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

[Lombro2]

Go back to arguing with the people who agree with you on your conclusion. Maybe they’re wrong like you but for the right reasons. Or maybe they’re right about how the fake diary wasn’t faked, and for the right reasons, unlike you and yours, which is something you appear not to abide.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Go back to arguing with the people who agree with you on your conclusion. Maybe they’re wrong like you but for the right reasons. Or maybe they’re right about how the fake diary wasn’t faked for the right reasons, unlike you and yours, which is something you appear not to abide.

So I ran your post through an online English to Italian translator and then back from Italian to English to see if it would help me understand it better and it came up with this:

"Go back and discuss with the people who agree with your conclusion. Maybe they're wrong, like you, but for the right reasons. Or maybe they're right that the fake diary wasn't fabricated for the right reasons, unlike you and your family, which you apparently don't accept."

I'd say it probably makes more sense in this form.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Based on an argument I think is bonkers and I’m being kind.

But I’m in the minority according to you so it doesn’t matter. Of course, I’m actually in the majority of the people who actually understand the argument.

Based on an argument which you have proven time and time again that you don’t understand Lombro. If you did understand it you wouldn’t keep mentioning ‘one off’ as a stand-alone phrase. But you keep doing it.

You and the defenders have now had 10 years to come up with one example from somewhere, just one, that refutes the point. But none of you have. And do you know why Lombro? Because that point of rebuttal doesn’t exist. 10 whole years and counting…..

All that you have is “surely this can’t be the case.” That’s it. David Barrat provided full evidenced proper research. Tracked through the years and following the way that language works in reality. You on the other hand rely on desperate wish-thinking. It’s sad to see that you and others are so committed to this fake that you will do and say absolutely anything to try and prop it up….as today’s lamentable, easily disproven charade has proven.

[Lombro2]

Sorry but you’re asking me to cherry pick for cherries that are in someone else’s backyard or kitchen. You can’t find something where you can’t go.

If your forger picked a Londoner, I might believe you. As it stands, I wouldn’t put it past a Liverpudlian to say, “I’m giving birth to the 20th Century!”

[Lombro2]

You both exemplify English As A First Language. You just can’t analyze it because you grew up with it. I might as well ask Wayne Gretzky to explain hockey or coach my team.

RJ would probably want to hire Micky Mantle. I’d try a back catcher. I know. Not so glamorous. Not so “elitist”.

Im an amateurish all the way. Amateurs are usually the best at individual skill. Solving rubiks too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You both exemplify English As A First Language. You just can’t analyze it because you grew up with it. I might as well ask Wayne Gretzky to explain hockey or coach my team.

RJ would probably want to hire Micky Mantle. I’d try a back catcher. I know. Not so glamorous. Not so “elitist”.

Im an amateurish all the way. Amateurs are usually the best at individual skill. Solving rubiks too.

Considering that you once believed that "one off instance" was a new expression in 1992, the fact that you are "an amateurish" may not be all that helpful.

[caz]

"Nice one, Obs.

Put it down to the pedant's revolt.

If you think the pedants are revolting, I may need to change my deodorant.

Love,

Caz of the Lowest of Lower Middles.
X"

Hi Caz, the quote function wouldn't work for me so had to copy and paste your post.

Very good by the way, nice to see some jolity around, these parts. The Maybrick threads seem to have took on a lot of nastiness of late. Also the length of the posts. I think you've said in the past, like me, that you are of retirement age, so we have an excuse, in short, time to kill. But I honestly can't understand where some posters find the time for numerous mini documentaries. It's a full time job it appears. Anyway c'est la vie.

Enjoy your late night cocoa, I have mine all milk

I have my late night cocoa all milk too, Obs, but not in the summer. I'm into iced coffee during the day after my first four cups of tea.

I retired many years ago from the conventional workplace, but I wish I did have 'time to kill'. If I did, I wouldn't do it here, spending every waking second looking for the pettiest of points to take pedantic pot shots at, and acting like I've been mortally wounded when given a taste of the same medicine, based on facts, evidence and context.

Whenever I do have a bit of spare time, I get a kick out of being here. If I was ever left 'upset' or 'angry', or feeling 'intimidated' or in danger of getting 'hysterical', by a couple of posters who fancy their ability to provoke such emotions in me and then detect them in my words, I would have avoided the place like the plague a very long time ago.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I see that the lads have been having a go at waxing lyrical, so here's a one from me

I'm not a Manc

Or a wealthy Yank

Nor yet a foreign skipper

I'm a one-off Scouse

Who smacked his spouse

Yours truly Jack the Ripper

For our friends across the seas, Manc is pronounced Mank, an abbreviation for Mancunian. They are know in the UK as Mancs.

Love it.

Who did you have in mind for the one-off Scouse who smacked his spouse and signed off as Yours truly Jack the Ripper?

James Maybrick or Mike Barrett?

The lines can get rather blurred at times.

[caz]

I've no interest in discussing the identity of the forger or forgers of the diary, although it seems important to others. I merely wanted to know why it couldn't be the Barretts.

At present, the Barretts both benefit from your presumption of their innocence, because while you have seen no reason to believe they couldn't have been involved in the diary's creation, that's not proof that either of them was. The advert placed on Mike's behalf for a Victorian diary is not proof, by your own admission, or you wouldn't be dismissing the diary author's identity as unimportant or of no interest to you.

It would have saved you an awful lot of pointless arguing if you'd 'merely' stuck with your 'one off' instance, instead of wandering off on less interesting and less important tangents like whether or not you could identify who wrote those words in the diary beyond an amateur stab at handwriting analysis.