Voynich theories and Voynich solutions

[Emma May Smith]

I only really think about the text, so the following should be taken with that in mind:

For theories in 1) I just ignore them. They add nothing. The person may come up with something more interesting later, but this isn't it.

For theories in 3), if the proposed provenance is after 1500 I ignore them and discount the researcher entirely. They will never come up with anything useful to me. That's my line in the sand: the manuscript comes from before 1500, no argument. (Naturally, those who propose a supernatural or extraterrestrial origin also get this treatment, but they're thankfully less common.)

For theories in 2) it is harder to judge. If they refuse to supply a translation and method then they should be ignored until they do. Once these are supplied it is usually obvious that one is drastically wrong. (I subscribe to the belief that the text is meaningful, so I really should also ignore those who propose otherwise. Sadly this is hard to do as they often gain a lot of unwarranted interest.)

As you can most likely tell, I only really listen to the research of a handful of people who a) think like me, or b) are smart enough to make interesting and challenging theories which disagree with me (hi, Nick!).