10-01-2019, 12:31 AM
Well not much I can do about how you feel, but I certainly didn't mean to be "offensive". I think any such impression, and suggestion, is unwarranted. I was being entirely factual, and only related your actual comments on your blog and in the Yale book, and outlined how they are affecting the field. And I linked your webpage so others could see and try to understand my criticism, and so you or anyone else could either explain this, or correct me if that was the case.
You wrote, "The recent blog post of Rich (whose family name is actually given incorrectly in the Blogosphere), and especially the ensuing exchange of comments, made me realise how little is know about progress on this particular topic."
Whether or not you meant to, you clearly "addressed my blog post" here on the Ninja's, so I don't think it at all improper (nor "offensive") to ask you to explain this to us, here. And if you don't have an answer, then I can only assume that my critique, and conclusion, as presented on my blog, stands as an accurate representation of the problem I outlined.
This would be a great opportunity to explain why you stated the 1903 catalog reference as fact, in the Yale book, when it was clearly purely supposition on your website. Is there some new evidence you have not yet revealed, which does prove this 1903 reference IS the Voynich, after all? Or is it still only speculation on your part, and only based on those things you outlined on your site?
You wrote, "The recent blog post of Rich (whose family name is actually given incorrectly in the Blogosphere), and especially the ensuing exchange of comments, made me realise how little is know about progress on this particular topic."
Whether or not you meant to, you clearly "addressed my blog post" here on the Ninja's, so I don't think it at all improper (nor "offensive") to ask you to explain this to us, here. And if you don't have an answer, then I can only assume that my critique, and conclusion, as presented on my blog, stands as an accurate representation of the problem I outlined.
This would be a great opportunity to explain why you stated the 1903 catalog reference as fact, in the Yale book, when it was clearly purely supposition on your website. Is there some new evidence you have not yet revealed, which does prove this 1903 reference IS the Voynich, after all? Or is it still only speculation on your part, and only based on those things you outlined on your site?