|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 983
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 11:35 am: |       |
So,
post house could mean anywhere in this case.
though you know i think it means The Poste House, it's just assumption, there's plenty of alternative post houses,
well back to tin match box empty then!
Jenni
ps Saddle Inn is that where I think it is?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 484
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
Jennifer
post house could mean anywhere in this case.
I think it's important to remember the following:
(1) As far as I know, no one has managed to come up with an example of the term "post house" still being in use within Maybrick's lifetime. The system was obsolete, so the term was obviously obsolete also.
(2) We know that there was no pub in Liverpool officially named "The Post House" in 1888.
(3) No one has managed to produce any evidence that any pub in Liverpool was ever nicknamed "The Post House". (Or for that matter, anywhere else in the country.) The facts that we know of only one pub and one hotel in the country called "The Post(e) House", and that they are both named after post offices, not because they were coaching inns, suggest that it wouldn't have been a common nickname for a pub.
(4) No one has produced any evidence that the real James Maybrick spelled poorly - let alone that his spelling was so bad that he would have been unable to spell the simple word "post" correctly.
Add to all this the fact that there really is a "Poste [sic] House" in Liverpool (the only pub so named in the whole country), and it's fair to conclude that the obvious explanation of the phrase is by far the most likely one.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on September 10, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 985
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 2:45 pm: | |
Chris,
i'm not really arguing with it just seems like it when I say,
yes it is the most likely one (and the one I think is correct)
it's certainly not the only possible one though.
Although i hadn't considered your points 1 and 3. Your point one being particular important as I felt led to believe this had been proven oh well must have fallen into the land of imagination on that one I guess!!
Jenni
ps I think the diary is a modern forgery please do not get me wrong!
(Message edited by jdpegg on September 10, 2004)
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 149
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 4:14 pm: | |
I think the Anti-Diary position on this is now as clear as we can make it , the next step is for the Pro-Diary/Anti-Modern Forgery supporters to go away and come up with some research to bolster their case. Personally I think it will be hard to find any however...
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 757
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 5:57 pm: | |
Hi All,
Sometimes, you know, the act of reading is made far more complicated than it needs to be.
Why do you think Shirley, in the first edition of the diary book, has James drinking in the Poste House?
Because that's what the book says!
With the e.
In caps, as a proper name.
Exactly like the real pub that's really right there in the same city.
We're talking about reading what's actually written -- what's written in the diary and how exactly the name of the pub is written. And guess what?
They are identical.
I appreciate all the deliberate and admirable research and all the open discussion and all the rest.
But sometimes the simple, obvious, common sense answer is the best one.
Jenni reminds us, in the spirit of space aliens and flat-earthers, that anything, technically, is possible, especially if we give ourselves over to creative imagination.
But we know what is written on the page.
And if the "Poste House" simply means the "Poste House" (and again there is still no valid reason whatsoever to think it does not), then this book is indeed a modern forgery, whether or not it was written by Homer Simpson.
Remember, either the diarist meant a completely different pub and just by pure chance and happy accident made exactly the changes they would have to make in spelling and capitalization to reproduce precisely the unique spelling and capitalization necessary to get the name of a real pub that's right there in Liverpool (the same city) and nowhere else in all of England, or the book actually means what it says -- the Poste House is the Poste House.
One of those possibilities requires a staggeringly odds-defying historical coincidence of writing, the other makes perfect sense.
That, my friends, is what we know.
--John (who just wants to keep saying "D'oh!" as he reads)
(Message edited by omlor on September 10, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 990
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 11:00 am: | |
Hi,
Yes it doesn't say post house it says Poste House, but the caps and e can be explained (ish).
So long as in the year 1888 post house was still a term in usage to describe a pub in Liverpool, all it needs is one. Now I don't recall any evidence that it is true, i recall some evidence it is possible so lets have a look at that evidence and see how possible it is exactly.
Is it possible, in the sane sense of the word possible or is it possible in the theoretically possible sense of the word possible ie is it plausible?
Having said that as long as it is technically possible then it is possible.
tin match box empty and the associated paragraphs these are less easy to explain at all in any sense of the word possible, until someone can explain them, then .........
Jenni
ps in case you were wondering I think the poste house means the poste house and that James Maybrick was no more jack The Ripper than he was a flying orange but these things need looking into!!
pps John I've shown you the proof the earth was flat and I think you'll agree it's pretty conclusive!!!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 761
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 5:09 pm: | |
HI Jenni,
Yes, your post outlines things quite clearly. 
Just as it is "possible" that the earth is flat, it is in the same way "possible" that the Poste House does not mean the Poste House.
Of course, there is still no real reason on that whole flat earth to think it does not, but why bother with what the book actually says, why bother with simple reading of the words (of the sort Shirley herself offered us quite naturally), when it's so much more fun to imagine.
The only reason one would have to read the words the "Poste House" and think it must not mean the "Poste House" is if one desperately WANTED it not to mean the "Poste House."
But why would someone so desperately WANT the words not to mean what they say?
Why, indeed?
Always interested in what's really going on here,
--John
PS: I'm convinced. I'm heading out for the edge tomorrow.
(Message edited by omlor on September 11, 2004) |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 152
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 6:01 pm: | |
The idea that anyone ever thought the Earth was flat is a complete myth Jenni !
It was first said by Washington Irving in his biography of Columbus in the 1820s , but it has no basis in fact : educated people from the time of ancient Greece onwards knew that the Earth was round.
In fact , medieval people believed the Earth was a sphere which the sun , the moon and the planets revolved around - as I'm sure John can confirm.
Galileo got in trouble with the Inquisition for saying that the Earth in fact revolved around the sun ! |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 153
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 6:06 pm: | |
John , I wonder why certain people think the ' Poste House ' could mean anything other than the obvious meaning i.e. the ' Poste House ' in Cumberland Street ?
Could it be to do with not wanting to admit what we all know , that the Diary is a fake ?
Use enough imagination however and the Diary can be whatever you want it to be ! |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 907
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 11:02 pm: | |
Hi Simon
I hold no brief for the Diary and wish it would die a silent death, sink into the muddy waters of the Mersey, blub blub, and be heard of no more.
There is an additional reason to think that the writer did mean a place that they thought was called the Poste House in Liverpool in 1888-1889.
If you look at the original facsimile of the Diary in Shirley's first edition, the name "Poste House" appears smack in the center of the first existing page of the Diary written in a prominent manner with a big "P" and a cross stroke on the "t" of "Poste" that goes right across on an angle to the top of the "H." The angle also mimics the stroke coming from the bottom of the loop on the "P".
Of course this is in keeping with the pseudo antique writing and flourishes elsewhere in the manuscript. However, you have to think that the way the name is written large in the middle of a line, which otherwise features a cramped style of writing in the writer's usual somewhat scruffy hand, the person thought, "this is going to look important, this is going to look old" at the same moment they were, unbeknownst to themselves, committing a major error.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on September 11, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 992
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 5:32 am: | |
Simon,
It is possible surely you concede it is possible the poste house could mean something else? Possible in the most extreme way, naturally, but nonetheless possible.
Jenni
ps you would be surprised, just what kind of people exist who think the earth is flat but thats for a different day!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 993
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 5:43 am: | |
John,
I desperately want it to mean the Poste House (seriously I do) but anyway the point is we have to concede that it may not mean the Poste House -
so long as these things are true,
1) the capitalisation of un-proper names is not uncommon (this ones true)
2) post house is the name for a place where refreshment can be taken (i think this this one is true but am not sure)
3) post house was the name of a place where refreshment could be taken in the approx years 1870-1889 (no idea if this is true or not)
4) there was a place called/refered to as post house in 1888 (now this one is hard to disprove really, unfortunately)
5) the diarist would write post (as in post house) with an extra e (as in poste house) (this ones ok)
6) James Maybrick would write it in this way (no evidence)
I think thats everything
Jenni
ps so it is theoretically possible unlike say tin match box empty.
don't go over the edge the diary is fake!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 762
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 7:04 am: | |
Jenni,
Not so fast. I understand your desire to say what's "possible in the most extreme way" (like space aliens building the pyramids or the earth really being flat after all), but in this case, the words are written on right there the page and the pub exists right there in the same place, let's not forget that. So, as in both those other cases, the evidence allows us to make a sound and logical, common sense conclusion, despite what might be "possible in the most extreme way."
Let's not get carried away with the most desperate and odds-defying ways of reading, when a simple, direct, straightforward and logical reading is afforded us.
As to your list, I have no idea why you say #1 is "not uncommon," since when you capitalize something, you make it a proper name, after all -- (and there is in fact a pub with that exact proper name, remember). Numbers two and three have not been not clearly established, but even if they were true, neither of them speak to the Poste House being anything other than the Poste House in writing, unless the writer changed the written version of the words he wanted to use by changing their spelling and capitalization just by pure chance and amazing accident to exactly reproduce the very same uniquely written proper name of a pub already there in the same city -- so 2 and 3 still leave us with the staggering and amazing coincidence of historical accident as the only hope that the book can be anything other than a modern forgery. We don't know 4, 5 is just a desperate guess, and 6 is a completely imagined and unevidenced wish.
So yes, you are correct. There is a case to be made for the Poste House not meaning the Poste House.
If, that is, you want to build an entire case on wishes, on desperate longing, on pure imagination, and on yet another amazingly coincidental, odds-defying accident of historical writing that defies all credibility -- and, of course, provided the words don't simply mean what they say.
Yes, if you WANT the words to mean something else, if you are so desperate for the words not to mean what they say at all costs, you can indeed construct a case purely on unestablished and unevidenced hope of the sort you build with your list there, and then claim that at least its "possible in the most extreme way," that the words don't just mean what they say.
But then you're not reading, you're dreaming.
And then this debate becomes not about what is actually written in the diary, but about the desperate desires of a few readers to come up with excuses for what's actually written in the diary, by simply changing what the words say.
We see it all the time in Diary World.
We're used to it.
But we should not let such desperation distract us from what we know. The diary says, specifically, "the Poste House." Just that way. The "Poste House" exists. Just that way. Right there in Liverpool. It did not in 1888. So either an amazingly odds-defying coincidence of writing happened to capture a future possibility that writer could have known nothing about, or this book is a modern forgery.
And, after all, there is still no real evidence of any sort that would indicate to us that the Poste House does NOT mean the Poste House, is there?
It didn't even occur to Shirley when she first read the words, did it?
That should tell you something about reading the words on the page and what they actually say and not letting one's dreams and wishes and desires get in the way.
A valuable lesson for us all,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 994
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 12:50 pm: | |
John,
ok calm down, calm down!!
1) Now John i never said it was the correct way of doing something, I said it was not uncommon (eg Baby Spice, Sporty Spice, Jack The Ripper, not that he was a member of the Spice Girls)
2)if we are attempting to disprove the notion that its possible the post house is somewhere else this one is worth keeping in mind as it is true that post houses were places where refreshment could be taken.
3) no idea if they were still existant or refered to by the name post house in 1870-1889. if it wasn't an expression at this time bang goes that theory.
4) now i haven't seen any evidence of this but then its really hard to prove that something wasn't referred to by a name it is easier for pro diarist to prove it if they find an eg but lack of an eg doesn't disprove it.
5)as i say this ones ok all the times the diarist spelt poste he spelt it incorrectly like a muppet!
6) this ones easy to find out, did James write poste office, did Liverpudlians call there newspaper the liverpool poste (no post!)
In order for a claim a post house that isn't the poste house is the poste house to hold true (you follow that!) then all six points must be true.
I believe the poste house is the Poste House, but what proof do i have (answer none i just have an assumption which seems to be correct)
Sorry John!!
You say
And, after all, there is still no real evidence of any sort that would indicate to us that the Poste House does NOT mean the Poste House, is there?
no John there isn't in my opinion but.........
Cheers
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 763
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Hi Jenni,
Calmly, then...
1. Those are proper names.
2. Does not tell excuse the name being written the unique (and accurately referential) way it was, nor has it been established that there was such a place in the right place at the right time. Forces us to rely on an incredible coincidence of pure historical accident.
3. "No idea" means it tells us nothing. Not useful at all.
4. Logically speaking, lack of evidence to the contrary does indeed inform a valid induction conclusion.
5. "Would write" implies an assumption (that this was normal and not someone writing for a different deliberate purpose). That has not been established. Therefore, the spelling tells us nothing about whether or not the Poste House simply means the Poste House and gives us no reason to think it does not.
6. No one knows. Therefore, this cannot be offered in any evidentiary way.
Not one of these items in your list offers us any real reason at all to think the Poste House does not mean the Poste House.
Therefore, the only reason to even assert it does not is if someone WANTED it to mean something other than what it says. And the only reason someone would WANT the words to mean something than what they clearly say is if what they say (as, for instance, Shirley read them early on) proves later to be troublesome, to work against their own obvious and desperate desire.
At that point, though, they are no longer reading, they are trying deliberately to excuse -- they are, in fact, expressing their own desire rather than simply reading the words.
The diary names a pub that is really there, precisely, with the correct unique spelling and capitalization. Each of us is blessed with the ability to read and to see that the name the "Poste House" is identical to the name the "Poste House. That should tell us something, if we are rational beings.
If, on the other hand, we are driven purely by our own desire to make the words mean something other than what they say, then the question of what is rational, of what makes simple common sense, no longer applies. Then we are indeed deep in the heart of Diary World.
I understand your trying to eek out the slimmest of space-alien possibilities here Jennifer, in the name of a sort of open-mindedness, but you should not do it at the expense of common sense, at the expense of simply identical phrases meaning the same thing, or at the expense of the words on the page.
But you already knew that. I do realize that.
Thanks for this chance to sketch things out more thoroughly,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on September 12, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 995
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 3:55 am: | |
John,
oh those are proper names well thats even better!!
Anyway you know i agree with you so i'm not sure why i'm having this conversation!!(by the way that's not a dig at you it's entirely my own fault!!)
Cheers
Jenni
ps logically speaking (have you forgotten where you are!!)
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 998
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 7:37 am: | |
ps number 3, 4 and 6 are the ones I don't know if are true or not. number 1 2 and 5 are all true.
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 765
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
Of course, 1, 2 and 5, to the extent that they are "true," tell us nothing.
But we needn't review. I think it's clear why.
Later today I'll send you email with some "words," if I can.
Games are fun,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 999
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 8:09 am: | |
John,
they tell us it is at least half right to suggest the (P)ost(e) (H)ouse might mean some other post house.
Oh I do look forward to it!!!
Games are fun, i agree
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 766
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 8:31 am: | |
Jenni,
No, they don't.
1. The diary writes the name as a proper name. There were and are no other pubs with that proper name in Liverpool or anywhere else in England for that matter. There is no reason to suppose that the the proper name should not have been a proper name -- it is clearly written as one.
2. It has not been established that there was indeed exactly this name of a place at the right time and in the right city, and even if there was, it would not have been spelled or written this way, so that tells us nothing about what is written in the diary. It most certainly does not tell us that "it is at least half right" to say that the Poste House does not mean the Poste House. It doesn't even offer us a valid reason to think it does not meant that. So your conclusion about what this tells us is simply wrong.
5. The diarist's spelling in the diary is indeed terrible and he does indeed write the words "poste haste" at least once. But that tells us nothing about the name of the pub that he makes a point of specifying in capital letters on the very first page of the book. AND it also does not alter the fact that there is a pub with exactly that name right there in exactly that city. So, even if you use the idea that the diarist merely miswrote, he would have had to miswrite in exactly the correct way to just by pure chance and impossible accident reproduce precisely the uniquely written name of a pub that is right there in his own town. So all number five leaves us with is the invocation of another staggering and odds-defying historical accident of writing as the only hope for the book to be anything other than a modern forgery.
So not one of these three items, let alone all three, suggest any valid reason to think that the Poste House does not simply mean the Poste House, and there is no way you can claim that it is "at least half right" to suggest it does. In fact, it is apparently an act of pure desperation to think that the words don't mean what they say. And the only logical and valid reason I have seen so far to think that they don't mean what they say, that the Post House does not simply mean the Poste House, is if someone does not WANT it to and so goes searching for other meanings they can offer as excuses for the words on the page. And that's simply not reading. That's just wishing.
Sorry to go over all this again, but your claim about these excuses being "half right" is simply not accurate in terms of what the words on the page actually say and what we know about that proper name.
All the best,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 8:53 am: | |
Hi John,
Geez, we're going to be here a long time!!
I meant half right in the sense that 3/6 conditions i previously mentioned could be explained logically.
1) the diarist writes it as a proper name but colloquial/nicknanes are often written as proper names (ie Bobo, Bunny, Posh n Becks, etc)
2) John you are confusing my point 2 and 3/4.Post house is a term for a place for where refreshment can be taken (this is point 2)
point 3 and 4 related to whether or not one existed - i recall saying i didn't know if it were true.
5)it tells us when the diarist wrote poste he could have meant poste as in post house a colloquial name but it does not tell us how James spelt post (point 6)
And John you know full well that i do not wish the post house means something other than cumberland street.
(i hope!)
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 486
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 8:54 am: | |
John
The diarist's spelling in the diary is indeed terrible and he does indeed write the words "poste haste" at least once.
Perhaps I'm coming at this from a slightly different angle - because I find the question of whether it's an old or new fake a bit academic - but isn't the important point that Maybrick's spelling wasn't terrible?
To a degree it makes sense to argue that the diary is an old fake produced by someone with poor spelling, who used the form "poste" in several places. (Though it would obviously still be a striking coincidence if this misspelling produced the name later used by the Cumberland Street pub.)
But, if his will is anything to judge by, Maybrick just didn't make ignorant spelling mistakes of this kind. To my mind this point tells heavily against the "post house" explanation.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 767
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 9:02 am: | |
Hi Jenn\i,
Ah, that's more understandable. It's not "half right" to claim the Poste House does not mean the Poste House."
OK.
1. But the "nicknames" you cite are proper names. There's no reason to think the one in the diary is not.
2. Without the 3/4 two tells us nothing about what is relevant (that is, what was and was not in Liverpool at the time and what a staggering coincidence would have to have happened for the diarist to exactly reproduce the uniquely spelled and written proper name of a pub he could not know anything about right there in his own town a hundred years later).
5. You should note that when he writes as a common word he does not capitalize it, yet when he writes the proper name of the pub, he does.
Since we are imagining, it's quite possible that our modern forger picked the Poste House as his pub of choice because he knew it was in Liverpool and it sounded old, no?
I'm off to class.
I do know that in the end, you understand what the words say and what that tells us, don't worry.
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1002
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 9:19 am: | |
John,
this is getting silly now.
yes ok perhaps they are proper names but its not the things proper name - do you get what Iam saying which is that Post House is a nickname - voila. (all this talk about proper names I started clearly I don't know what a proper name is opps!!)
as I said, all the points must be correct if the assumption we have that the poste house means the poste house is wrong.
here is something to think about, some anti diary speculation! Perhaps the diarist spells poste wrong because they saw the poste house and assumed that was correct!!
Jenni
ps yes we are imagining that we are also assuming it!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 768
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 9:57 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Yes, the question of whether the real James Maybrick would spell any of this stuff this way is always in the background. Of course, we have documents written by him and we do know both what his writing looked like and about its tendencies, so a look at those should tell us something about whether the writing in the diary and the grammar in the diary and the spelling in the diary is in any way similar to his.
Of course, it's not.
But I suppose we might be told that when he was writing this he was, after all, a drug crazed serial killer and so all of a sudden his spelling and his grammar and all the rest might just have become completely and inexplicably different (in remarkably coincidental ways that just by accident end up defying all the historical odds, though).
Desperation might produce such a response.
But it's a silly one.
Hi Jenni,
Perhaps. You might ask around about Mike Barrett's spelling and grammar, by the way. I think you'd learn some interesting things.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 10:38 am: | |
John,
I doubt I would be surprised
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
A Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:58 am: | |
Until very recently there were umpteen hotels in England officially known as the Post House.
Visit a web site called historichotelsof europe.com and it refers to it's 800 chateaux, manors, convents,palaces, monastries, farms, townhouses, villas, post houses and family owned residences.
It may not translate well across the Atlantic but many British pubs, restaurants, hotels are commonly known by their patrons by names other than their official ones.
Obviously the Forte Group did not just pluck the name Post House out of the air, and the web site mentioned indicates that post houses were places of refreshment and could be known locally as The Post House complete with capitals.
This "problem phrase" is the least of the problem phrases for anyone trying to convince us that the diary is genuine. (Which I most certainly am not)
In other words this is not a major co incidence, and proves absolutely nothing.
Alan (Not a Maybrickite, or any other inane handle handle dreamt up on these boards)
|
Eric J. Matatics
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
John:
I appreciate your wanting to stay out of higher-education politics. Besides my main, mostly administrative function at a university, I also teach a couple of courses and have NO INTEREST whatsoever in dealing with the political hoops fully-tenured faculty are obliged to jump through.
I think that he Rodney King "Why Can't we just get along" line some individuals periodically resurrect on these boards seems quite odd, considering that much can be gained from good old-fashioned intellectual discourse/argument.
So keep up the good work, sir!
You, too, madam (Caroline).
Eric |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 5:54 pm: | |
Please don't mention alien-possibilities, John. I already had a bad close encounter with a fake document this year--the alledged DB Cooper correspondence (and phone communication) with author Max Gunther.
This DB and his girlfriend had 10 years to come up with a good story and, boy, was it ever good. She said she found DB in her shed.
Call me a romantic but I was taken in. Even after I checked out the year of the shed story. Late 1982.
Oh, well, what do I know about hijackers?!
|
Nathan Merry
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 9:31 am: | |
Hi everyone,
just been reading the posts on this page, Who would have thought that the name of a pub would cause so many problems.
i'd just like to know why the arguements centre on the pub in cumberland st, did the diary say it was that one? i cant it remember but i could be mistaken.
James maybrick if he did write the diary, travelled all over the country due to his job & the pub could have been anywhere up north, Or he could have actually known someone who worked in a post office(House)& stopped off one afternoon and had a drink or lunch with him.
-Nathan
|
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
John Omlor,
Play dim if you like and repeat yet again, that you are “a professor who teaches literature and philosophy”. That was never in doubt.
The problem is that, as a matter of plain fact, you are NOT a Professor of Literature and you are NOT a Professor of Philosophy, as you claimed in your Casebook Profile.
I think it does matter that a person describes his job accurately, and not misleadingly.
David O’Flaherty
You are absolutely right that rather than bothering about my or John’s reputations, I have the real work of selling worthwhile books like Letters from Hell to Sutton (and I am sure you would add The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook published by Constable & Robinson) both by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner, and agenting the books of another 25 superb authors of non-fiction.
While on a promo, can I also recommend Stewart’s brand new book, Executioner: The Chronicles of James Berry, Victorian Hangman (also from Sutton)? It’s a treat, his first solo book, and yes, there is a Jack the Ripper connection.
All best,
Robert
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:28 am: | |
I don't know whether to laugh or cry,
Cheers
Jenni
ps no that wasn't aimed at anyone in particulr it's just i thought we had stopped arguing about the post house, err!!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 787
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:58 am: | |
I don't even have to say anything.
Robert has done my work for me.
Thanks, Robert, for once again demonstrating your sad obsession (and your penchant for ignoring the simple facts as carefully explained).
The Poste House. There is only ONE pub anywhere in England by that uniquely written name.
Where is it?
In Liverpool.
The POste House, written in that exactly identical unique way also appears in the diary.
Where does it take place?
In Liverpool.
Where the Poste House really does exist.
Unfortunately, the real James could not have known that. Neither could an old forger.
Shirley read it naturally.
Common sense tells us the Poste House means the Poste House.
It's the only one there. It's the only one whose name, written just this way, has ever been there.
So unless an incredible and odds-defying historical coincidence of impossible proportions has occurred, the book is a modern forgery.
SOmetimes the simple common sense reading is more valuable than the most elaborate excuses.
Thanks all, especially my dear friend Robert,
--John (a real professor about to go teach real philosophy)
PS: Thanks everyone for the email support concerning the personal stuff here. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1035
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
Reluctantly, lets go through this then,
Alan,
the forte hotels were called posthouse.
Nathan,
no the diairist did not state which Poste House he meant. the Poste House is the most obvious Poste House, but there could be another post house (which meant Poste House!) I always thought form the context the post house was in Liverpool.
Robert,
must we go through this again?
Whatever John, is or isn't does that make his arguments any less valid? I know you say you think it shows he is dishonest but its a tiny box about what he does, mine says student it doesn't say undergraduate sociology student BA (which would be the correct thing)
I know you think John started it, but i think you mistook what he was saying earlier on - he was defending Caz, I'm sure he could have chosen his words better but still.
I have got to read SPE's book - I have a copy waiting on the read list. I have to say Keith Skinner and Stewart Evans are both fantastic authors. (they can pay me later - joke!)
John,
I do not care what you do for a living, but i don't think you lied, nor do i think it matters.
I guess i am waiting to check out those other points on my list!
Jenni
Ps I don't know whether to laugh or cry still and actually i really do think the post house could be somewhere else! nicely back on topic there
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 490
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:47 am: | |
A. Smith
Until very recently there were umpteen hotels in England officially known as the Post House.
...
Obviously the Forte Group did not just pluck the name Post House out of the air, and the web site mentioned indicates that post houses were places of refreshment and could be known locally as The Post House complete with capitals.
People keep on saying this over and over again. But the odd thing is that no one has ever managed to post an actual example of an inn named or nicknamed "The Post House" here (apart from the two modern examples - The Poste House in Cumberland Street, Liverpool, and a hotel in Clitheroe, named The Old Post House. Both of these were named after post offices, not after coaching inns).
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on September 15, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 12:25 pm: | |
Hi Jenni,
I could tell you some interesting things about Mike Barrett’s spelling and grammar, having seen copious examples during my research for Ripper Diary.
I notice we are back to the old nudge nudge wink wink routine, with John O this time, trying his level best to imply that Mike’s level of literacy is about on a par with the diarist’s, even though John hasn’t a shred of supporting evidence for this.
Yet he will now respond, true to form, with a strenuous denial that he has ever so much as hinted that Mike actually composed any of the diary’s text, or transcribed any of the words into the scrapbook.
Desperation might produce such a response.
But it's a silly one.
After all, what possible relevance does John think Mike’s spelling and grammar have, in a discussion about the spelling and capitalisation of ‘the Poste House’ reference, unless he imagines Mike’s handiwork was involved?
Hi All,
I’m still noticing a few sceptical - and rather insulting – comments, suggesting that no one could be so ignorant as to spell post with an e on the end. And this is after I gave you the example of one of our respected Casebookers, Jon Smyth, who spells post, as in message board post, with an e on the end – poste [sic].
And John still talks about the unbelievable coincidence of one pub in Cumberland Street, Liverpool, being named in recent times ‘The Poste House’ [sic], if the diarist had written ‘the Poste House’ [sic] by mistake for ‘the Post House’, and actually meant one of the numerous drinking establishments in Victorian times, any one of which could have been known to its regulars by this name, rather than the official one over the door.
Why does the superfluous e have to be an exclusively modern affectation anyway? I bet there are people throughout the ages who have added an e to post, not just modern pub owners trying to give an olde worlde feel to their watering holes. And if The Muck Midden can take on the official name ‘The Poste House’, in the late 20th century, in fond remembrance of the days of the genuine old post houses, when it was never anything like the real thing, how much more likely it must be that some of the genuine articles surviving in Victorian times would have been fondly remembered as ‘the Post House’.
Perhaps another explanation for the erroneous e is that Mike Barrett, during his research, found Sir Jim spelling his own daughter’s middle name Eveleyn [sic], when it should have been Evelyn, and craftily extended the idiosyncrasy post haste – or poste haste - to the diary, along with the Poste House - all thought of copying Sir Jim’s handwriting flying out the window of The Saddle.
Or perhaps not. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 789
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
I suggested to Jennifer that she "ask around about Mike Barrett's spelling and grammar, by the way. I think you'd learn some interesting things."
Caroline suggests I should not have done this.
OK. Sorry.
Jennifer, I guess you should NOT ask around about Mike's spelling and grammar. Silly me, I thought it was a logical thing to suggest. I thought the results of asking such questions might indeed be interesting.
Of course, now I'm sure I'll be criticized for suggesting she not do so.
Looks like I'm doomed.
Ah, well.
Then Caroline returns to making the same old argument about the vague and desperate possibility that the stunning coincidence might have happened, that the diarist might have just changed the name of the pub he was writing down in precisely the same unique and curious way so as to reproduce accurately, but just by chance, the exact uniquely written name of a pub that just happens to exist right there in the very same city, but about which the alleged writer could know nothing at all.
Right.
That's clearly the most obvious, simple, direct and common sense reading of the words.
Shirley's original reading was just bizarre -- to think that someone though the Poste House might actually mean the Poste House.
I love the way simple, straightforward reading and logic get turned on their heads here in Diary World in favor of elaborate explanations and the constant search for excuses that might keep hope alive despite what the words written on the page (and the actual uniquely written name of the pub) really are.
It's just perversely delightful.
It's easy for me to argue in favor of common sense, simple straightforward reading, and the idea that A means A.
What's amazing is how completely and desperately people are willing to argue against such things.
Delighted to be in such a magical place,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1037
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 3:52 am: | |
Was i asking about Mike's spelling and grammar, no!
So I guess it doesn't matter, i was probably pointing out that the diarist spelt poste like that all the way through
I'm like that you see!
Cheers
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 165
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 6:18 am: | |
" I’m still noticing a few sceptical - and rather insulting – comments, suggesting that no one could be so ignorant as to spell post with an e on the end. And this is after I gave you the example of one of our respected Casebookers, Jon Smyth, who spells post, as in message board post, with an e on the end – poste [sic]. "
This is the effect of Diary World , it can make your head spin like a top ! We've been spelling post and poste so many different ways , and going around in circles so many times , no wonder Jon got confused ! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1239
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 5:05 am: | |
Hi Simon,
I think you'll find that Jon Smyth rarely if ever visits the threads that have discussed 'the post house/the Post House/the Poste House/The Poste House'. And I think you'll also find that his spelling of 'post' with an e at the end goes back a long way - much further back than any of our recent observations.
So I don't believe for a minute that Jon can be accused of getting his posts confused on account of being influenced by our postes.
Hi John,
On the contrary, I think it's a jolly good idea if people do their own research and try to find out if Mike Barrett's spelling and grammar have ever been in any way compatible with what's in the diary, before they even begin to make up their own minds on the question of his involvement in its creation.
I just wondered why you suggested to Jenni to ask around about it, since you clearly haven't done the research yourself. If you had, you'd know what all the evidence suggests and what none of the evidence suggests. And you'd be honest enough, I hope, to report your findings here before sending Jenni on what you'd know was yet another wild goose chase.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on September 17, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1044
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 6:13 am: | |
Caz,
I think that was his point, wasn't it? (i mean i don't actually know but I took it to mean) that it would be interesting to know about Barretts grammar. I don't think it was intended to imply anything.
And as for the 'wild goose chase' I think that was at least 75% my idea, as a lot of mad things tend to be!
Cheers
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 792
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
Man,
We almost went a whole 24 hours without a diary post. But just when I thought we were finally going to give this cheesy fake the attention it deserves, Caroline returns to keep the discussion going and, of course, to keep hope alive.
Ah, well.
And look at the tone.
"Wild goose chase?"
Like the one Mike allegedly went on in the library?
That's two references I've read so far to Jenni and my little experiment from Caroline and both have been disparaging.
I think the natives are getting oddly restless, or nervous, or something. And before anything has even happened. No wonder the DiTA thread looks like it does. And those would be serious results, not just friendly games.
Anyway, Jenni, who can read, reminds us that my suggestion was simply that she ask around about Mike's grammar and spelling.
Caroline says that's a good idea, so I guess the suggestion wasn't out of line after all.
Happy we at least agree on something,
--John
PS: While you're asking, Jenni, you might look into some of the language our man Mike used to describe, say Paul Feldman. Just for fun. (And this suggestions is purely designed to give Caroline something else to complain about.) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 927
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 8:57 am: | |
Hi, all--
Just a note apropos of nothing but to add a bit to the mix. I was drinking some beer last night, especially for the season, called "Post Road Pumpkin Ale." The roads in British America and the early United States were called post roads because of the mail carried on them, as in the mother country.
I don't think Caroline is right that the spelling "Poste" is an ancient one if that is what she means when she says, "I think you'll also find that his spelling of 'post' with an e at the end goes back a long way - much further back than any of our recent observations."
Rather, it is, as has been observed before, a recent usage, as in "Ye Olde" Macintosh toffees, or as in Poste House, a certain place of refreshment on Cumberland Street in Liverpool, a name of recent origin that the establishment never carried in 1888-1889 when the Diary was allegedly penned.
Have a good weekend all, and I will drink you a toast with Post Road Pumpkin Ale. 
Best regards
Chris George
(Message edited by chrisg on September 17, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1048
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
John,
I think I'm familar with what you mean
Jenni
wishing i was nearer my uni library!!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1243
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 4:46 am: | |
Hi Chris,
No, I simply meant that Jon Smyth’s spelling of message board post as ‘poste’ goes back a long way in the Casebook archives and, I suspect, is entirely unrelated to, and independent of the diarist’s spelling of Poste [sic] House and poste [sic] haste.
But of course, if Jon is reading along with us, he could tell us if I am right or wrong about this.
I seem to have upset John 'Last Word' Omlor. He has quite a reputation for beginning his posts with ‘Man’, when he’s seriously rattled.
And now it looks like he’s trying to imply Mike’s language is similar to Sir Jim’s (which wouldn’t be evidence of anything at all in any case, since anyone with half a brain can imitate the language in the diary after knowing what’s in it. Or has John found evidence that Mike knew Feldy, and used certain language to describe him, years before the diary emerged? Now that would be something new, something real.)
Or perhaps, as Jenni suggests, I’m being overly cynical, and John is actually saying the opposite – that none of Mike’s spelling, grammar or use of language (as in, to cite just one example, the ten handwritten pages Mike gave to Keith Skinner, first claiming he transcribed them from some of the missing diary pages, and later claiming they were a serious attempt to match what was in the diary) will indicate to the serious researcher that he created, or helped create the diary himself.
Or maybe John is, in a roundabout way, implying he just doesn’t have an opinion either way, because he hasn’t seen enough evidence yet.
If so, I apologise. But to be fair, John is not making it too clear what he means when he suggests Jenni would learn some ‘interesting’ things about Mike’s literacy and language by asking around. One interesting thing I could tell her right now is that Mike appears to have no end of trouble keeping to upper or lower case within individual words as well as within sentences. If John could establish that Mike had no such trouble before trying to get the diary published, and only ‘developed’ it after the event (and then presumably found he couldn’t undevelop it, even when claiming to have written the diary all by himself), it might provide the breakthrough he needs.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 494
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 6:42 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris
I’m still noticing a few sceptical - and rather insulting – comments, suggesting that no one could be so ignorant as to spell post with an e on the end. And this is after I gave you the example of one of our respected Casebookers, Jon Smyth, who spells post, as in message board post, with an e on the end – poste [sic].
As people are still discussing a misspelling of the word "post" on an Internet bulletin board, by someone who - as far as I know - is not suspected of forging the diary, perhaps a note of clarification is in order.
Mrs Morris makes one of her usual "adjustments" to what has actually been said, presumably in an attempt to make her self-appointed task a bit easier. But even by her standards, it's pretty ludicrous to claim that it's been suggested that no one could be so ignorant as to spell post with an e on the end.
After all, we have this misspelling in front of us, in black and white, in the pages of the diary. Clearly somebody put an "e" on the end (unless fairies or space aliens did so).
What I've already pointed out, and what she surely can't really fail to grasp, is that the relevant question is whether there's any reason to think that Maybrick would have misspelled the word "post" in this way.
Just so we don't get off the point ...
Chris Phillips
PS A bit worrying to see Mrs Morris feeling that these comments that she has imagined (to put it charitably) are "rather insulting". My prescription would be a little break from diary matters, to allow her to recover her tranquillity.
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 796
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 7:56 am: | |
Man, oh man,
Now I am "upset" and "seriously rattled."
You've gotta' love that.
The only thing is, I can't tell why.
Anyway, let's see if there's any actual reading or logic or common sense or rational thought or evidence offered amidst all the "stuff" about me.
Apparently, somewhere, I was supposed to be "implying" something about some direct relationship between Mike's language and the language in the diary, because (I think) I suggested to Jenni that she look into Mike Barrett's spelling and grammar and the way he has described others, including my hero PF.
Once again, I guess suggesting that Jenni check into these things was an evil and irresponsible thing to do. I apologize.
I take it back, Jenni.
Oh. But wait. The last time I said that, Caroline told me I shouldn't take it back, because she was all in favor of Jenni learning these things for herself.
Well, shoot.
Now I don't know what to say.
If I suggest that Jenni might learn some interesting things by looking into how our man Mike expresses himself, I'm chastized for "implying" bad stuff. If I suggest that she not look into such things, I'm corrected and told that she should.
It's no wonder Diary World is the land that reason and reading forgot.
It's no wonder Simon complains about his head spinning.
It's no wonder there is nothing new, nothing real here. Ever.
This is no longer about the text being a fake (we all know it is).
This is just about the endless circle dance of rhetoric.
So let's see, my step now then should be...
Jenni, you know, you should and you shouldn't look into how Mike does and doesn't write and spell and what he has and hasn't said about people and non-people because you might or you might not learn some interesting or uninteresting things.
How's that?
Nah, I'm sure there'll still be something to complain about.
Let's watch. 
Just having a grand old time,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1054
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 10:10 am: | |
Man,
I have no desire to look at how Mike spells, nor have i ever, nor did any of us ever say that looking at this would prove anything. Or wait maybe i missed something, no I'm so sad i've been reading these boards at least a couple of times a day. Oh good!
Poste/post,
listen it's simple it doesn't matter if i write poste or post, the diarist could not spell the word poste, this much is clear. Therefore the pro diary argument about post houses is fair enough to a point (ie the 6 things i mentioned before but we won't go back into that).
Chris is spot on - how James Maybrick spelt post is important, how did he spell it, none of us know, right?
Caz,
to be clear on what I meant before i was not arguing what you seem to indicate. i was saying that John didn't know Mikes grammar (your point) and i thought (i don't care if i was right just clarifying what i actually meant here)that was the point he was getting at he didn't know Mikes grammar and would be interested to find out.
John,
No I don't want to!!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 800
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 10:14 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
Then don't. 
Oh, wait, I'm not supposed to say that either.
Damn.
This is hard.
Loving the whirling,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 10:23 am: | |
Man,
John,
I don't know but here's something else to think about, how did James Maybrick spell post(e) (thanks Chris!)
Cheers
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
