Hi René: Thank you for that, and the mention of my blog... but you have avoided the core point of my writing about this incident, involving your 1903 claims.
The points are:
1) The 1903 listing is in no way identifiable AS the Voynich manuscript, and you partially acknowledge this on your website (although I would also argue with some of your supplied information as being supportive... IMO you have used circular reasoning, for one thing)
2) But when you wrote the essay for the Yale/Clemens publication, you altered what had been your opinion, and chose instead to state it as fact: That the 1903 listing WAS indeed referring to the Voynich Manuscript.
3) That your unfounded "fact" is now repeated, as fact, on many websites, blogs, and articles, and will be, forever.
Anyone interested in what I have written on this subject can visit my blog:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
René, this is only one of many examples of this habit, which I find detrimental to the Voyinch research community, and the future of all investigations: The process by which a person's opinion, no matter how threadbare of any real evidence to base it on, is nonetheless projected as factual information. We have over 100 years such incidents, and really we should all be doing what we can to avoid continuing to poison the well with such unfounded claims, presented as absolute truths.
Rich SantaColoma
The points are:
1) The 1903 listing is in no way identifiable AS the Voynich manuscript, and you partially acknowledge this on your website (although I would also argue with some of your supplied information as being supportive... IMO you have used circular reasoning, for one thing)
2) But when you wrote the essay for the Yale/Clemens publication, you altered what had been your opinion, and chose instead to state it as fact: That the 1903 listing WAS indeed referring to the Voynich Manuscript.
3) That your unfounded "fact" is now repeated, as fact, on many websites, blogs, and articles, and will be, forever.
Anyone interested in what I have written on this subject can visit my blog:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
René, this is only one of many examples of this habit, which I find detrimental to the Voyinch research community, and the future of all investigations: The process by which a person's opinion, no matter how threadbare of any real evidence to base it on, is nonetheless projected as factual information. We have over 100 years such incidents, and really we should all be doing what we can to avoid continuing to poison the well with such unfounded claims, presented as absolute truths.
Rich SantaColoma