Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lord Orsam's Blog

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    WTF??

    I never implied any such thing, Gary, but if he chooses to infer it from what I wrote, it would just be more evidence of his self importance. I don't believe he has ever sent me an email and would imagine it's not his style to make house calls in any case.

    The only stuff I have read, relating to his work, is what is posted on the message boards or sent to me by well meaning individuals.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    That’s how he interpreted it. It never occurred to me that you’d received a missive from Orsam Towers.

    I think your approach is eminently sensible. If we were to attempt match his 3000 word responses to every misleading small point he makes, we’d go horseshit crazy.

    Do you like the H&H post about the ‘naughty’ one-off (ish) colt?

    Comment


    • I referred to a message board post elsewhere, and even quoted from it, where I was accused by a regular diary poster of carrying on a relentless 20+ year 'PR campaign', on behalf of myself and others, concerned with debunking Bongo's 'confessions'.

      So I found it highly amusing when I later learned - via my well meaning correspondent - that David Barrat had jumped on my post with glee, accusing me of referring to something he had written and mangling his words [which I hadn't even been aware of], because he had apparently not described it as a 'PR campaign' [but something else] and ridiculed the very idea that he would have used those words.

      It became obvious that David had not bothered to read the post I was actually referring to, or he'd have instantly realised his mistake, which shows just how much he cares about what his keenest admirers write on his behalf. It was one of them who read his words and ran with them to the message boards, mangling them on the way, but not so much that David didn't recognise his own work.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
        I referred to a message board post elsewhere, and even quoted from it, where I was accused by a regular diary poster of carrying on a relentless 20+ year 'PR campaign', on behalf of myself and others, concerned with debunking Bongo's 'confessions'.

        So I found it highly amusing when I later learned - via my well meaning correspondent - that David Barrat had jumped on my post with glee, accusing me of referring to something he had written and mangling his words [which I hadn't even been aware of], because he had apparently not described it as a 'PR campaign' [but something else] and ridiculed the very idea that he would have used those words.

        It became obvious that David had not bothered to read the post I was actually referring to, or he'd have instantly realised his mistake, which shows just how much he cares about what his keenest admirers write on his behalf. It was one of them who read his words and ran with them to the message boards, mangling them on the way, but not so much that David didn't recognise his own work.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        It?s one thing to admire his excellent research (even allowing for the occasional clanger) but to enthusiastically carry out his dirty work is despicable.

        It?s pretty coltish behaviour, IMO, and Leanne from the H&H site provides a reason for that:

        He's still a colt as he has only dropped one ball at the moment. I'm hoping he'll have dropped the other by the end of the summer.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
          I referred to a message board post elsewhere, and even quoted from it, where I was accused by a regular diary poster of carrying on a relentless 20+ year 'PR campaign', on behalf of myself and others, concerned with debunking Bongo's 'confessions'.

          So I found it highly amusing when I later learned - via my well meaning correspondent - that David Barrat had jumped on my post with glee, accusing me of referring to something he had written and mangling his words [which I hadn't even been aware of], because he had apparently not described it as a 'PR campaign' [but something else] and ridiculed the very idea that he would have used those words.

          It became obvious that David had not bothered to read the post I was actually referring to, or he'd have instantly realised his mistake, which shows just how much he cares about what his keenest admirers write on his behalf. It was one of them who read his words and ran with them to the message boards, mangling them on the way, but not so much that David didn't recognise his own work.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          X[/QUOTE]

          It’s one thing to admire his excellent research (even allowing for the occasional clanger) but to enthusiastically carry out his dirty work is despicable.

          It’s pretty coltish behaviour, IMO, and Leanne from the H&H site provides a reason for that:

          He's still a colt as he has only dropped one ball at the moment. I'm hoping he'll have dropped the other by the end of the summer.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
            That?s how he interpreted it. It never occurred to me that you?d received a missive from Orsam Towers.

            I think your approach is eminently sensible. If we were to attempt match his 3000 word responses to every misleading small point he makes, we?d go horseshit crazy.

            Do you like the H&H post about the ?naughty? one-off (ish) colt?
            Yes, very much, Gary. I also like the idea of the horsey 'Sir Jim' comparing himself to a beast who lapses into merely coltish behaviour on this one occasion when he whacks the missus. When he's downing whores he's a knight in shining armour.

            I suspect Bongo Barrett would have leapt on this interpretation with gusto and claimed it was his own idea.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
              I posted an photo over on Casebook the other day which had a connection to ?Squibby?, who I know Abby has a soft spot for. I was hoping he might pick up on it. (It?s on here, Abby. On the Dunbar House thread.)

              I hear there?s a new biography of Steve Marriot coming out. That?s more my cup of tea than SB. Bloody stupid name for a start.
              Hi gary
              Thanks! Yes I love Squibby lol. Ill check it out.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                Well, obviously he doesn't claim that proves it to be a modern fake, because the mistaken reference to an "aunt" was made at Florence's trial, and would have been accessible to a Victorian faker.


                But apparently when you dismiss it as the "aunt nonsense" you mean in the very specific sense that it doesn't absolutely prove the Diary to be a fake.


                But it seem you accept that if it is a fake - which apparently everyone here does accept - then David has identified the source for the reference in the Diary, and he has demonstrated by reference to the information that was based on, that the source was in error. In which case there can be no dispute that this was an error copied by the faker.


                My point is that I don't think you are being fair or objective to dismiss this piece of research as "nonsense", solely on the basis that it doesn't absolutely prove the diary to be a fake. Because there is no piece of evidence that would absolutely prove that. Because someone would always come back with a possible alternative explanation, just as they always have done before.
                Hi Chris
                Not sure if you read the article in question, Bunny's Aunt. but here it is:

                https://www.orsam.co.uk/bunnysaunt.htm


                Its not very long, well at least by Lord Orsams standard, and IMHO, proves (again) the diary is a hoax.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  Hi Chris
                  Not sure if you read the article in question, Bunny's Aunt. but here it is:

                  https://www.orsam.co.uk/bunnysaunt.htm


                  Its not very long, well at least by Lord Orsams standard, and IMHO, proves (again) the diary is a hoax.

                  This from 1891 is just one example of many that prove Victorians had the same relaxed attitude to the use of 'aunt' that survived until at least the 1960s. Any older close female connection, by blood or otherwise, who wasn't clearly something else - mother, grandmother - might be called an aunt.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	845DDBB4-4B89-4DB0-A6B1-F998EA30ED20.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	189.5 KB
ID:	561553

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                    Hi Chris
                    Not sure if you read the article in question, Bunny's Aunt. but here it is:

                    https://www.orsam.co.uk/bunnysaunt.htm


                    Its not very long, well at least by Lord Orsams standard, and IMHO, proves (again) the diary is a hoax.
                    Yes, I did read it. When I say it doesn't absolutely prove the Diary is a fake, what I mean is that whatever evidence is presented, someone will be able to think of a way around it. Just as they did with the name of a pub that didn't exist in Maybrick's time, and the verbatim quotation from a modern Ripper book.

                    In reality, everyone here accepts that it's a fake, so no one actually disagrees that the use of aunt in the text is an error or that the faker copied it from the source that David indicated. But of course we still have to play the game of imagining a reason Maybrick could have made that error, even though we all know he didn't.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                      Yes, I did read it. When I say it doesn't absolutely prove the Diary is a fake, what I mean is that whatever evidence is presented, someone will be able to think of a way around it. Just as they did with the name of a pub that didn't exist in Maybrick's time, and the verbatim quotation from a modern Ripper book.

                      In reality, everyone here accepts that it's a fake, so no one actually disagrees that the use of aunt in the text is an error or that the faker copied it from the source that David indicated. But of course we still have to play the game of imagining a reason Maybrick could have made that error, even though we all know he didn't.
                      No, that's not the game I'm playing.

                      David announced Bunny's Aunt as a stand alone knock out blow for the diary's authenticity. It clearly isn't.

                      Ditto 'one-off'.

                      Comment


                      • I don't have a dog in this race, but would like to know why certain people believe the Diary to be genuine.

                        Simon

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                          I don't have a dog in this race, but would like to know why certain people believe the Diary to be genuine.
                          I'm not sure anyone does. There's someone who posts on Casebook who appears to, but who knows?

                          To my mind, the tragic thing is that no one here really disagrees about the essentials. The points of disagreement are "academic" - who faked it, when it was faked, exactly how much of a giveaway is any particular error or anachronism, and so on.

                          Is it worthwhile to devote so much effort to debating these questions, and to generate so much acrimony?

                          Comment


                          • Aunties in the Wainscot

                            I could clog the forums with examples of the misuse of the term aunt stretching back to the early 19th century. Here’s a random sample:

                            ‘The adopted aunt, for Miss Woodsleigh made her call her aunt, that title was so pleasant...’
                            (1859)

                            ‘Mrs Steel was no relation of the prisoner.
                            Prisoner - I have always called her aunt.’
                            (1859)

                            ‘By the Jury-Am not related to Mrs. Davy. I call her aunt, but there is no relationship between us.’
                            (1871)

                            ‘" Mrs Staunton is an old friend of yours?"

                            “Yes, I have known her some years."

                            "I notice you call her aunt. Is she any relation?"

                            “No, I merely call her by that name because it is the most suitable.”
                            (1877)

                            “Did I ever speak to you about grandmother’s second cousin, great-aunt Maria?”

                            “Never,” answered Douglas.

                            “I call her my great-aunt Maria,” said the Major, ‘by way of simplifying things. The relationship is distant; but I have always been a favourite...”
                            (1886)

                            ‘Later he angled for a further advance of ?750 and to keep the lady dazzled told her a romantic story about an ‘adopted aunt’, whom he had casually met while abroad, and who intended to leave him the whole of her large fortune.’
                            (1895)

                            ‘“ Why - an aunt is - is - l guess a woman that lives with your mother, and takes care of you. At any rate, anybody can't be a real aunt without they live with your mother, or do something with your mother."

                            “Well," returned the girl thoughtfully, " I guess she is my real aunt.”
                            (1896)

                            ‘“And I am not miss King,” responded the lady, “but only Miss King’s chaperone and adopted aunt, Mrs Fairfax.”
                            (1898)

                            ‘She is not really my aunt you know, but somehow a step aunt on my mother’s side and is possessed of money’
                            (1901)

                            ‘“You know that she was not really my aunt,” she said doubtfully.

                            “I have thought it might be so,” returned Zoe.

                            “She was my mother’s companion,” said Eirene, hesitating...’
                            (1906)



                            But to go on ad nauseam would be an act of Orsamity and would provide an excuse for people not to read any further. (David take note.) However, there is one further example I’d like to share:

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	E6274B61-AEDD-4E82-BB31-B5C0094583D8.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	35.4 KB
ID:	561555


                            ‘Aunt’ Maggie Symington was an author who wrote a children’s column that appeared in several newspapers across the country. Her readers thought of her as their aunt and of themselves a her little nieces and nephews. The concept of an older, unrelated female to whom children could turn for advice and encouragement and who was consequently awarded the honorary title of ‘aunt’ was firmly fixed in the Victorian psyche. And once an ‘aunt’, always an ‘aunt’.

                            Comment


                            • Gary

                              Please could you just answer one question?

                              Please just set aside for a moment the questions of whether this is absolute proof that the Diary is a fake and whether it's possible to have absolute proof of that (my answers to those questions being "No" and "No", remember).

                              Given everything we know about the Diary, do you think there is any reasonable doubt that the reference to the aunt in the Diary is dervived from what John Addison said at the trial, as David suggested?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                                Gary

                                Please could you just answer one question?

                                Please just set aside for a moment the questions of whether this is absolute proof that the Diary is a fake and whether it's possible to have absolute proof of that (my answers to those questions being "No" and "No", remember).

                                Given everything we know about the Diary, do you think there is any reasonable doubt that the reference to the aunt in the Diary is dervived from what John Addison said at the trial, as David suggested?
                                But we are not discussing ‘absolute’ proof, we are talking about evidence so compelling that you would have to be ‘batshit crazy’ to question it. That’s how David presents his case.

                                Please can you set aside everything else you know about the Diary and state whether you think the idea that Florence Maybrick’s family might have referred to her godmother as her aunt is ‘batshit crazy’? If not, then you must agree with me that the much vaunted ‘Bunny’s Aunt’ is not the stand alone death blow that David and his more blinkered admirers believe it to be. Don’t forget, this isn’t a diary thread it’s a David Orsam thread, and it’s his dubious methods that are being challenged here.

                                As for the question you asked me - from the little I’ve read about it I think the Diary is probably a modern fake. And from the little I know of Bongo, I have no problem with the idea of his being it’s author. In which case, the ‘aunt’ error in modern books can only really have come from Addison.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X