[Article] A possible generating algorithm of the Voynich manuscript

[Torsten]

Not at all. What is new in your theory is that the vertical patterns and the presence of similar words near each other are caused by an intentional effort of the author(s) to create vertical patterns and similar words by auto-copying. 

This is what I actual said: see chapter 6 "Evidence" in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p.12f. In this chapter I provide evidence that similar words depend on each other:
"A feature of the VMS is that similarly spelled glyph groups are used together on the same pages near to each other. This means, the reason why similarly written words have similar frequencies is that they appear together on the same pages. In other words, the scribe was writing similarly spelled glyph groups near to each other because they depend in some way on each other" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 14). 

I also argue that "The most plausible explanation for the text generation method described in this paper is that the glyphs have no meaning. To use a glyph group already written as a source for generating another group is only efficient if it is possible to select any group" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 40).

There is nothing said about an intentional effort of the author(s) to create vertical patterns. This is just a misrepresentation of what I said.

That it is not the result (side-effect) of some other process. Within 'some other process' I also include the generation of a meaningful text.

To say that it is this intentional auto-copying and not something else requires some sort of evidence. This is what is missing, and I understand that you don't think it is possible to provide it.

To assume that only one method can result in the patterns observed is certainly not acceptable.

Sorry, but the title of the paper is "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.".

It's on you to provide evidence for your claim that there is another method: "Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims." (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

I don't agree at all.
If the method was arbitrary, lots and lots of other words with an edit distance of 1 or 2 from the existing ones would have been generated.

Again, nobody argues that only words with ED<=1 where generated. See rule one for modifying tokens: "Replace one ore more glyphs by similar ones." ... "<chol> could be the origin of words like ... <shor>, <shar>, .... it is also possible to add an additional <e>-glyph, leading to words like <cheol> and <sheol>" (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 9).

Anyway, what happens if lots of words with an ED >1 from the existing are generated? After some iterations a dense network with ED=1 is generated. If for instance <chol> is modified into <sheol> and the next two steps are to modify <sheol> into <cheor> and <cheol> the result is a network of similar tokens with ED=1: <chol>, <cheol>, <sheol>, and <cheor>. This is exactly what happens in the VMS.