The Voynich Ninja

(16-10-2017, 04:32 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't get this. So you take some frequently mentioned facts about the manuscript, phrase them in a way that makes little sense and call them your theorems? 

That's what I wrote before: a little respect would be nice.

(16-10-2017, 06:54 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For the sake of clarity it would be good if, when publishing proposed theorems, you make a note of whether they are simply proposals (which you do not know yet how to prove or whether they can be proved at all) or they have been already proved but you prefer to not disclose the proof yet.
..
,Davidsch, I'm afraid I don't get your point neither. This forum is a discussion board, so if you'd like to post something but would not like that to be discussed, this forum probably is not the optimal place for that - not because you are not welcome to post Voynich considerations, but because we can't (and have no reasons to) prohibit those being discussed by others.

The same back: Anton,  I'm afraid I don't get your point neither. This forum is a discussion board, so if I post something, why should YOU tell ME how I should act or write my posting ? Again, it lacks respect to the users of your forum. Especially if you are Admin.

Quote:Anton
..
There is no such rule that you cannot post your "theorems" here, neither you are obliged to prove them or call them whatsoever. One can call a horse a cat
..

Again, where's the respect in writing something like that?

Quote:Anton 
... that only looks strange and not very appropriate in a structured discussion. May it be possible that you do not understand what a "theorem" is? A theorem is a statement to be proved based on logically preceding statements, be that other theorems or postulates (axioms). So when one calls something a "theorem", the first and natural question is whether the statement has been proved or has been not.

If I call a theorem a theorem, that's my choice. Who are YOU to tell ME what to write?

Quote:Anton...
This was not "telling" but "asking", and was clearly intended to ask you to clarify your posting (which you opted not to do), not to "shut up". Please don't distort others' messages, this is unethical at least.

Sure. unethical, I agree. But respect-less is a better term.
PS.
Have fun with the 5 users left on your forum.

Davidsch, I think you confuse critique with disrespect. Asking one to clarify his statements or suggesting to call things what they are - are by no means disrespect, but critical feedback - namely, critical assessment of propositions being brought forward.

There was clearly no personal disrespect towards you, neither any "telling you what to do". Continuing to assert that is simply distortion of facts.

The only "telling what to do" that I would venture to undertake in this thread - since I'm a moderator (not admin) - is that I kindly ask you to stop flaming, and issue you a warning for that.

Thanks for the warning, since I never saw you apologize in all your 2000 postings before, 
I wasn't expecting anything else but a real Russian warning. 

David, there is a difference between disrespect and disagreement. It is good that people signal problems with your approach and terminoligy, since this is a discussion forum. Whether you agree with those objections is up to you - you're the one who does your research. But the way both Rene and Anton have phrased their replies is appropriate and desired for an academic forum. 

I warned you again for that last post, we can't have such behaviour in the middle of heated discussions.