(24-04-2016, 08:27 PM)Diane wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
As always, I am concerned to properly acknowledge precedents, whether or not I consulted them, and am happy to receive emails at voynichimagery ... gmail
You know, Diane, this is just my opinion but the way I see it, if someone comes along and says, for example, "I think this might be ___[insert some obscure language]____" and doesn't follow it up, doesn't do the legwork, doesn't research it and doesn't post findings, I see no reason to acknowledge it as a precedent. It's not. It's just tossing ideas out there. Anyone can do that, I've seen one guy propose about 16 different languages, and one might be correct through sheer chance, not because he actually knew what he was talking about.
There are scads of people throwing out ideas about the VMS, but if they don't do some kind of analysis (whether visual, statistical, or linguistic), so what if they mentioned it? It's meaningless until someone comes along and does the work to support or deny that idea and that person doesn't necessarily know that it was previously thrown into the ring and didn't necessarily benefit one iota even if it were because it's so easy to spout ideas. I know a guy who thinks he's a great novelist because he has a new idea for a novel every week. Well, a good idea is absolutely essential, but it's only 1% of the work and he's never written down a single word and never will.
Anyone can say, "The drawings might be ancient legends," or ,"The drawings might be coded political commentary," or "The drawings might be derived from _______ texts," and be correct but they don't KNOW if it's correct if they just threw out an idea, and whoever follows it up is the one who deserves credit for recognizing WHICH direction to go and confirming it.
I think we should be as discriminating in quoting precedents as we are in doing our research. Give credit where credit is due.