The One Off Meltdown

[rjpalmer]

This makes for interesting reading, TB - made all the more remarkable by your recent explosive control of your non-native language (as gauged by most of your earliest posts).

What I find most impressive is that you yourself are a hoax believer so congratulations on the honesty you have displayed in posting in such a way which undermines the one undeniable, unequivocal, incontrovertible thing that has to date been accused of proving the scrapbook a fake.

Do you think he is serious, or is it parody? The point is so outlandish and so bad that it must be parody, no?

Might he be holding up a mirror to the diary defenders, in the hope that they will finally recognize the ridiculousness of their arguments and their methodology?

Perhaps or perhaps not.

We've occasional met posters who have wondered the same thing about you, Ike: that your arguments are so outlandish and extreme that it has to be a wind-up.

But then you've constantly assured us that it isn't. Some might even remember when 'Soothsayer' admitted that his arguments were tongue-in-cheek, but maybe he repeated them so often they he, himself, eventually came to believe them?

It happened to Mark Twain and the Francis Bacon theory of Shakespeare's authorship. In his youth, Twain took up the Baconian argument to amuse his riverboat captain but then began to love his own arguments so much that he started to believe them (he later admitted).

Whatever the truth might be, it's hard to satirize the terminally absurd. As our satirists here in the U.S. are finding out. The lines become too blurred---it becomes too difficult to distinguish between deliberate parody and a ridiculous reality.

[caz]

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.

So Florie needed her hubby to tell her that striking her was a one off instance in the sense that he had never struck her before? She really was dumb in that case.

If it's not a tautology, it certainly seems like over-egging the pudding, to remind the missus it was the first time he had lost control of his temper, express his regrets and then assure her, using different words, that it would remain a 'one off instance', in the sense of this being the first and last assault on her person. Of course, we know 'Sir Jim' was being completely insincere with this fulsome apology because, without looking it up, he tells his diary something like: 'the stupid bitch believed me'.

An apology is meant to be a sign that an abuser has no intention of repeating the behaviour, but so often they pretend to be mortified to mollify their victim, only to rinse and repeat. Anne Graham presumably had personal experience of this cycle of abuse/apology/more abuse, as would Mike, but I don't know if they would have collaborated comfortably on that part of the diary text. Perhaps the thought of being able to pay the mortgage made everything look brighter.

[rjpalmer]

So Florie needed her hubby to tell her that striking her was a one off instance in the sense that he had never struck her before? She really was dumb in that case.

You appear to be confusing the stupidity of James and Florence with the stupidity of the hoaxers.

They're the ones who wrote the line. Or do you now believe the diary is authentic?

Anway, have a great weekend.

[rjpalmer]

You appear to be confusing the stupidity of James and Florence with the stupidity of the hoaxers.

They're the ones who wrote the line.

I do like how you honed-in on the irrationality of the hoaxer. A nice observation.

For you're right; it's ludicrous to think that Maybrick would need to remind his own wife that it was the first time he smacked her.

But it is something that one might tell a policeman or a jury, as Mr. Johnstone did in Aldershot, along with an assurance that the behavior would not be repeated.

The hoaxer, whoever she or he was, hadn't thought it through--but then, even Homer nods.

[caz]

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

Tut tut, Lombro2. You've given me ideas that could get a girl into trouble.

I wonder if anyone has tried to get into the Guinness Book of Records for the most posts they have written in a day while wanking off.

It's a two-handed job to twiddle one's knob
And fire off rhetorical blanks.

If anyone can come up with the first two lines I'd be obliged.

I'm not stuck, I'm just squeamish.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

So Florie needed her hubby to tell her that striking her was a one off instance in the sense that he had never struck her before? She really was dumb in that case.

If it's not a tautology, it certainly seems like over-egging the pudding, to remind the missus it was the first time he had lost control of his temper, express his regrets and then assure her, using different words, that it would remain a 'one off instance', in the sense of this being the first and last assault on her person. Of course, we know 'Sir Jim' was being completely insincere with this fulsome apology because, without looking it up, he tells his diary something like: 'the stupid bitch believed me'.

An apology is meant to be a sign that an abuser has no intention of repeating the behaviour, but so often they pretend to be mortified to mollify their victim, only to rinse and repeat. Anne Graham presumably had personal experience of this cycle of abuse/apology/more abuse, as would Mike, but I don't know if they would have collaborated comfortably on that part of the diary text. Perhaps the thought of being able to pay the mortgage made everything look brighter.

To call it tautology is misleading because it's a perfectly normal and acceptable way for someone to punctuate or emphasise a point. Did you miss the actual example that Roger posted from a reported court case in 1985 in which a barrister said of his client's sexual assault, "it was certainly a one-off instance. It is not going to happen again"? That's how normal people write and speak.

But even if the 1985 barrister and the diarist both over-egged the pudding, so what? What exactly is it you're suggesting? That the diarist was not writing about a "one-off instance"? What do think he was doing, then?

[caz]

I do like how you honed-in on the irrationality of the hoaxer. A nice observation.

For you're right; it's ludicrous to think that Maybrick would need to remind his own wife that it was the first time he smacked her.

But it is something that one might tell a policeman or a jury, as Mr. Johnstone did in Aldershot, along with an assurance that the behavior would not be repeated.

The hoaxer, whoever she or he was, hadn't thought it through--but then, even Homer nods.

And?

I only think it's another possible point against Anne and Mike Barrett having composed the text.

My usual references to 'Sir Jim' are obviously not penetrating. Palmer is losing concentration - or his eyesight.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And?

I only think it's another possible point against Anne and Mike Barrett having composed the text.

My usual references to 'Sir Jim' are obviously not penetrating. Palmer is losing concentration - or his eyesight.

I'm not following, Caz. In what way could it possibly be considered a possible point against Anne and Mike Barrett having composed the text?

It certainly tells us that James Maybrick didn't do it. But how does it in any way even begin to suggest that it wasn't the Barretts, other than wishful thinking on your part?

[caz]

To call it tautology is misleading because it's a perfectly normal and acceptable way for someone to punctuate or emphasise a point. Did you miss the actual example that Roger posted from a reported court case in 1985 in which a barrister said of his client's sexual assault, "it was certainly a one-off instance. It is not going to happen again"? That's how normal people write and speak.

Did you miss Roger Palmer's point - and mine - about how that example differs from the situation in the diary, because 'Bunny' doesn't need to be told it had never happened before? He sees this as a blunder in the diary by one or both Barretts, not thinking it through properly, while you evidently see it as a perfectly normal and acceptable way for anyone to have emphasised a point. I tend to agree with you - don't faint!

But even if the 1985 barrister and the diarist both over-egged the pudding, so what? What exactly is it you're suggesting? That the diarist was not writing about a "one-off instance"? What do think he was doing, then?

I think I was conceding the point about tautology, but it seems there ain't no pleasing some people. If I didn't do it clearly enough for you...

IT LOOKS LIKE OVER-EGGING THE PUDDING, as in emphasising a point.

I'm not 'suggesting' any more than that. 'The bitch' knew it was a one off instance [NO HYPHEN] when 'Sir Jim' hit her, but he instantly pretended it would be his last as well as his first, so while Roger's observation that 'one off' only refers to a first instance of something is all very interesting, it only shows that 'tautology' might not have been the most accurate way for the reader to define what's written in the diary. This says nothing about a hoaxer's 'irrationality' if, as you say yourself, a point was merely being emphasised:

"You know I have never struck you before, Bunny. It was out of character and it will never happen again - and that's the God's honest truth." [And if she believes that, she'll believe anything - ha ha.]

It's just rather typical of the way many domestic abusers operate.

Is this a one off instance of you disagreeing with Roger Palmer?

[caz]

I'm not following, Caz. In what way could it possibly be considered a possible point against Anne and Mike Barrett having composed the text?

It certainly tells us that James Maybrick didn't do it. But how does it in any way even begin to suggest that it wasn't the Barretts, other than wishful thinking on your part?

I can't help it if you can't keep up with what's being said.

[rjpalmer]

I love the glow of gaslight during cocktail hour.

[caz]

According to Boots, my eye sight is fine for my age. Up to 24 months before I need to book my next routine test.

I have never wanked off while posting - which may have helped.

[caz]

I love the glow of gaslight during cocktail hour.

He who smelt it dealt it.