13-04-2018, 04:40 PM
Hi Rene:
But that is not at all what you do, in practice. You attempt to rebut all the points to my Modern Forgery theory here, and all around the web. You also actively participate in direct countering of the theory in other writings, either in direct statements, or in contributions to and consultation for, other works. There are many examples of this... The recent Skinner book, in which your very introduction falsely claims that modern forgery has been "disproven". And many points in the Yale book, while not all specified as such, are points directly in opposition to the theory of a Wilfrid hoax. That book mentions it several times, and then counters it on incorrect terms. It was even brought up in your lecture at the Folger library three years ago.
I mean, it is clear to me that you actually, and quite frequently, "discuss" the Modern Forgery theory, only you attempt to keep it a one-sided discussion, which is an entirely different animal.
Which part is "entirely correct"? I don't argue with the contentions you made that the Voynich/Marci letter matches the writing or style of known, genuine letters, and as I pointed out, it is irrelevant to the letter's authenticity if the matching signature(s) int he Carteggio are Marci's or not... but what is incorrect in assuming that any of this is evidence the V/M letter is genuine.
Well it would be interesting if you or anyone could determine the scribe of the 1665 letter in the Carteggio. But this is a moot point to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Problems that still remain unaddressed by you, and by many others. Leaving the discussion won't fix the letter nor the Voynich.
Yes you have withdrawn from the discussion at the VMS-List Net, but as I related above, you have far from avoided commenting elsewhere, and often on points mentioned on the List. It is clear you are very aware of other theories, including mine, sometimes to a very detailed level... as I see you react to them here, and elsewhere, sometimes directly. On at least two occasions you have adjusted your website to remove and alter information in reaction to my ideas, in fact.
So of course you comment, and very much continue to be a part of the Modern Forgery contentions, Rene. You pretend to refuse to discuss the anomalies, but you still do so in those places which these problems can avoid scrutiny, where you will not be challenged. I do challenge you, on behalf of myself and anyone who would like these issues addressed, in the open, by you. If you choose to leave again, and continue to avoid the questions I've raised, then of course there is nothing I can do about that. But I think not answering is sometimes a far more powerful answer in itself.
Quote:"I prefer to avoid discussions of the 'Voynich faked it' theory."
But that is not at all what you do, in practice. You attempt to rebut all the points to my Modern Forgery theory here, and all around the web. You also actively participate in direct countering of the theory in other writings, either in direct statements, or in contributions to and consultation for, other works. There are many examples of this... The recent Skinner book, in which your very introduction falsely claims that modern forgery has been "disproven". And many points in the Yale book, while not all specified as such, are points directly in opposition to the theory of a Wilfrid hoax. That book mentions it several times, and then counters it on incorrect terms. It was even brought up in your lecture at the Folger library three years ago.
I mean, it is clear to me that you actually, and quite frequently, "discuss" the Modern Forgery theory, only you attempt to keep it a one-sided discussion, which is an entirely different animal.
Quote:"My previous post presented a number of explanations related to the various Marci letters, and upon re-reading it, I can only say that it still appears completely correct."
Which part is "entirely correct"? I don't argue with the contentions you made that the Voynich/Marci letter matches the writing or style of known, genuine letters, and as I pointed out, it is irrelevant to the letter's authenticity if the matching signature(s) int he Carteggio are Marci's or not... but what is incorrect in assuming that any of this is evidence the V/M letter is genuine.
Quote:Interestingly, it may even still be possible to identify the "scribe" of the 1665 letters.
That is on-going work.
Well it would be interesting if you or anyone could determine the scribe of the 1665 letter in the Carteggio. But this is a moot point to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Problems that still remain unaddressed by you, and by many others. Leaving the discussion won't fix the letter nor the Voynich.
Quote:I am not reading the VMS list anymore, so cannot comment on what is written there. Even if I knew, my preference to avoid discussions of this topic would stop me from commenting.
No hard feelings, I hope.
Yes you have withdrawn from the discussion at the VMS-List Net, but as I related above, you have far from avoided commenting elsewhere, and often on points mentioned on the List. It is clear you are very aware of other theories, including mine, sometimes to a very detailed level... as I see you react to them here, and elsewhere, sometimes directly. On at least two occasions you have adjusted your website to remove and alter information in reaction to my ideas, in fact.
So of course you comment, and very much continue to be a part of the Modern Forgery contentions, Rene. You pretend to refuse to discuss the anomalies, but you still do so in those places which these problems can avoid scrutiny, where you will not be challenged. I do challenge you, on behalf of myself and anyone who would like these issues addressed, in the open, by you. If you choose to leave again, and continue to avoid the questions I've raised, then of course there is nothing I can do about that. But I think not answering is sometimes a far more powerful answer in itself.