Well no worries from my direction, David, because no bruising or flaming coming from this end, and I think that all the responses to my posts have been civil, too. During these stressful times I think it is a great opportunity to escape into our investigations on the Voynich. I've heard it on the VMS-list, and elsewhere. We are mostly stuck at home, and it is one of the things left to us.
"You're just supposing. You're taking bits of a coherent argument at random and arguing the opposite in such a way that it's just supposition. And when somebody counter-argues your supposition, you reply but deflecting the argument to another point."
Of course, though, we are all "supposing". The only things known for certain are that the vellum is from the 15th century, and Wilfrid announced it in 1912. Anyone thinking... me included... that they are doing anything but hypothesizing here is fooling themselves. So yes, I am "supposing", so are you, Koen, René, Pelling, and everyone else.
The problem is if one thinks that this or that is proven, against most anything else, because then the investigation ends right there. It will never progress, once claims of proof are substituted for anyone's suppositions. So really, I agree 100% with you, and that is why I press home the unanswered questions the way I do: To cause people to really think about what they know, and realize, as you do, that it is all really supposition.
"We just go around and around in polite yet argumentative circles."
OK... I intend to remain polite, of course. But argumentative, also. I am perfectly willing to stop going in circles, but the only way to do that is to have a person answer the questions. They simply do not get answered... they get ignored, blocked, deflected from, ridiculed, and any number of alternatives to simply being answered.
My contention is that the reason they are not answered is because they cannot be answered. How would you answer the concerns on my Marci blog? For instance, why the fold lines do not make sense? I have a "supposition" for it, but have heard no other to explain it.
And thank you for keeping this thread, and conversation, open.
"You're just supposing. You're taking bits of a coherent argument at random and arguing the opposite in such a way that it's just supposition. And when somebody counter-argues your supposition, you reply but deflecting the argument to another point."
Of course, though, we are all "supposing". The only things known for certain are that the vellum is from the 15th century, and Wilfrid announced it in 1912. Anyone thinking... me included... that they are doing anything but hypothesizing here is fooling themselves. So yes, I am "supposing", so are you, Koen, René, Pelling, and everyone else.
The problem is if one thinks that this or that is proven, against most anything else, because then the investigation ends right there. It will never progress, once claims of proof are substituted for anyone's suppositions. So really, I agree 100% with you, and that is why I press home the unanswered questions the way I do: To cause people to really think about what they know, and realize, as you do, that it is all really supposition.
"We just go around and around in polite yet argumentative circles."
OK... I intend to remain polite, of course. But argumentative, also. I am perfectly willing to stop going in circles, but the only way to do that is to have a person answer the questions. They simply do not get answered... they get ignored, blocked, deflected from, ridiculed, and any number of alternatives to simply being answered.
My contention is that the reason they are not answered is because they cannot be answered. How would you answer the concerns on my Marci blog? For instance, why the fold lines do not make sense? I have a "supposition" for it, but have heard no other to explain it.
And thank you for keeping this thread, and conversation, open.