I've just seen this thread again, having quite forgotten it.
First, thanks to Emma for saying - a most vital point -
Discussions of very specific aspects of the text should be wildly more common than attempted solutions.
Secondly, if I need to give credit for another person's earlier exploration of a theme I'm working on just now, I certainly won't forget this thread again.
About another post in this same thread - if Marco happens to see my comment here:
Marco it doesn't matter where you happened to first notice an item or observation, but rather which person first made that observation or brought the detail to notice of Voynich research. Were it otherwise, half the world would be crediting wiki authors with having discovered an explanation for gravity.
The first observation that the diagram represented the Elements was by Rich Santacoloma; the second and quite co-incidental recognition that such reference was the diagram's intention was my own. The reason you were unaware of this is that in each case, later writers made use of our observations (Rich's and mine) without troubling to credit the contributions as one should. This is not because such credits are greedily sought; it is so that later-come readers (such as yourself) can go back and evaluate the original writers' thoughts, explanations and sources.
Substituting 'alternative' names and references distorts and degrades the standard of scholarly discourse, as I'm sure you realise, and serves none but those who are afraid that if the truth is spoken, their own sense of importance may be reduced. That last is a very general commment on what we see happen in academe when people lie about sources. It is surely not meant as a personal barb. I have great respect for the attention to detail which all your work displays.
First, thanks to Emma for saying - a most vital point -
Discussions of very specific aspects of the text should be wildly more common than attempted solutions.
Secondly, if I need to give credit for another person's earlier exploration of a theme I'm working on just now, I certainly won't forget this thread again.
About another post in this same thread - if Marco happens to see my comment here:
Marco it doesn't matter where you happened to first notice an item or observation, but rather which person first made that observation or brought the detail to notice of Voynich research. Were it otherwise, half the world would be crediting wiki authors with having discovered an explanation for gravity.
The first observation that the diagram represented the Elements was by Rich Santacoloma; the second and quite co-incidental recognition that such reference was the diagram's intention was my own. The reason you were unaware of this is that in each case, later writers made use of our observations (Rich's and mine) without troubling to credit the contributions as one should. This is not because such credits are greedily sought; it is so that later-come readers (such as yourself) can go back and evaluate the original writers' thoughts, explanations and sources.
Substituting 'alternative' names and references distorts and degrades the standard of scholarly discourse, as I'm sure you realise, and serves none but those who are afraid that if the truth is spoken, their own sense of importance may be reduced. That last is a very general commment on what we see happen in academe when people lie about sources. It is surely not meant as a personal barb. I have great respect for the attention to detail which all your work displays.