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

[Herlock Sholmes]

In my book, dense is as dense does, mate.



Feel free to treat it with the contempt it deserves because - you were right - I wasn't saying that. What I have stated (perhaps not brilliantly) is that Mike Barrett must have known about dated diaries in 1992. Knowing that, and given his objective, you would have to be very determined to imagine he'd just accept any old bag of general nuts when he specifically needed walnuts.

But the issue isn't whether he knew about "dated diaries". It's whether he knew that Victorian diaries were dated, in the sense of having printed dates on every page. If he assumed such dated diaries were a 20th century innovation - and you've admitted we don't know what his knowledge of Victorian diaries was - it's game over for you. As it's entirely possible that this was his assumption, it is game over for you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah - another poster who doesn't understand the burden of proof!

You've made so many claims about what Mike Barrett would have done or thought that the burden of proof now has your name on it so please don't attempt to throw off your yolk in my direction.

The only firm statement that I will make regarding Mike Barrett is that it is inconceivable in 1992 for a 40-year old person to not be aware of dated diaries.

If I'm wrong to assume that, then I am wrong. It isn't evidence-based in the traditional sense, but - then - that doesn't seem to have bothered you unduly whilst densely sticking to your very unpopular theme.

If you are dense enough to want walnuts but not check that the bag of nuts you're being offered contains walnuts, then that's on you. I don't have a particularly high opinion of the gobshite that was Mike Barrett, but I at least give him sufficient credit to check what he's about to commit £66 to.

Once again, in saying that it is inconceivable that Mike didn't know about dated diaries you are missing the point which is whether he knew about dated Victorian diaries.

You are also failing to ask whether he knew about undated diaries, whether modern or Victorian.

You omit entirely any discussion relating to the psychology of buying an item over the telephone.

Your nutty nuts analogy is inappropriate for a number of reasons not least because you're talking about a situation whereby the customer can see the nuts prior to purchase.

And to repeat, I make no positive point about the 1891 diary. 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.

[rjpalmer]

RJ Palmer has told us often enough that he can't consider the possibility that the Barretts were not responsible for putting the diary in his Diary World, because it would leave him on a sticky wicket and stumped at the crease without his bat. What would the poor thing do then?

Yes, I can clearly remember saying that hundreds of times. Perhaps thousands.

It must be very comforting to those promoting an unpopular and generally ignored theory that the fault lies in the viewer, and not in one's own unpersuasive and muddled and evidence-free arguments.

I can readily imagine a certain Lechmere theorist pawning-off this line to you when you rejected his ideas. "You're simply too close-minded to accept my brilliant arguments!" There's an amazing amount of self-deceit and lack of self-awareness hiding inside such proclamations. And not a little arrogance.

One can encounter all sorts of talented researchers on JTR Forums, in the pages of the Whitechapel Society Journal, or here and there and elsewhere, and one can't help noticing that none of them are rushing forward to embrace the Floorboard Fantasy.

Why might that be?

Do they also suffer from some intellectual flaw or deficiency? Are they too stubborn or close-minded to see the glaring truth of your persuasive research?

Or could it simply be that your arguments and Robert Smith's arguments have failed to persuade?

But....as someone else once said...."whatever."

[Iconoclast]

But the issue isn't whether he knew about "dated diaries". It's whether he knew that Victorian diaries were dated, in the sense of having printed dates on every page. If he assumed such dated diaries were a 20th century innovation - and you've admitted we don't know what his knowledge of Victorian diaries was - it's game over for you. As it's entirely possible that this was his assumption, it is game over for you.

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.

[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.

[Iconoclast]

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

[rjpalmer]

Good morning, Ike.

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




Spoiler alert: 'Sholmes' wins the wrestling match.

[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.

[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]

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).