Voynich theories and Voynich solutions

[MarcoP]

The question I really wanted to address in this post is: how much effort and energy should one put in trying to show that any theory is wrong?
Is it worth the effort?

My impression is that:

1) Much of the worst stuff that one reads is a form of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I don't think anyone can believe that “banis oleoris croque et potis” is Latin, or that the output of a trivial google images search has the same value as the documented opinion of well respected scholars. All those who publish their ideas expect attention (sharing ideas with others is the only point of publishing things), but some people seem to be exclusively motivated by their need of attention. They even write it explicitly, begging for more mentions of their name and their ramblings.

2) It's easier to find arguments disrupting something poorly researched than to find arguments adding to a serious research.

The combined effect of (1) and (2) is that bad research is encouraged by how easy it is to write and the relatively high number of comments it receives (it really doesn't make a difference if they are positive or negative). Any attention seeker will soon notice that there is no correlation between the amount of research in his posts and the quantity of comments: he will write even worse, less researched and more arrogantly stated posts.

I think a way out is making the extra effort needed to follow more serious research, trying to add something to whatever one finds truly worth reading. I also believe that ignoring all poorly researched stuff typically is the best course of action. But of course this is a hobby and sometimes one feels like going for some fun-but-useless argument rather than hard-and-possibly-fruitless systematic research.