Expert Opinion

[proto57]

Rich

You are welcome to consider everybody or nobody an expert on the Voynich manuscript.

On one level this is a semantic question i.e. what is your definition of expert. I clearly have a more exacting standard for what I consider makes an expert. Personally, I prefer, as I have said, to talk about specialists rather than experts. I want to ask what is the person's specialism and what do they know about the subject.

Again, we are actually in total agreement on the point of individual definition of who would constitute an expert or not. No argument on that, and there never was, from me. I do think your standard is "more exacting" than mine, and that of many, as you would say this person should be able to read and identify the Voynich (If forget your exact words), and that's great. So specialists, experts, knowledgeable people, and so on... everyone's prerogative, and I respect yours, of course.

But to reiterate, this issue does not alter my points here, or on my blog post, one iota, and only demonstrates those points in action. But I would ask, while I have you, would you consider a book cataloger an "expert on the Voynich"? Because on my list of pre-C14 experts, all are now off the list except for Lehmann-Haupt, book cataloger. He remains (well I think Rene introduced another, not in D'Imperio) the only pre-C14 dating "person" who guessed the age of those tests. If he is off the list, the tally is zero... or at best, one.

Would you retain his opinion? Its a genuine question, not trying to be annoying. There is a reason I ask.

Rich.