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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

Well, if me auntie had bollocks she'd be me uncle, Yabs.

We can do this Dance of the Possible forever if you want, it won't alter the fact that Mike Barrett wanted an 1889 or 1890 diary and accepted an 1891 one. Nor will it alter the fact that neither the supplier nor Martin Earl had any reason to think there might be a need to clarify if there were dates on every page but that there was a world of reasons for Mike Barrett to do so if he was intending to write a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts into it. The supplier's ignorance of Mike's intent and Martin Earl's ignorance of Mike's intent does not therefore become - under any circumstances, however obscure to entertain - Mike's failure to remember his intent.

And if I ordered a pen as ambiguously as your fictional idiot did, I'd be too embarrassed to send it back as I hate it when people call me a complete ******* twat. Maybe you'd care somewhat less than I?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

If by "reject" you mean "return", Martin Earl's Terms and Conditions explain why Mike couldn't return the red diary but was legally obligated to pay for it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

That's exactly what I've been saying all along, Ike. We can only speculate as to what Mike was told about the 1891 diary, so the fact that he agreed to purchase it takes us nowhere. It was Caz, with you following in her jetstream, who seemed to think that Mike's acceptance of that diary meant that we could positively rule out the idea that Mike wanted a Victorian diary as part of a forgery plot. But it seems that reality has finally struck. So now we're back where we started, with the question of why Mike was seeking a genuine Victorian diary from 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages during March 1992. A question which, it has to be said, answers itself.

[Iconoclast]

Also.. would Barrett ask if the pages are dated if being told they are blank as requested?

Well, if he wouldn't, I would certainly have had a red pen and a large bridge in London to sell him. All he had to say was, "By blank, do you mean it does not have dates on every page, Mr. Earl?". It's an obvious question for a guy seeking to host a record of the thoughts of a man who had died in 1889, wouldn't you say? Or do you buy into HS's notion that Mike was just totally blindsided that he didn't think to ask? (Pedant alert: he probably didn't use the term 'blindsided'.)

it’s not like he wasn’t prepared to make adjustments and remove dates/pages from the front of the book.

Polite reminder: the claims of a known liar cannot be used as evidence in building an argument. There is no evidence that there was a date at the front of the scrapbook and there is no evidence that it was Mike Barrett (or anyone associated with him) who removed the front pages of it.

[Iconoclast]

A question which, it has to be said, answers itself.

And the answer is clearly NOT to create a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts. That could not be clearer regardless of how you try to take us on a journey to the Moon and back. Do you ever stop and think, "Why do I keep trying to find some obscure reality whereby a guy wanting to create a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts from 1888 before he so famously died in 1889 seeks a diary from 1889 or even 1890 and then accepts one from 1891?".

Get back to counting angels on pinheads, Herlock. Your pedantic approach to all things Maybrick is as embarrassing as Yabs crying his or her eyes out like a baby because they asked for a red pen and they got a red pen.

Barrett's ad was not particularly ambiguous but sitting on the head of a pin pretending you're one of the angels, it's amazing how much ambiguity you've managed to inject into the entire tale.

[Yabs]

And if I ordered a pen as ambiguously as your fictional idiot did, I'd be too embarrassed to send it back as I hate it when people call me a complete ******* twat. Maybe you'd care somewhat less than I?

Oh of course it’s stupid on the part of the fictional idiot and I’m sure the man you consider a genuine idiot (Mike Barrett) felt the same way when he realised blank can mean dated and unwritten and not fully blank pages like those recently used to forge the hitler diaries.

[Iconoclast]

Oh of course it’s stupid on the part of the fictional idiot and I’m sure the man you consider a genuine idiot (Mike Barrett) felt the same way when he realised blank can mean dated and unwritten and not fully blank pages like those recently used to forge the hitler diaries.

The word 'diary' in an advert is not ambiguous. We all know what we think of. We think someone is seeking or selling a 'diary', a book with 365 days in to write stuff at the appropriate time or to remind us of stuff coming up.

Mike Barrett therefore wanted the same as what we all think of when we hear the word 'diary'.

To comply with the Barrett Hoax theory, he needed to ask for a 'notebook' or a 'document' not a 'diary' or he needed to seek a diary from 1880 to 1888.

The clues are all there in the advert.

[Yabs]

The word 'diary' in an advert is not ambiguous. We all know what we think of. We think someone is seeking or selling a 'diary', a book with 365 days in to write stuff at the appropriate time or to remind us of stuff coming up.

Mike Barrett therefore wanted the same as what we all think of when we hear the word 'diary'.

To comply with the Barrett Hoax theory, he needed to ask for a 'notebook' or a 'document' not a 'diary' or he needed to seek a diary from 1880 to 1888.

The clues are all there in the advert.

If Barrett intended to forge a diary why wouldn’t he naturally think, I need to find a blank diary- before realising in hindsight that he needed to finetune his search to get what he wanted?

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t your own theory that Barrett needed a diary to use as a decoy?
if so, why would an 1891 or even one dated from 1880 be of use to use as a decoy for the 1888-89 real deal because the “genuine” one had blank pages at the back? He would still have fallen into the trap of each page being dated so useless for the purpose of a decoy.

[Iconoclast]

If Barrett intended to forge a diary why wouldn’t he naturally think, I need to find a blank diary- before realising in hindsight that he needed to finetune his search to get what he wanted?

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t your own theory that Barrett needed a diary to use as a decoy?
if so, why would an 1891 or even one dated from 1880 be of use to use as a decoy for the 1888-89 real deal because the “genuine” one had blank pages at the back? He would still have fallen into the trap of each page being dated so useless for the purpose of a decoy.

A 'decoy' (good word) would only need to be the equivalent of a Victorian document with at least twenty blank pages. Which is - interestingly - what he got.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Once again, Ike, I find myself with literally no idea what you're talking about.

I can only assume that you've grasped entirely the wrong end of the stick and think I was accusing Keith Skinner of misdescribing the diary or not noticing the printed dates or something like that, and that it was your solemn duty to leap to his defence.

No, that wasn"t it. All I was saying was that Keith didn't use the word "printed" in respect of the dates, so that the supplier might easily also not have used that word. You seem to have misunderstood what was a very simple and limited statement, not to mention an accurate one.

What you think I've got wrong, or why you think there is any mea culpa involved, I will have to leave to you and your analyst.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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!

The only person making inaccurate statements is you, Ike. For I never said that Keith Skinner didn't say something which he actually did say. You have gloriously misunderstood a post I made, taking it as a criticism of Skinner which it never was. Please stop and think for a moment and use your critical faculties to work out what I was actually saying in my original post.

You are wrong. Re-read what has been written.