|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 934
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:49 am: | 
|
It tells us Mike lied (again).
And no one would be surprised, would they?
And, of course, it raises other obvious questions that don't have answers.
--John
PS: I love (roasted) duck. 
(Message edited by omlor on December 23, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1476
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 10:40 am: |
|
Hi John,
Yep i thought as much!!
i love roasted duck too!! (not sure what this means?)
i think we've all been hugging our armchairs round here for too long. my armchair incidentally is named Bob, what is your armchair named?
Jenni
PS I am only kidding around!
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!!
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1477
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 10:44 am: |
|
Caz,
just wondering here if i have done anything special to get totally ignored?
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!!
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 579
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Jenni
Need you ask? Not only have you hugged your armchair, you've named it! Obviously you're completely beyond the pale now.
But don't knock it ...
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1481
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Chris,
it is becasue i hug my armchair too much that I have ended up here in the first place! Come on man keep up!!!
Spending so much quality time with my armchair and not knowing what to call it, well, i can't beleive you have not named your armchair!!!
Bob and i are great friends, the best of friends!!
Man i sound like I have been on the cider!
Jenni
ps I haven't its just me having a laugh!!
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!!
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Whatho Chris,
I was referring to Mike and I said nothing about Maybrick. From where did you get that?
Cheers, Mark |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 580
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Mark
I was just trying to clarify in what sense you thought he might have been telling the truth. I suppose I should have said "Maybrick (or a faker with whom Barrett had no connection) ..."
What I'm really driving at is: does anyone really find it believable that Barrett set out to find the phrase that appeared in the diary, and managed to find it purely by chance?
Granted that it's marginally less unlikely if it was faked in modern times by someone who got the quotation from the Sphere book, but surely even then it's wildly unlikely?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 936
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I'm sure we'll be told, with the arrival of sun here in the Eastern US tomorrow morning, exactly why it's not "wildly unlikely" in either case.
For the millionth and first time.
And it still won't tell us anything.
--John (going to sleep secure that there'll be no surprises -- and nothing new -- when he wakes up) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1487
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 6:42 am: |
|
Chris,
I have a bridge i want to sell to you!!!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!!
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1388
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 4:31 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Just catching up here.
What I'm really driving at is: does anyone really find it believable that Barrett set out to find the phrase that appeared in the diary, and managed to find it purely by chance?
On the surface, it certainly appears unbelievable, doesn't it? Especially with added spin about the awesome task Mike would have faced in Liverpool library. I neither believe it nor disbelieve it at this juncture - but then again I know I can afford to wait for further evidence. No one's going to die because I refuse to express beliefs I don't yet hold.
But others still accept Mike's word about who created the diary; others accept Mike's word about owning a copy of the Sphere volume before coming out with his library claim.
We're all suckers here, aren't we, if we believe one single unsupported word from Mike's lips. So I don't believe he wrote the diary; I don't believe he helped write the diary, with Anne or anyone else; and I don't believe he owned a copy of the Sphere volume when others believe the diary was being created - not without a scrap of evidence apart from Mike's word.
Beyond that, and I agree with John here, is all speculation.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1605
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
Caz,
might sound unbelievable but its perfectly possible.
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 975
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
Jenni,
Not perfectly. You know that.
And for the record:
I don't believe Mike about anything at all.
How's that for a simple, clear, and direct sentence?
Here's another one.
He lied about the library.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1606
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Geez John,
do we have to have this same conversation even when you can't actually type!!
prove it, John!
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 978
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
Jenni,
No, we don't.
All I said was "not perfectly."
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1609
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
John,
yes i read what you put ducky!!
i'm glad we arent having this conversation,
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1392
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 7:42 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
John wrote:
He lied about the library.
I know now, because John said so, that whenever John writes what appears like a statement of fact, he is leaving out the bit about it being what he feels he knows, based on the evidence, because that bit should be obvious to anyone with half a brain reading his words.
John once ridiculed the late Melvin Harris, even more than I did, for the same tendency to make a strong opinion masquerade as proven fact. Apparently, the poor fools around in those days had John's sympathy.
These days John takes the art to a new level (and he is obviously proud of it), and he now ridicules all those, like you, me and Alan Sharp, for not presuming that he is just spouting more meaningless, subjective and speculative opinions, on an internet message board, where he doesn't have to write in a responsible or professional manner, and it's all rhetorical fun and games, honest and liberating.
So to save John the trouble and discomfort of typing out the meaningful bit each time (and I'm surprised he's only suffering from a golfing injury, and hasn't yet been affected by RSI, as my best friend was, after typing millions of words, at great speed, for the firm of solicitors who once employed her), and to save you the trouble of asking John each time to prove his statements, here is the offending article once more, this time in full:
John feels that he knows, based on the evidence that Mike can't tell a straight story for telling a bent one, that Mike lied about the library.
And may I add that John has also to assume, for the sake of a consistent and credible argument, that Mike lied about having his own Sphere volume 2 when he made his library announcement at the end of September 1994, and therefore must not have acquired his copy until some point between October 1 and the first week in December 1994 - ie after he knew this book contained the 'o costly...' line (which would then beg the question why did Mike have to get hold of a copy at that late juncture, if he could have supported his forgery claims in any other way?).
John's oft-repeated observation, that Mike Barrett owned the only two books with the 'o costly...' line excerpted and cited therein, as if this gives the whole game away, is thus rendered meaningless, and as much use to his 'Mike lied' and 'I'm not a sucker' statements as my friend's wrists now are to typing.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on January 08, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1614
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Caz,
as i am not having this conversation with john it would be unfair for me to read your post and then write something along these lines,
it is not possible for John to prove Mike lied about the library because it it perfectly possible that it happened as Mike said.
Just like the boy who cried wolf, one day the wolf came now he's dead.
cheers
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 979
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 8:23 am: |
|
Caroline writes over four hundred words, says absolutely nothing new, misstates my position both about why I am saying Mike lied and about my use of rhetoric on another thread and manages to use the very same sort of rhetoric herself.
And during all of that, she says nothing new, offers not a single piece of real evidence to counter my conclusion, and adds nothing material to the conversation.
Just another day here in DW.
Also, I certainly do not have to "assume" anything about when Mike first acquired his copy of the that modern book with the very same line excerpted in it that is excerpted in the diary in order to claim he lied about the library. My conclusion that he was lying is not based on whether or not he owned that book himself, it's based on my own long personal experience in libraries, the size of the fragment he had, and the source and manner in which he claims to have "found it."
He lied.
And not a single person here is going to even come close to proving me wrong about that.
Watch.
Begging pardon for the pun,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 08, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 980
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Jenni,
Just one question.
Can something be more possible or less possible than something else?
Thanks,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1393
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 8:28 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Quite so, my dear, quite so.
S'funny, these discussions used to remind me of the Emperor's New Clothes.
Now The Naked Ape springs to mind.
Everyone of us used to believe, like the suckers we were, that Mike was the proud owner of the Sphere book at the same time as he owned the diary - just because he said so.
Along came John, who took the wool from our eyes by innocently announcing that Mike lies all the time, and suddenly Mike's words are stripped away along with his Sphere book, and all we have left is a very naughtly little boy with nothing to cover his embarrassment at being unable to claim a single thing about who wrote the diary, when or why.
Back to square one then.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1615
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 8:42 am: |
|
John,
why not answer me this question.
there are two possible things, eg possible thing number one i will work hard on my dissertaton today.
possible thing number two i will spend the afternoon dossing on the interent
Are you with this so far?
Now John, bioth these things are possilbe. but we must admit that possibility number two is what is most likely to happen. In theory that makes it more possible. Got that?
So yes some things are more possible than others BUT all possible things MUST be possible.
That answer your question?
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 982
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 8:51 am: |
|
Jenni,
Excellent.
That's all I wanted to hear.
Thanks very much,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 983
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
More purely rhetorical gestures from Caroline, I see.
(It's a wonder anyone ever takes her literally...) 
As for me, never once have I claimed I knew who wrote the diary. In fact, I have always consistently said, from the moment I first arrived here, that I do not believe there is enough evidence to claim that ANY specific person wrote it.
I have also said, just as clearly, that I do know one person who certainly did NOT write it.
And we all know who that is.
Yup. The real James Maybrick.
And no one here is going to argue that the real James DID write it, are they?
Of course not.
--John
PS: Incidentally, it sure wasn't me who first announced that Mike lies all the time. People were saying exactly that before I ever got here. I just pointed out that, among his lies, the stunningly amazing one about the Miracle of the Liverpool Library was among the largest and most incredible whoppers of them all.
PPS: There might not be the necessary evidence to tell us who, but there is plenty of clear textual evidence to tell us when (if you're not in a desire-driven state of denial and willing to create fanciful and elaborate excuses at all costs despite what the words say, that is).
(Message edited by omlor on January 08, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1394
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
Hi John,
I have no problem with using rhetoric. I have a problem if I feel I know, based on the evidence of my own eyes, that someone else is using rhetoric in a deliberately, self-confessedly (is that a word?) unprofessional way, in order to play tricks with the facts and on the readers.
And whether you really thought we were all smart enough here to know exactly when you are only mucking about with silly word exercises, and when you are trying to be deadly serious about the evidence and pointing out other people's obligations, or suspected some of us would be too dim to keep up, what was the point of not being straight? What's the point of not being straight now, and answering the questions I've raised, not ones I haven't?
I never said you had to "assume" anything about when Mike first acquired his copy of the Sphere book 'in order to claim he lied about the library'.
I said that in order to keep your argument about Mike 'lying all the time, about everything' consistent, and to support your claim not to be the kind of sucker who believes anything he says, you can hardly use his ownership of the Sphere book as evidence of anything at all, since it is irrelevant if he lied about owning it before the end of September 1994.
If Mike lied about the library, and lied about owning a copy of the Sphere book at the time, even you can see that he must have found out about the source of the quotation some other way - a way that didn't involve him having the same quotation in two books back in 1992.
If you don't see where your own arguments lead you - round in ever decreasing circles - I'm not going to spell it out for you; you're a big boy now.
Love,
Caz
X
PS it sure wasn't me who first announced that Mike lies all the time. People were saying exactly that before I ever got here.
It sure was - unless you can quote where someone else said 'exactly that'. Nice try, though.
(Message edited by caz on January 08, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1620
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 9:13 am: |
|
no one but us reads these boards who are we trying to kid!
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 984
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 9:14 am: |
|
Caroline,
Well, I haven't seen anyone using rhetoric here to deliberately "play tricks" on anyone, so your opening paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion.
I guess my problem was that I did NOT suspect that some of you would be "too dim to keep up."
And, just to be clear, since reading seems to sometimes prove difficult for you, as you say, I am certainly not claiming that Mike did or did not own the Sphere Guide at any particular moment in time. I am claiming he lied about the library miracle.
I have no idea if he had the Sphere Guide when he did that or if he didn't. Because I won't believe Mike about anything, there's no way I can know that for sure (unless I want to believe the other person who allegedly says he did).
But all I need is my own lifetime's worth of experience to know the Miracle Library story is a lie.
So that's all I am claiming here.
Was that too difficult to follow? I tried to use as few rhetorical gestures as I could.
If it still confuses you, I'm sure you'll tell me (for the millionth pointless time).
--John
PS: There you go again, pretending to be completely "dim" to rhetoric. If I say Mike lies "all the time," that clearly does not mean that every moment he is alive he is lying. That's just stupid. It's a figure of speech, of course. If Mike says, "I'm hungry" when he is hungry, then he's not lying. And I'd bet he does that now and then. Of course, saying someone lies "all the time" means they do it a lot and they are not to be trusted. I can't believe I even have to write this. Now you really are just playng pointless rhetorical games for your own sadly desperate and ideological reasons. "Mike lies all the time" or, to put it another way, "Mike lies routinely" is precisely the diagnosis I heard about him when I first arrived here.
PPS: "Do you eat pizza?" "Sure, I eat pizza all the time."
See?
"This is truly a moronic conversation."
"I know, we have those here all the time."
See?
(Message edited by omlor on January 08, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 9:45 am: |
|
And again, just for the record:
John feels he knows that there is plenty of clear textual evidence to tell us when the diary was written.
Unfortunately, even this statement is a fallacy, because I, for one, don't know that there is any clear textual evidence to tell 'me' when the diary was written.
In any statement of opinion, the writer can only speak for himself, and what he feels he 'knows'. He can't speak for what other people feel they 'know'.
John knows this is true - he said so himself, when he found it unbelievable that anyone could think he was so monumentally stupid that he meant his 'everyone knows' statement to be taken literally.
So here is yet another statement from John that isn't meant to be taken literally, and actually means:
John feels he knows that there is plenty of clear textual evidence to tell him when the diary was written.
I think I'm getting the hang of this, but if only John could bring himself to be straight with himself and his audience in the first place, he would avoid the risk of anyone suspecting he has to spin-doctor everything he writes.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1396
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
Hi John,
I'm glad we've finally cleared up what your claim about the Sphere book boils down to, when all the dramatic 'miracle' stuff is stripped away:
You feel you know, based on your own experience of libraries and books, that Mike must have lied about finding the 'o costly...' line in one of the three books on the shelves in Liverpool Library at the right time, known to have contained the line.
Everything else is speculation too.
That's all fine - as long as you accept that not everyone will agree with you that this would ever have been the miracle you originally made it sound.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 987
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
Caroline surprises no one when she tells us that the clear textual evidence doesn't tell her when the diary was written.
And I don't wonder why, either.
Nonetheless, the number of all but impossible amazing textual coincidences that would have had to have happened simultaneously for this book to be anything other than modern, combined with its complete lack of provenance, the behavior of its "discoverers" and the fact that there is no evidence of any sort that even suggests it existed in the 19th century, all logically allows for one simple and valid inductive conclusion.
I'm sure Caroline will disagree (she sort of has to now, doesn't she).
But the threads are still there, the discussions of the actual words on the page are still there, the desperate denial-filled fanciful and elaborate tap-dancing excuses are still there, and, most importantly, the evidence is still there.
The rhetorical gaming will continue here, of course. Because we both apparently have nothing else to do.
But nothing will change.
So keep reading,
--John
PS: A quick glance up this thread will show any interested readers that Caroline's latest "based on..." summary of my position concerning the amazing and incredible Miracle of the Liverpool Library" is stunningly incomplete.
PPS: Ah, what the heck, I'll quote myself:
"My conclusion that he was lying is not based on whether or not he owned that book himself, it's based on my own long personal experience in libraries, the size of the fragment he had, and the source and manner in which he claims to have 'found it.'"
(Message edited by omlor on January 08, 2005)
(Message edited by omlor on January 08, 2005)
(Message edited by omlor on January 08, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 988
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
Oh yeah,
It's based on who told us about the miracle, too.
Just to get Caroline started again,
--John  |
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
"Mike must have lied about finding the 'o costly...' line in one of the three books on the shelves in Liverpool Library at the right time, known to have contained the line. "
A question, Caz. Is the Liverpool Library open stack or closed? If the latter, perhaps there is a request slip (or lack thereof!) on record that would shed some light.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 990
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
I believe it's open stacked.
Here's another question I'm sure has already been answered. When Mike miraculously just "found" the book with the same single line excerpted in it from the whole history of literature just like it is excerpted in the diary, did he even have a library card?
Did he immediately check the book out?
I forget.
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
"I believe it's open stacked. "
Poking around an older thread I just found Caz's description of the stacks as open. Oh, well....
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
John,
don't act dense we know you are not.
why would he need to check the book out all he needed to do was note down the refernce.
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 992
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Jenni,
I was just asking the question.
That's all,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1626
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
John,
I'm sorry.
I got a little mardy there.
The point remains the same. the point will always remain the same, without evidence. Isn't it your good self always going on about evidence John?
Jenni
ps I know blah blah Mike lied - there's no need to go over it again. We should agree to disagree before we get too old and senile for this!
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 994
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Done and done.
And yes, it is me who often mentions the evidence that does exist.
Quite happy with where we are,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1628
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
John,
good good and will hold you to that!
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1404
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 5:09 am: |
|
Hi All,
Just catching up.
Caroline surprises no one when she tells us that the clear textual evidence doesn't tell her when the diary was written.
Respected Ripper historian, Keith Skinner, believes the diary is an old document and is still doing the right thing, trying to prove his own belief wrong; Paul Begg, another respected Ripper historian doesn't know when the diary was written, and is presumably not protecting any 'interests' when admitting this and allowing for the possibility that it is an old document.
No one in their right mind would expect me to be so arrogant as to think I 'know' something these two don't, flattering though the idea may sound.
So John is stating no more than the bleedin' obvious: no one should be in the least surprised that the textual evidence doesn't tell me the diary was written in modern times, considering who else it doesn't tell.
More about John's empty rhetorical gestures, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing coming soon.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1405
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 6:06 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Not dense, no; just not as good at absorbing facts as he likes to think he is.
If John had read Ripper Diary and all the posts to the Maybrick boards a tad more carefully, he would know all this stuff like the back of his hand by now. So it obviously bears repeating, for his benefit alone.
Empty rhetorical gestures, that cannot be taken literally, such as 'Mike lies all the time', are useful in making us rethink things like Mike's unsupported claim to have owned a volume 2 since 1989, which everyone had pretty much taken for granted before.
But empty rhetoric is no substitute for a good argument, where the user demonstrates that he hasn't yet grasped the basics.
When Mike first called Shirley Harrison (on October 3rd 1994) to tell her about his library find, he said he thought 'o costly...' came from "The Sphere Companion To English Literature Vol.6" (coincidentally titled The Victorians), but hadn't thought to make a note of the full title, ie the subject matter, the book's author or reference.
Shirley had to send him back to the library for this crucial information before she was able to confirm, on October 6th, that Vol.2, titled Poetry & Prose, 1540-1674, edited by Christopher Ricks, and containing the 'o costly... line (plus the next three lines of the poem), was indeed there on the open shelves.
For someone who, according to John, had known exactly which book 'o costly...' came from, since before the diary ink was dry, and had presumably checked this book's availability in the library before announcing his 'miraculous' find on September 30th, Mike had apparently forgotten, just three days later, when calling Shirley, which book it was, and had to return to the library to get the details for her.
This is quite a subtle move on Mike's part, assuming he knew perfectly well which book he had to check was on the shelves, and assuming he could easily have given Shirley sufficient information during that first call (just giving her the name 'Ricks' would have done the trick) to enable her to track the book down with a single call to the library, without buggering about with pretend return visits.
Somehow, the word 'subtle' goes with Mike about as well as the word 'trustworthy'.
More in a bit.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1406
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
Hi All,
Melvin Harris used to argue that Mike came across the 'o costly...' lines in the first place because the copy of volume 2 that he handed to Alan Gray in December 1994 has a tendency to open at the page containing those lines.
But this is a double-edged sword, because the binding process of these hardback volumes causes them all to open more easily at certain pages than others, one of which is the page containing the lines.
The volume in the library that was used for faxing confirmation to Shirley may well have developed an extra bias as a result of being opened and laid flat for photocopying (and could also explain why, on two separate occasions, the first copy I picked up opened for me at the 'o costly...' page immediately, once with Keith as my witness, the second time with hubby).
But then, whether the copy given to Alan Gray was used to create the diary, or was not acquired until later by Mike, it is likely to have developed a similar extra bias simply as a result of Mike (and others subsequently) referring to that page more than any other.
The inherent tendency, before 'o costly...' was known to be there, is what Melvin argued caused Mike to see it in the first place, when flicking through his copy at home, and think it a suitable quotation to pass on to whoever was composing the diary.
Since this inherent tendency applies equally to all the library copies, Melvin's argument can be extended to Mike, having looked along the 25 or so books on the middle shelf of the middle block of the 3-block English Literary History section, and picked up one of the volumes entitled Poetry & Prose, 1540-1674, flicking through it (not idly this time, looking for a suitable quotation for the hoaxer to use, but with one purpose and one purpose only), and the words 'o costly...' jumping out at him and smacking him in the chops.
John isn't obliged to believe it could have happened this way; no one is. John isn't even obliged to consider it, along with the facts and all the circumstances, now he can't claim to be unaware of them.
But I wonder if he can argue the toss without resorting to any of the empty rhetorical gestures he uses to flower up his showy and insincere writing. Endlessly comparing the library 'miracle' to aliens and crop circles butters no parsnips.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1631
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
having agreed not to continue arguing about this with John, guess what ? I'm not going to.
Don't say i'm not a lady of my word
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 997
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Thanks Jenni.
And now for the daily laugh.
Here's the part I love.
After allegedly pulling off the research Miracle of all time, ace-literary investigator Mike Barrett says he "hadn't thought to make a note of the full title, ie the subject matter, the book's author or reference."
That one cracks me up, regardless of how Caroline chooses to spin it.
Seriously, though, amidst all of Caroline's wonderfully nasty little jabs about rhetoric (something she herself takes great delight in using within the very same posts that chastise me for it, demonstrating an unself-consiousness that is truly staggering) and her petty little digs at me, she reminds us all of some simple information.
It doesn't help us much of course, since it certainly does not begin to make Mike Barrett's Miracle of the Liverpool Library any more likely, but at least it answers a couple of simple questions.
Except for the ones I asked.
Did Mike have a library card? Did he ever check the book out?
And here's another one, just for fun. Does Caroline, by any chance, have any evidence, any real evidence, that suggests that Mike Barrett did NOT have the Sphere Book when he first carried the diary to Shirley?
Other, that is, than the simple fact that we know Mike lies all the time.
Just asking,
--John
PS: Yes, I know I have used a common figure of speech again -- I refuse to play Caroline's ridiculous and stupid little games, she knows what this phrase means. There is absolutely nothing misleading about it whatsoever. And by the way, we do have these moronic conversations "all the time."
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 998
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 8:47 am: |
|
Oh yes,
It's aliens building the pyramids and the earth being flat -- not "aliens and crop circles."
Jeez. And she criticizes me for not reading or remembering details! 
--John (who knows exactly what's coming next) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1634
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 10:09 am: |
|
John,
it is truly a pleasure!
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
|
Hi all, yes people do sometimes just scrowl through certain threads to get up dated. The trouble is this current thread on the Maybrick Diary is about as confussing as Abert and Costello's 'Who's on First base Sketch.'
Please could anyone outline a quick summary on current thinking about the Diary. Not covering samantic's about what constitutes a lie.
Is the Diary a Fake? Does anyone know for sure either way? Is anything being done about getting it tested by someone who can answer the question? I mean they can put a beagle on mars can't they.
Surely after all this time someone must know if James Maybrick wrote the Diary? If someone Forged it shortly after his death? If it is a modern forgery?
Sorry if I appear a little slow but picking up this thread just lead me to the conclussion that 'who's on second base' or 'was that what.'
Can anyone outline where you all are with this..
Many thanks Jeff (confused) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Jeff asks,
"Is anything being done about getting it tested by someone who can answer the question?"
Thanks for asking, Jeff.
Seems like a good, common sense sort of question to me.
Best of luck getting a straight answer,
--John
PS: The diary is not in the real James Maybrick's handwriting (not even close), it is littered with historical anomalies and mistakes and serious textual problems and there is no evidence anywhere on the planet that even suggests that the real James Maybrick ever had anything to do with it. Certainly, no one will offer any here. Just so you know. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 11:05 pm: |
|
"Is the Diary a Fake? "
Oh, if only it was that simple....The choices are:
1) Legit
2) Modern Forgery
3) Old Forgery
And behind Door #3 be dragons....
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1001
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 7:44 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
Just for fun, could you offer me a believable explanation for how number 1 would work, given the handwriting, given the ahistoricisms, given the textual mistakes about the murders, given the phrase from the police list, given the complete lack of provenance, given the complete lack of any evidence of any sort that links it to the real James in any way or even places it in the proper century... etc?
Just wondering,
--John
|
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 7:23 am: |
|
Have the feeling that I should tread very carefully on this thread but being a stubbon old Taurean I cant help asking some more questions.
Apart from the Diary and the Watch, what other evidence connects James Maybrick to the Ripper Killings? My memory may be a little hazy but isn't he known to have stayed nearby at the time?
Hasn't the hand writing question been explained by his poison addiction when he signed his will? Did he not sign some ship bookings or something?
Would it not be useful to have a third Maybrick thread not taking the diary and watch into account, to see if he has any credibility apart from these? Just find that its difficult to look at him objectively without the damn diary clouding the water.
Can anyone help any? My interest just got twitched on another thread where someone had stated they'd found a (not the) Mary Kelly staying in the same hotel as James Maybrick.
My assumption is that any book (as they useually are) will be bias in favour. So where do you find facts, with the Diary and watch excluded?
Please try and stay calm, just want to give every suspect a good chance and the encials FM have always facinated me.
Jeff |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
