25-07-2016, 06:41 PM
(This post was last modified: 25-07-2016, 06:49 PM by don of tallahassee.)
Dear Davidsch,
RE:
"I write all this, because i think the approach we need does not depend on 1 theory and 1 method. The solution lies in a combination of natural language and a simple pattern + another simple pattern + another simple pattern. So i think TT is good on the way, like many researchers, but he gave up too soon and made the decision that it was time to draw up the formula."
I don't think it will take three patterns, only one, as I've demonstrated.
Or do you reject the results for the almost 2,400 words I've shown?
If you reject the pattern, or the results, could you please tell me why?
If you accept the pattern, why do you think there have to be two or more patterns beyond that - is the pattern I show too simple to answer the need (whatever the need you see seems to be)?
If it is the results you reject, would you please say why?
I'm not dealing in proposed hypothetical patterns with the one I show - it's as real and solid as possible. And it does seem to give lucid, consistent and easily understandable results. And I even list them for everyone to see, understand and check. I don't want anyone to have to do any more work on understanding my ideas than necessary.
Are they not what you expected, hoped for, or interesting enough for you? Will the end results of the decoding process not be what you wanted, even if logical, consistent, understandable, repeatable and boring?
Is my proposed solution too simple, with only one pattern, for you accept?
What's up?
This is a direct challenge for you and others ignoring my ideas which seem to have some demonstrated proof behind them. Show me where my results aren't correct or where my proposed deconstruction ideas are wrong. Please don't just ignore proven results like they're not there.
But, in your arguments, please stick to reality like I try to do, not wishes, hopes, dreams, feelings, intuitions, will-o'-the-wisps or some computer program that doesn't quite give the answer you want or support what you are trying to say.
Do you think my proposed solution shows something that couldn't have been constructed in the time period (1404-1438)? Is there some part that seems to be based on later technology or writings? Could you explain, please?
I know I'm an argumentative old bastard with an evil reputation. But I'm not trying to be mean, nasty OR evil here. I'm just tired of being ignored by others seemingly too interested in their own ideas to try to see that anyone else's might be correct. Or unwilling to show me why these ideas of mine ARE incorrect.
There won't be two correct solutions. There will only be one. Please, anyone, show me why mine won't be it. It works. For almost every word and glyph, probably. Just like they appear in the VMS.
Isn't that good enough for you?
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee
RE:
"I write all this, because i think the approach we need does not depend on 1 theory and 1 method. The solution lies in a combination of natural language and a simple pattern + another simple pattern + another simple pattern. So i think TT is good on the way, like many researchers, but he gave up too soon and made the decision that it was time to draw up the formula."
I don't think it will take three patterns, only one, as I've demonstrated.
Or do you reject the results for the almost 2,400 words I've shown?
If you reject the pattern, or the results, could you please tell me why?
If you accept the pattern, why do you think there have to be two or more patterns beyond that - is the pattern I show too simple to answer the need (whatever the need you see seems to be)?
If it is the results you reject, would you please say why?
I'm not dealing in proposed hypothetical patterns with the one I show - it's as real and solid as possible. And it does seem to give lucid, consistent and easily understandable results. And I even list them for everyone to see, understand and check. I don't want anyone to have to do any more work on understanding my ideas than necessary.
Are they not what you expected, hoped for, or interesting enough for you? Will the end results of the decoding process not be what you wanted, even if logical, consistent, understandable, repeatable and boring?
Is my proposed solution too simple, with only one pattern, for you accept?
What's up?
This is a direct challenge for you and others ignoring my ideas which seem to have some demonstrated proof behind them. Show me where my results aren't correct or where my proposed deconstruction ideas are wrong. Please don't just ignore proven results like they're not there.
But, in your arguments, please stick to reality like I try to do, not wishes, hopes, dreams, feelings, intuitions, will-o'-the-wisps or some computer program that doesn't quite give the answer you want or support what you are trying to say.
Do you think my proposed solution shows something that couldn't have been constructed in the time period (1404-1438)? Is there some part that seems to be based on later technology or writings? Could you explain, please?
I know I'm an argumentative old bastard with an evil reputation. But I'm not trying to be mean, nasty OR evil here. I'm just tired of being ignored by others seemingly too interested in their own ideas to try to see that anyone else's might be correct. Or unwilling to show me why these ideas of mine ARE incorrect.
There won't be two correct solutions. There will only be one. Please, anyone, show me why mine won't be it. It works. For almost every word and glyph, probably. Just like they appear in the VMS.
Isn't that good enough for you?
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee