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

[geoffreycaveney]

Torsten, I have a sincere question for you: Is there any colleague of yours, whether a co-author or some other colleague, who agrees with your papers and your conclusions, who could possibly join this forum and help explain your arguments and conclusions, and answer the questions and comments that other participants have about your work?

I can see that there may be some validity to many of your observations, points, and arguments. That is not the same thing as agreeing that your papers and all their conclusions are necessarily 100% correct. But frankly it is difficult to work one's way through understanding all of your points and arguments, when almost every paragraph you write on this forum begins with "René Zandbergen didn't respond to the argument", "René Zandbergen denies the observation / conclusion", "René Zandbergen argues this way", etc. (If we just took your posts here and coded a cipher with "denies" = daiin, "Rene" = okain, "argued" = olchedy, etc., we could probably get some very Voynich-like statistics.)

Perhaps a different person, or just a second person, explaining the ideas behind your arguments and conclusions, perhaps in a different style and in a different way, could be helpful to the progress of this discussion on this forum? A more user-friendly approach from another angle might be able to help some of us see some of your points more clearly that way. Just a thought and a suggestion.