Stellar, I wonder if you know how fortunate you are.
You have an audience among whom are competent readers and users of Latin, and highly competent cryptographers who also know the history of their art.
Your theory fails on both counts, as people have tried very nicely and very rationally to explain.
I say 'fortunate' because if you'd posted this sort of thing to the first mailing list, I daresay you could have been cautioned off-line. Had you tried it at ciphermysteries, you might have been ignored, but possibly roasted. (which is not the same as being flamed).
Had you posted it to the second mailing list, the dismissals would have been just as emphatic, but I rather think far more ad.hominem.
That people here have actually responded is a tribute to the forum's air of rational goodwill, and their troubling to concentrate on the issue - rather than resort to personal denigration - is a wonderful recommendation for both members and moderators.
So for making clear what fantastic people this new forum has attracted - I want to thank you for starting this thread. And I don't mean that sarcastically, either. We see people at their best when tested, and this has been a real test of individuals, their standards of objectivity and courtesy.
But the bottom line is that your 'solution' is demonstrably neither meaningful nor an Alberti cipher.
Or such is the sense I've taken from the comments of the Latinists and cryptographers.
You have an audience among whom are competent readers and users of Latin, and highly competent cryptographers who also know the history of their art.
Your theory fails on both counts, as people have tried very nicely and very rationally to explain.
I say 'fortunate' because if you'd posted this sort of thing to the first mailing list, I daresay you could have been cautioned off-line. Had you tried it at ciphermysteries, you might have been ignored, but possibly roasted. (which is not the same as being flamed).
Had you posted it to the second mailing list, the dismissals would have been just as emphatic, but I rather think far more ad.hominem.
That people here have actually responded is a tribute to the forum's air of rational goodwill, and their troubling to concentrate on the issue - rather than resort to personal denigration - is a wonderful recommendation for both members and moderators.
So for making clear what fantastic people this new forum has attracted - I want to thank you for starting this thread. And I don't mean that sarcastically, either. We see people at their best when tested, and this has been a real test of individuals, their standards of objectivity and courtesy.
But the bottom line is that your 'solution' is demonstrably neither meaningful nor an Alberti cipher.
Or such is the sense I've taken from the comments of the Latinists and cryptographers.