explain why Mike, assuming he was confused or ill-informed, didn’t reject it on sight when it arrived.

I wouldn't put it past HS if he couldn't think of any other way to avoid saying, "Yep, I was wrong".

He said Keith Skinner didn't say something when we can all see that he did, so HS has to find another way to be right so he shifts my point on to the supplier not saying X about Y to Z when my point was simply to say he was jolly well wrong to say that KS did not say what KS most obviously did say.

Obviously, the words weren't exactly the same, Your Honour, so Keith clearly did NOT say what it's rather blindingly obvious to everyone who doesn't live in Pedantville he clearly meant. But let's talk about what the supplier did or didn't say instead because that will give me a route out of the psychological nightmare I experience when I realise I've been caught with my pants down!

[Iconoclast]

Stop obsessing over insignificant trivia.

I wonder if Keith Skinner would feel I was teasing over insignificant trivia if he happened to notice that you had sent the pedant police 'round because he hadn't quite phrased something the way you seemed to feel he should have phrased it.

Look, I'm not interested in your counting angels on pinheads or your arguing over me auntie's gonads - it's just something we have all now noticed you do to avoid saying, "Oops, I was wrong. Mea culpa".

Your arguments become more compelling if people feel you could handle being in error. You clearly can't handle it so you have to subtly change the point so that it all looks as though everything is going to plan (as Putin loved to say until not even Putin could bring himself to believe it).

You were caught with your pants down, man. Just own it. Even Rj in his late 90s knows when he's dropped a clanger.

[Iconoclast]

But I've said my piece and will stay out of it, as I have little interest in wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I couldn't agree with you more, RJ. I've said my piece too. Whether it's counting angels on the head of a pin or wondering if me auntie's gonads are actually testicles, none of it provides us with any helpful movement towards answers or - God forbid - the truth.

I would note further though that claiming X could have done E, J, M, R, T, and V to achieve Y is simply an alphabet soup of contrivance and implausibility.

Mike Barrett could have gone to the Moon and back to source his 'hoaxed' scrapbook, we'll just never know either way with any certainty.

Just saying.

[Yabs]

I think Herlock has already explained that the diary could only be returned if not as described.

For example if I ordered a red coloured pen on a similar basis I could have been sent either of these items, both fit my request for a red pen except the one on the right has blue ink.
If I required one with red ink it would have been down to me to be more specific in my request.
Hindsight is everything.




Also.. would Barrett ask if the pages are dated if being told they are blank as requested?
I’m sure he was informed it was an 1891 diary as that leaves room for returns if not properly described, but to Barretts mind that’s not a problem if most of the pages are described as blank.
The blank paper dating to that time period is the aspect that was of importance to Barrett, it’s not like he wasn’t prepared to make adjustments and remove dates/pages from the front of the book.

[Lombro2]

He obviously means “carbon-dated” “at 1891 throughout.” Ha ha.

Now it makes sense! Uh… No. 1891 only works for Jacob Levy as a death bed confession.

And it still doesn’t explain why Mike, assuming he was confused or ill-informed, didn’t reject it on sight when it arrived.