[split] Why the VMS text is meaningful or meaningless?

[Koen G]

"Meaning" I would define as the ability of the text to convey information.

No that's definitely not a good approach. "Meaning" should be tied to something human, i.e. meaning is always subjective.

It's exactly because of that difficulty with agreeing upon the meaning of "meaning" that I proposed to go the other way around and to discuss "meaninglessness" instead - by way of substituting "schematic" text generation for the notion of "meaninglessness". There is certainly a bit of sophistry in that, but actually that's what people mean. When they discuss the meaninglessness of the VMS, they effectively argue some procedure of text generation - like grilles (Rugg), auto-copying (Timm), or state transition probability tables (Fisk).

I don't think I agree, meaning should be defined positively.

Imagine a scenario where the VM is the 100th book this person has filled with gibberish language. It has become his second nature to make it look and feel like normal language and the words pour out as his pen flies across the vellum. Basically, the writer is already very well trained in writing Voynichese, and through the years it has become what it is now.

This would mean that the text is utterly meaningless, but no schemes or procedures have been used at all.

Hence, in our particular case I would define "having meaning" as follows: The VM text has meaning if an informed reader is able to extract information from the text as intended by the writer.

I add "as intended by the writer" because of course it is possible to assign meaning to things that don't have any - this is not the kind of meaning we have in mind. 
With "the writer" I mean the person who last wrote the text knowing what it means. A copyist can pass on and multiply a text without knowing what it is, of course.