30-10-2016, 03:58 AM
Dear thread-contributers,
If I could turn again to the comment which started the thread. Ellie drew attention to the text in question with a very general remark:
To which I responded with an equally civil remark saying that I could recall the first time the text in question had been brought into Voynich studies - and later gave the reference.
Rene is quite right to say that I have not seen Rampling's essay, but then the conversation had nothing to do with Rampling until a general point about Adam Morris' theory, and the appropriateness of mentioning his introduction of the text was distorted so as to make it seem that my comments had constituted some form of anti-social behaviour.
That twist to the conversation was inappropriate, unnecessary, uncalled for and the mention of Rampling gratuitous, especially since the person introducing Rampling's name was perfectly well aware that I had not read Rampling's essay and therefore could not know any text or image referred to in it.
Rampling's name was O-T at that stage, and had no benefit for the conversation or the thread, only turning a reasonable conversation that was focused on a particular text, its earliest mention in Voynich studies and an associated general issue of acknowledgements into a form of flaming and what the psychologists call, I believe, 'demonisation'.
There was absolutely no reason to introduce Rampling's name in this way, nor to pretend that my mentioning Adam Morris, or explaining why properly citing original work, was an attack on Rampling, nor an effort to 'flame'.
To imply that in mentioning Adam, I intended to attack the author of an essay which the de-railer *knew* I had not seen and whose name was not part of the thread-starting comment, was gratuitous, and the only result of that O-T comment was, in effect, to denigrate me, and diminish my character in the estimation of other forum-members.
If that isn't flaming and defamatory comment, what is?
I thank the moderators for their efforts to prevent two members, in particular, from indulging in such ad.hominems.
If I could turn again to the comment which started the thread. Ellie drew attention to the text in question with a very general remark:
Quote:I am sure it has been discussed by others through the years too. It is a page from the Book of Holy Trinity
To which I responded with an equally civil remark saying that I could recall the first time the text in question had been brought into Voynich studies - and later gave the reference.
Rene is quite right to say that I have not seen Rampling's essay, but then the conversation had nothing to do with Rampling until a general point about Adam Morris' theory, and the appropriateness of mentioning his introduction of the text was distorted so as to make it seem that my comments had constituted some form of anti-social behaviour.
That twist to the conversation was inappropriate, unnecessary, uncalled for and the mention of Rampling gratuitous, especially since the person introducing Rampling's name was perfectly well aware that I had not read Rampling's essay and therefore could not know any text or image referred to in it.
Rampling's name was O-T at that stage, and had no benefit for the conversation or the thread, only turning a reasonable conversation that was focused on a particular text, its earliest mention in Voynich studies and an associated general issue of acknowledgements into a form of flaming and what the psychologists call, I believe, 'demonisation'.
There was absolutely no reason to introduce Rampling's name in this way, nor to pretend that my mentioning Adam Morris, or explaining why properly citing original work, was an attack on Rampling, nor an effort to 'flame'.
To imply that in mentioning Adam, I intended to attack the author of an essay which the de-railer *knew* I had not seen and whose name was not part of the thread-starting comment, was gratuitous, and the only result of that O-T comment was, in effect, to denigrate me, and diminish my character in the estimation of other forum-members.
If that isn't flaming and defamatory comment, what is?
I thank the moderators for their efforts to prevent two members, in particular, from indulging in such ad.hominems.