(25-04-2017, 08:23 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(24-04-2017, 06:51 PM)Emma May Smith wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hey, this was my answer in the "State of the Voynich 2016" thread concerning the topic of quire 13: "Bathing, maybe with a focus on women's reproductive health." I want priority!
Are you sure?
Another (possibly) young woman wrote the following, 40 years ago:
Quote:It seems strange to me, also, that so many students have become obsessively preoccupied with gynecological or sexual interpretations of the text.
(D'Imperio, p.36).
Thank you, Rene! The next sentence from D'Imperio is this one:
Mary D` Imperio wrote:It seems strange to me, also, that so many students have become obsessively preoccupied with gynecological or sexual interpretations of the text. The presence of the scattering of quite unexceptionable matronly little nude figures on a small proportion of folios seems to me an entirely insufficient justification for this obsession.
It seems that Mary has let herself go to a little trolling here. The claim that the “matronly little figures” are unexceptional should be supported by evidence, which she doesn't provide. The manuscript contains several hundreds illustrations of naked women. This is exceptional and must have an explanation. Instead of dismissing the female figures as unexceptional, D'Imperio should have provided alternative explanations, since she disagrees with the gynecological hypothesis.
What is even more unlike her usual style is the gross slip into irrationality, when, instead of discussing evidence and ideas, she projects pathological feelings (“obsessive preoccupation”) onto other researchers. Pure trolling
