Thread for all discussion about "genuine/meaningless/fake" etc

[ReneZ]

The point of my post is, I would caution anyone who chooses to play the skeptic in a VMs-related discussion, to be clear and consistent about exactly what assumption you are questioning or challenging. The same goes for anyone responding to someone playing the skeptic.

@Renegadehealer, my post was not specifically aimed at you, and was meant in a general way.
Unfortunately, people presenting the MS as a fake of some sort (old / modern) have this tendency of arguing in this direction, namely that their ideas are not accepted out of some principle, rather than out of its specific merits.

This has long been fed by arguments that are subjective in nature like: "it wouldn't have made sense to do this or that".

The question is not whether the MS could or could not be meaningless. It could be either, no doubt. The question is whether it is meaningful or not.

Likewise, the question is not whether the MS could or could not be a modern fake, or whether Voynich would or would not have done this. The question is whether it is, and whether he did it.

If one looks at the discussions on these topics with this in mind, it is easy to see which discussions have no chance of leading anywhere...

If the papers by Bowern and Lindemann do not actually prove that there is linguistic content in the MS, then I don't see this as anything to be overly excited about. We simply don't know either way and it is good to see new arguments in either direction.