The One Off Meltdown

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay, Google ngrams says it started in the 60s.

Why bother posting on a point that you still don’t understand after having explained to you around a dozen times. I can’t make it any easier for you to understand so perhaps you should stop embarrassing yourself Lombro.

[c.d.]

Can you ask Orsam when "wanking off" started in England?

The practice or the phrase?

c.d.

[rjpalmer]

The practice or the phrase?

c.d.

I imagine it was introduced during the Norman Invasion. An Englishman wouldn't do that.

[Abby Normal]

lol! now thats funny CD and RJ

[Lombro2]

The practice or the phrase?

c.d.

Either way, it will be hard to tell since not all the evidence made it into print in a magazine....

[Iconoclast]

RJ, of course there was a tautology if Maybrick had meant one-off instance. A one-off instance is a one-off. It is therefore the claim that something that happened once will not happen again. It doesn't matter whether it would require a crystal ball to know whether - in truth - it would ever happen again. That doesn't matter here - it was a wholly unnecessary distraction from the point, which was that Maybrick's adding 'Never to be repeated' simply iterated what had already been said. And that's a tautology.

And - as I have mentioned on more than a one occasion, the expression "a one" (which itself is a tautology, of course) is perfectly common in north-east dialects. Maybe the poster who claimed it wasn't correct English comes from darn surf, I don't know.

If either of the defenders of the Barrett Hoax Theory (there are, after all, really only two, with a shedload of indolent hangers-on who have little else to add than 'Ridiculous post' and what have you) are able to assure us categorically (using their anti-crystal balls to rush us all back to 1888) that every word ever written down was thought-out carefully before being scribed onto paper, and they were convincing in their argument, I'd have to agree that Maybrick could not have written 'a one off instance' to mean 'an 'off' instance'. I await the invitation to the Tardis.

The brain has a very subtle function called the 'pre-articulatory loop' through which - in a billionth of a second - it rehearses what it is about to order the mouth to say (the evidence for this lies in the strange world of Spoonerisms). It doesn't always work correctly and - when it doesn't - we get mixed-up signals and unclear messages which we can choose to correct or just plain let go (this is very likely if the mix-up doesn't really matter too much). This is clearly what happened to Maybrick in the moment he started to articulate the idea in his head.

Unless anyone can prove categorically that it couldn't have.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Either way, it will be hard to tell since not all the evidence made it into print in a magazine....

Are you investigating the authenticity of one of your own diaries now, Lombro?

[caz]

This happens to everyone, Ike, except perhaps to a tiny minority of individuals whose brain is wired differently. I have to assume this applies to any poster who scrutinises everything on record, written or spoken, by certain named individuals in this saga, and finds fault if it's not word perfect first time, every time. No unintended ambiguity, accidental contradictions or misstatements are tolerated; no well-intentioned attempt to correct or clarify a previous statement goes unpunished; and failure to correct or clarify the most minor of misunderstandings is considered a sign of incompetence or worse.

The really weird thing is that the only individual who routinely gets a free pass in this respect is Mike Barrett. Poor bastard, just a clown with mental health issues who couldn't help himself, while his horrible wife should have known better.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

I imagine it was introduced during the Norman Invasion. An Englishman wouldn't do that.

Alan Shearer. He wears the hat.

[rjpalmer]

RJ, of course there was a tautology if Maybrick had meant one-off instance. A one-off instance is a one-off. It is therefore the claim that something that happened once will not happen again.

No, Ike. It's only a tautology if God says it. It being a 'one-off instance' refers to his past actions. He has no way of really knowing what happened only once in the past can never happen again in the future. He's says it won't, but why would anyone believe him?

In brief, through overthinking it, you've fooled yourself into believing that 'Maybrick' is using the phrase in some mysterious or unique way when he's really just using it in the same way that everyone else was using it when the diary appeared from nowhere in 1992.

As the Aldershot News and other sources amply demonstrate.

Of course, if it makes you happy to call it by a fancy term such as "tautology," I can live with that, but then Mr. Johnstone and the other modern users of the phrase were committing exactly the same sin against logic.

It doesn't help your cause.

[Herlock Sholmes]

RJ, of course there was a tautology if Maybrick had meant one-off instance. A one-off instance is a one-off. It is therefore the claim that something that happened once will not happen again. It doesn't matter whether it would require a crystal ball to know whether - in truth - it would ever happen again. That doesn't matter here - it was a wholly unnecessary distraction from the point, which was that Maybrick's adding 'Never to be repeated' simply iterated what had already been said. And that's a tautology.

And - as I have mentioned on more than a one occasion, the expression "a one" (which itself is a tautology, of course) is perfectly common in north-east dialects. Maybe the poster who claimed it wasn't correct English comes from darn surf, I don't know.

If either of the defenders of the Barrett Hoax Theory (there are, after all, really only two, with a shedload of indolent hangers-on who have little else to add than 'Ridiculous post' and what have you) are able to assure us categorically (using their anti-crystal balls to rush us all back to 1888) that every word ever written down was thought-out carefully before being scribed onto paper, and they were convincing in their argument, I'd have to agree that Maybrick could not have written 'a one off instance' to mean 'an 'off' instance'. I await the invitation to the Tardis.

The brain has a very subtle function called the 'pre-articulatory loop' through which - in a billionth of a second - it rehearses what it is about to order the mouth to say (the evidence for this lies in the strange world of Spoonerisms). It doesn't always work correctly and - when it doesn't - we get mixed-up signals and unclear messages which we can choose to correct or just plain let go (this is very likely if the mix-up doesn't really matter too much). This is clearly what happened to Maybrick in the moment he started to articulate the idea in his head.

Unless anyone can prove categorically that it couldn't have.

The simple fact, Ike, is that you boldly claimed that a one off instance is "the same syntax to the brain" as an off chance. It is not.

We really don't need to concern ourselves with syntax in circumstances where you haven't been able to produce a single example of anyone ever having referred to anything as an "off instance". It's just something you invented. It's not real.