| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Latest Threads |
Need advice for testing o...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
2 hours ago
» Replies: 88
» Views: 2,921
|
[split] Aga Tentakulus' L...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Aga Tentakulus
3 hours ago
» Replies: 30
» Views: 14,516
|
Translation of half a pag...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Ruby Novacna
5 hours ago
» Replies: 2
» Views: 121
|
A Non-Linguistic Cadence-...
Forum: News
Last Post: Ebysslabs
5 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 69
|
Pastebin claiming to deco...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: ReneZ
Today, 12:25 AM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 251
|
Which plaintext languages...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
Yesterday, 01:39 PM
» Replies: 48
» Views: 4,426
|
Discussion of "A possible...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
05-07-2025, 10:06 PM
» Replies: 245
» Views: 122,638
|
GPT Models Fail to Find L...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: srjskam
05-07-2025, 04:35 PM
» Replies: 27
» Views: 1,070
|
Always impressive
Forum: Fiction, Comics, Films & Videos, Games & other Media
Last Post: Aga Tentakulus
05-07-2025, 12:49 AM
» Replies: 20
» Views: 5,645
|
Month names collection / ...
Forum: Marginalia
Last Post: nablator
04-07-2025, 04:01 PM
» Replies: 86
» Views: 3,743
|
|
|
| Section names |
|
Posted by: Koen G - 16-11-2016, 02:11 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (21)
|
 |
(Consider this thread as a bit of a brainstorming space.)
I have noticed that there are some problems with the way we refer to certain sections. There seems to be a tension between sticking to older names like "biological section" on the one hand, and moving towards more neutral terminology on the other. I have given this some thought, and, in my opinion, these are the pros and cons:
Old names: pros - many of them have become conventions already
- they are used in quite a number of publications already
Old names: cons- Even within the conventions, there is variation (biological section = bathing section)
- Some (new) people might confuse convention with consensus
- Objectively speaking, some of these names include an assumption
- The terms and their meaning are not known to everybody. For example, I've seen a number of people use "recipe section" to refer to not only the final section, but also the small plants.
All in all, I think that the current situation causes confusion quite often, and is not the best for those who use the terminology. This is especially the case on the forum, where communication is a bit more fluent and section names are used instead of folio numbers.
Let one thing be clear - and I put this in bold - we cannot and should not require people to change the terminology they like to use!
But, I also sense that a number of people (myself included) would like a more neutral, standard set of terms to refer to certain sections. If we could agree on these, I would happily use them. They could for example be called "forum standard". The idea would not be that everybody should use them, but rather that is clearly understood what is meant when somebody uses these terms.
We could of course also define a "traditional standard", basically listing the traditional name alongside a more neutral one.
Before proposing any particular terms or details, I would first like to hear your opinion on this matter.
|
|
|
suggestion for Discussions in general and Positions we can agree upon |
|
Posted by: Davidsch - 15-11-2016, 12:27 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (3)
|
 |
Discussions in general and Positions we can agree upon
Most new discussions I do not read anymore because the positioned statement is
formulated such a way that any discussion towards a good position is extremely difficult.
A good statement in my opinion:
1) holds a positive statement (and not a negation, or a double negation)
Good example: the figures in the manuscript are for 95% female with breast
Bad example: most figures are female but of those that are not female we can not say what they are.
2) is simple, plain, straightforward (and not complex, made of of subcategories etc.)
Good example: the manuscript is handwritten in black ink
Bad example: the manuscript is made from vellum, handwritten, from north Italian region and is bound and rebound more than once.
3) open for a reasonable discussion
If a person want to bring up something entirely off the chart, this should be taken seriously.
4) replies should be short
This is almost the longest post I've ever made on a forum,
and I know I will only read it, because of the clear bulleted points,
otherwise I would only scan the lines, which will give me at a glance what it is about.
Suggestion:
Rating system per posting and not per person.
Here, replies can be rude towards one person and surprisingly kind towards another.
For example: when you say 'thank you' to one poster and ignore another poster, by not mentioning his name, but mention your "friends" in your reply or thanking them.
In many discussions there are standard replies from the major "discussion leaders" with no real contents, just air.
It would be nice if those could be removed or marked as invaluable: One writes that he already investigated that before, but has no exact knowledge which and when. Someone else will come up with a exact link and paper of research, from somewhere between the year -2000 till +2000, which is so old it has been discussed already a million times, and it does not add anything new to the table.
A voting/rating system such as on stackexchange.com is highly recommended where there is a real voting system per posting + or -.
The positive aspect of it is, that we ourselves can learn from it: what is received as positive response and what not?
|
|
|
|
| Idea-just spitballin' |
|
Posted by: Anonymous - 12-11-2016, 06:11 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (7)
|
 |
Hello everyone. I'm was thinking what if the person who wrote the VM wrote it whilst looking in a mirror? Has anyone here looked into this line of thought? When I write in my journal, I sometimes like to write backwards and I know this way of hiding information is used by various people through out history- a very simple way of hiding information. So, perhaps he created a code using various Romani dialects and then transcribed the using a mirror to write them backwards, or upside down, or maybe both?
|
|
|
|
| Considered as visionary art |
|
Posted by: Charles Packer - 10-11-2016, 02:33 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (16)
|
|
Excuse my dropping in from out of left field, but I read in Nature
last week a review of a new book about the manuscript. Now I've
been studying Rene Zandbergen's gorgeous website devoted to it.
Has anybody ever suggested that the VMS is no more (or less) than
a prodigious piece of what nowadays we call outsider or visionary
art, that happens to include a faux script as part of its
invention? If not, I'd be glad to elaborate on the notion, drawing
on my background in psychology and art appreciation.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: CxCKazHVEAA1f9x.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxCKazHVEAA1f9x.jpg)
![[Image: numerologychart17.jpg]](https://voynichnumerology.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/numerologychart17.jpg)
![[Image: CwssvaVUQAAf9J3.jpg:large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwssvaVUQAAf9J3.jpg:large)
