26-10-2019, 04:32 PM
Hi JKP... with all respect, you have mistaken my summary as a quote by you. I wrote:
"1) Touwaide isn't so great after all, it seems. He does not know enough about the Voynich/botany/linguistics/whatever, therefore, we can't accept his serious consideration of Modern Forgery"
That was not any quote, it was a summary and condensation of the thread of comments, by several people, as a whole. Where I did quote you, I did make that clear. For instance,
"I hate writing responses like this. I had high hopes for learning something from Touwaide. I am disappointed. He might be an expert in his respective field, but his understanding of the VMS seems to me to be superficial."
As to this,
"The assessment of the botanical images and the statements about it possibly being a modern forgery are two separate issues. I disagreed with the modern forgery statements for separate reasons that have nothing to do with Touwaide's statements about botany."
Well yes, that is good if you do separate the two. But the point was, and is, that the undermining of the skill, knowledge, whatever, of any expert, is often in an attempt to dismiss that expert on all related matters. Or sometimes, unrelated, even. So while you do deny this was the point, and I accept that did not intend this, the effect is the same: He's not so great on "A", so how can he be trusted on "B"? This is common and unfortunate tactic in argument.
But you say this effect was not intended, and so I certainly take your word for it.
"1) Touwaide isn't so great after all, it seems. He does not know enough about the Voynich/botany/linguistics/whatever, therefore, we can't accept his serious consideration of Modern Forgery"
That was not any quote, it was a summary and condensation of the thread of comments, by several people, as a whole. Where I did quote you, I did make that clear. For instance,
"I hate writing responses like this. I had high hopes for learning something from Touwaide. I am disappointed. He might be an expert in his respective field, but his understanding of the VMS seems to me to be superficial."
As to this,
"The assessment of the botanical images and the statements about it possibly being a modern forgery are two separate issues. I disagreed with the modern forgery statements for separate reasons that have nothing to do with Touwaide's statements about botany."
Well yes, that is good if you do separate the two. But the point was, and is, that the undermining of the skill, knowledge, whatever, of any expert, is often in an attempt to dismiss that expert on all related matters. Or sometimes, unrelated, even. So while you do deny this was the point, and I accept that did not intend this, the effect is the same: He's not so great on "A", so how can he be trusted on "B"? This is common and unfortunate tactic in argument.
But you say this effect was not intended, and so I certainly take your word for it.