The Voynich Ninja

David - are you serious?

"We already have a provenance and history forum". 

No we don't.  

That forum has nothing to do with tracking the evolution of Voynich studies and its ideas from 1912-2012.

I won't insult you by explaining the difference between honest history and propagandist literature.

 So think again...


"the  suggested questions ... don't contribute towards the core function of this forum.

.... most of them will probably lead to flaming and ad hominems! 


What this implies is that if Stolfi deserves to be considered the first person to break away from the 'cipher-text' idea (whose basic foundation is non-existent in objective terms) , then we may not correct the historical record on that point, lest the researcher who raises the question, or those who respond and discuss the question, be subjected to flaming and ad.hominem.

Is that it?

Or are you saying that in attempting to correct the record, the researchers may find historical information which still-current persons may find reflects less than well upon their own theories - and will object to this as a form of flaming?

So - in order to avoid having moderators lobbied by persons wishing to suppress revisionist research... we just ban it pre-emptively?


Surely not. ..

-JKP-

Here's my take on it.

Our task is to produce enough solid, reliable, verifiable, fact-based research to save later researchers wasting their own time.

Our task is not to hunt for circumstantial bits and pieces useful in building belief-structures around poorly-founded quasi-historical narratives.

If any assertion or contention isn't  demonstrably true, and demonstrably relevant to the object's study it is a waste of time.

This sort of time-wasting has been characteristic of the manuscript's study.  

Consider the 'cipher text' idea. It had absolutely no preliminary evidence offered to support it. Just a 'notion' that occurred to Wilfrid.  Because no-one bothered to first establish their faith in the idea by checking its basis, but accepted as an item of almost religious faith, Newbold lost his life; William Friedman had a mental breakdown, and generations after them gave up until (I think) Stolfi decided to take a new tack and test whether or not the primary evidence supported a  theory.  

I'm not arguing  Wilfrid's guess  was wrong nor Stolfi's conclusions right. I'm saying that to demand researchers begin from a basis of faith - that they may not even discuss the past course of Voynich studies without risk of censorship, censure, hostile lobbying, and openly admitted risk of flaming and ad.hominem is an appalling state of affairs.  Enquiries prohibited lest they inhibit the  growth of a kind of  intellectual duckweed: a monoculture.

Why not ask who, exactly, would run to the moderators, or lobby against a thread where we can discuss the foundation for this or that 'notion' which is, or was, taken as an article of faith?

Look around, JKP.  Where's Pelling? Where's Don? Where's Sam G.?   Where are...  all the other independent minds.  

Interesting, huh?

(14-11-2018, 06:46 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.-JKP-

Here's my take on it.

Our task is to produce enough solid, reliable, verifiable, fact-based research to save later researchers wasting their own time.


...

My task is to solve the VMS. That's why I got involved. To me it's no different from playing chess or Igo. It's a game. It's a puzzle. It's a fun way to learn history. It's an engaging pastime.

Along the way I would like to do it in the most rational way and, since I joined the ninja community, I feel I have a certain responsibility to be a good citizen while doing it.

Diane, you are proposing a sociographical study upon Voynich researchers. And I am not sure with what purpose. Frankly, IMHO, 90% of the stuff would be gossip, rumour and hearsay.
Sociographical research relating to living people and recent memory is not conducted amongst amateurs (no matter how talented) in an open forum.
For example, your proposed question:

Quote: Q: Given that Jacques Guy publicly admitted his hoax, and in the same article to the Times Educational Supplement that he could find no flaw in Stolfi's statistics and conclusions, why was Stolfi driven from the study ad.hominem?

And what happens if Prof's Guy or Stolfi come across the lot of us blathering on about their professional careers in an uninformed manner? All it would do is bring the forum into disrepute, and I cannot see that it would advance Voynich studies one jot.

If you want to run a gossip mag on Voynich researchers, feel free. On this forum, please concentrate upon real Voynich research.

This means you can discuss other people's research. What you can't do is opine upon why someone, living or dead, exited the stage left, pursued by a bear.

We have a history forum, and such questions and discussions can be posted there.

Quote: Look around, JKP.  Where's Pelling? Where's Don? Where's Sam G.?   Where are...  all the other independent minds.

Well, at least one of them left the forum partly because you kept on annoying them. Less said about that, the better.

(14-11-2018, 06:46 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Look around, JKP.  Where's Pelling? Where's Don? Where's Sam G.?   Where are...  all the other independent minds.  

Diane, consider the implications of what you are saying with things like these. You basically just called anyone who posts on the forum (including myself) a mindless drone. I prefer to believe the opposite is true. And don't get me started about Don. He turned into a full-blown theorist, seeing silly and impossible "mnemonics" everywhere, and then ran off furiously and deleted all his posts when people wouldn't agree.

Diane! 
It seems your ambitions and mercantile interests prevail the interest to the VMs research. I really can't imagine that you want to help someone. 
Critique? 
As  much as I can remember, expedient constructive critique, better to say - discussion and remarks never were  forbidden on this forum. Clear and detailed criticism on a particular issue is rather useful, it lets opponent understand a mistake or, in another case, gives a possibility to put forth counter arguments or to clarify the point which was misunderstood or poorly developed. Even if both will reserve their own opinion, readers can see arguments from the both sides and decide which are stronger. 
As for the "methodology", everyone has the right to apply his own approach. Different approaches is not a bad thing, especially when the standart one gives no result. No matter that some are obviously wrong, any sensible researcher can distinguish such approaches without assistance. 
Actually, I prefer to know weak spots of my own theory and approach than to seek for them in theories of another researchers.

Moderators please explain why the above ad.hominem comment has not been censured, either by you or by the comment from me which you have chosen not to publish.

Note also - the 'report' button appears to have been disabled. It will not connect.

To David

First of all, as a moderator you should not be so ready to turn an objective subject - reconsideration of past assumptions about   the manuscript - into an excuse for a snide comment against a forum- member .  Do remember that everything said here is accessible online, and thus deemed published material.

Slander becomes libel when it is published.

I would strongly recommend that what you hear said about the manuscript, or about persons, not be taken on faith.  Demand evidence before adopting any information, regardless of personalities.

Searcher, for example, has accused me here of 'ambition and commercial interest'.  I should be delighted to hear what prompted that fantasy, but I expect it comes down to 'a bloke said so'.

David, as moderator  you had a duty to censure that ad.hominem and baseless assertion by Searcher, but not only did you fail to do so, you actually censored my own defence.

[snipped by mod]Ad. Hominem comments[/snip]


Your own remark about 'gossip mags' was absolutely out of order.  (Give yourself a 60% warning level.  )

I should like you to re-think your seemingly arbitrary decision against permitting discussion of methodologies,  standards of documentation, or re-consideration of past works and opinions, such as Stolfi's.


As a rule-of-thumb to  determine  if behaviour is  being rightly described as being a product of  prejudice, we have a list of tests which includes one item I think may prove helpful to moderators:

1. Would the problematic comment or action have been differently defined  had it come from a different 'class' of person: e.g. from someone of different age, or gender, or from someone of a different nationality... etc.   

As example - Had I said to Rene that 'ambition and commercial interest' were his sole motivation  - would you have allowed it to pass uncensured?  Had Rene responded with a protest that such assertions should be at least provided some evidence for them,  would you have censored Rene's protest ?

Again, if Anton had suggested that the study's deep-seated problems are largely a result of inherited errors and poorly-documented arguments, would you have told him that to have a thread about the study's history, or to insist on correctly documenting a picture was 'appropriate'? 


The sources I cited about Stolfi are already public record and Stolfi's character can only be restored, if anything, by a re-consideration of the circumstances which saw him, and thus his research, dismissed.

Another item for you,  David.     Had Rene corrected my usage of a French or German word, would you have interfered as you have just done?  Wouldn't you first check some independent academic text book?  

Look,  I'll state my formal qualifications here once and for all.  If any of it should amaze you then think about just who told you otherwise.
[snipped by moderator]Personally identifiable information which goes against forum rules[/snip]

(17-11-2018, 05:05 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....


I would strongly recommend that neither you nor other members take gossip on faith and repeat it here without demanding some shred of factual evidence to justify it.  Searcher, for example, has accused me here of 'ambition and commercial interest'.

It's only libel if it's not true.

Personally, if someone called me ambitious, I'd say, "Yeah, you're right. I'm ambitious." If they called me mercantile, I'd laugh and say, "Yeah, I'm a business owner, I'm mercantile by definition."

The important thing is whether it gets in the way of one's objectivity while doing research.

I really don't understand the point of all this.
There already is a subforum called "History and Provenance", as davidjackson said. If the goal is to get the questions answered, then go ahead and start the threads. Creating a new subforum will not change the quality of the discussion of a given subject. I'll add that describing the current History and Provenance forum as "propagandist literature" is a really far-out concept.

As for Stolfi, I have never seen anything disparaging written about him, so I don't understand what this crusade to "restore his character" is about; if it is something that happened years ago on another platform, I don't see what it has to do with this forum. Whatever it may have been has passed long ago, and all that remains is his website and his contributions to the earlier mailing list, which each of us can read for what they are. Personally I have enjoyed visiting his website.


And I agree with Searcher of course that disagreement and critique can play a positive role (I can't speak for Searcher but I believe the "mercantile" comment had to do with the fact that OP said at one point that she was coming out with a book, and that negative replies to her posts would go against her and her publisher's commercial interests, see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ).

I think that each person will read the work that has been done in the past, or choose not to read it, and make up their own mind. I don't see how any of the above ranting and rambling is actually helpful: it seems to me to be more about seeking to control a narrative than about furthering our understanding of the Voynich Manuscript.