Discussion of "A possible generating algorithm of the Voynich manuscript"

[Torsten]

I would have a lot more time and respect for the observations about the similarity and co-occurrence of words in the Voynich text were they not continually served up with the same old theory.

That you can't accept a conclusion is not a valid argument against an observation. The additional materials contain in 1.3 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. You can choose a page and check yourself that indeed tokens with high structural similarity appear preferably in close vicinity.

He stuck to the "same rigid word structure" for the majority of the text. Even though the text likely took weeks, and possibly months or even years, to create. The differences between the word structure from beginning to end are not very great. He knew what the word structure was, inside his head.

The word structure is not as rigid as you suggest. The text is changing from Currier A to Currier B. See also the graph for Words preferred in Currier A and B in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

In the rest of your post you only cherry pick some sentences and argue against this sentences. But this didn't affect the argumentation given. For instance, to argue against Occam's Razor only makes sense if you accept that the theory provides a hypothesis to explain all facts currently known about the VMS.