The Voynich Ninja

Yet again, this habit of suggesting that by referring to the unhappy effects for others of 'bad history' in Voynich studies, I'm being a "bad person".  [snipped by admin*]

My point is that because the range of work done on the botanical folios was not fairly or evenly represented to Stephen Bax,  but he was falsely informed that Edith Sherwood's attempted id's were "authoritative" he took them as a basis for his own work, which then failed.   No-body who read the exchanges at ciphermysteries, or who has read any of Pelling's later comments could doubt that Bax suffered indignity and insult as a result.

My point is that critical analysis of the primary sources, and fair representation of the available range of opinion and data are a matter of some importance in this study, and that biased interpretation, efforts to block discussion, or active efforts to persuade others to "pay no attention" to ideas which don't suit a theory have repercussions, and affect not only the course of research but the personal reputations of persons who deserve better.

[snipped by admin*]


One may dispute the weighting given a seventeenth century document. One may regret that a newcomer was led to rely on just one, rather superficial account of the botanical folios.  It is not a sign of moral dereliction to criticise voynich.nu, either.  And in none of these cases is it a personal attack upon the authors of those works.

What is regrettable is the attitude which implies that anyone who raises a question about the value of a document, or a set of interpretations should be subjected to ad.hominems - a habit which these days, Rene, has become almost a knee-jerk reaction. [snipped by admin*]

I appeal to the moderators.

[Admin note: Certain personal references to third parties have been excised as being against ToS and outside the scope of discussion for this forum. ]

(03-01-2017, 11:38 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Dear Rene

...

My point is that because the range of work done on the botanical folios was not fairly or evenly represented to Stephen Bax,  but he was falsely informed that Edith Sherwood's attempted id's were "authoritative" he took them as a basis for his own work, which then failed.   No-body who read the exchanges at ciphermysteries, or who has read any of Pelling's later comments could doubt that Bax suffered indignity and insult as a result.
...

I think it was pretty clear that Sherwood's interpretations of the plants differed from those of others and thus were just another set of opinions.

Sherwood also explicitly stated on the site that she had limited her search for plants to a specific geographic area, which means that any researcher working from her IDs was accepting that locale and limitation without critical review, which is, in itself, a questionable choice.


It's the researcher's responsibility to check whether website IDs are authoritative before using them as a basis for further work. A website is not a vetted publication or peer-reviewed journal.

Diane,

I am only interested in setting the record straight, about Marci, and about the historical research that has been done.

Stephen Bax was not misled or fooled by anyone about the herb identifications of Edith Sherwood. He is quite clear about that on his own blog:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(scroll down to point 7.1).
The only one harshly attacking him is Nick Pelling. While he has a longer and deeper background on the MS than Stephen, I cannot agree with his wording. Everybody else seems happy to stay out of that argument.

I don't agree with Stephen's theory, I don't agree with Nick's "Averlino" theory and, for that matter, I don't agree with most aspects of yours. However, I can say so without ever getting personal, and by providing verifiable arguments and references.

I will lock this thread since it looks like all views have been presented and the current line of discussion will only lead to unpleasant comments. As a general note, remember that we strive to keep the forum free from personal attacks, insinuations and so on. We're doing remarkably well keeping things evidence based and personal comments limited to positive ones, so let's try to keep it that way.