27-08-2017, 03:14 PM
Hi JKP,
Let me disagree with you here.
First of all, Dr. Bax is not the first random guy picked out in the street. He is a professional linguist. So given his interest in the VMS (which is not that common among folks from academia), it would be interesting to approach him at least with some linguistical questions (e.g. such as I suggested above).
Second, I'm sure that he is not approached in his role of a "Voynich-guru" or "Voynich-preacher" but in the role of an expert who has developed his own views and opinions on/about the VMS. The fact that his views are contested (and I am one who would contest them) does not mean, for example, that some objections to his views cannot be discussed in a direct interview. For example, the low entropy issue. Or another issue which has never been raised before yet - but it should be, by all means: namely, what explanations of the gallows coverage would a natural language theory put forward. And so on.
About the panel format. In theory, it would be interesting indeed to have something in that format. But, first of all, it's much more difficult to arrange and record a panel - in terms of management and technical side of things (while the latter, to be honest, is far from perfection yet). And, which is perhaps even more important, it is difficult to produce a good panel, in terms of selection of participants and managing (moderating) the talk. Recall the political debates. Basically, there are two main variants of those. The first one is when all participants approve of the government, and then the debate is exceptionally boring. The second one is when some of them disapprove of the government and, as a consequence, - of each other. In that case the audience beholds much hubbub and occasional scuffle. Same thing would be true for the highly controversial topic such as the VMS.
Let me disagree with you here.
First of all, Dr. Bax is not the first random guy picked out in the street. He is a professional linguist. So given his interest in the VMS (which is not that common among folks from academia), it would be interesting to approach him at least with some linguistical questions (e.g. such as I suggested above).
Second, I'm sure that he is not approached in his role of a "Voynich-guru" or "Voynich-preacher" but in the role of an expert who has developed his own views and opinions on/about the VMS. The fact that his views are contested (and I am one who would contest them) does not mean, for example, that some objections to his views cannot be discussed in a direct interview. For example, the low entropy issue. Or another issue which has never been raised before yet - but it should be, by all means: namely, what explanations of the gallows coverage would a natural language theory put forward. And so on.
About the panel format. In theory, it would be interesting indeed to have something in that format. But, first of all, it's much more difficult to arrange and record a panel - in terms of management and technical side of things (while the latter, to be honest, is far from perfection yet). And, which is perhaps even more important, it is difficult to produce a good panel, in terms of selection of participants and managing (moderating) the talk. Recall the political debates. Basically, there are two main variants of those. The first one is when all participants approve of the government, and then the debate is exceptionally boring. The second one is when some of them disapprove of the government and, as a consequence, - of each other. In that case the audience beholds much hubbub and occasional scuffle. Same thing would be true for the highly controversial topic such as the VMS.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)