No text, but a visual code

[Davidsch]

When arguments in the discussion tend to go towards "I think that.." and the other one replies with, "I think that.." as well, I am sorry but then I will jump off that train: arguments are based on subjective information and what follows is often a non-discussion.

When arguments are soaked with self-invented definitions or correlations, in relation to the Voynich, I will also jump off, because arguments are presented based on prior subjective knowledge, where an outsider can not reasonably participate without becoming familiar with those definitions. That "learning time" is academically often well spend, but in relation to the Voynich, proven to be a waste of (my) time.

Another waste of time are the repeating circular presentations based on images in the Voynich and based on the positions of the characters in the text. Presenting that hard information, which we all got on our computers, is like slapping the readers in their faces over and over again with the same information. Hoping that it will result in anything new, sounds to me as an attack on the common intelligence.

The beauty of your theory Antonio, is that it is a straight and simple theory. I've done research in relation to the animism, tarot,  cartomancy and related other -mancies and there is a good chance the text in the Voynich is related to a subsequent trend. When it does, it must follow a SYSTEM. Then there must be logic and rules behind such a system.  If there is a clear definition for those, that system could be considered as "a solution". Is there a way to do that based on the hard (preferred: textual) facts and published research?