I've deciphered the Voynich Manuscript. Here is the alphabet of the manuscript

[Michael Obraztsov]

You write that the Cheshire was arrogant. But how else should one behave with such nits? As soon as I posted the first article on voynich ninja, completely neutral in terms of personal attacks, several assholes from there, without any reasoned critical dialogue, began to openly mock me. How do you think one should react to such behavior? And what is this, like in Krylov's fable "The Cuckoo and the Rooster", "The Cuckoo praises the Rooster for praising the Cuckoo", and the same with scientists. If I am really very smart and want to find myself an appropriate environment, can't I honestly say that I consider most people much dumber than me? This is not to command them. The most I can do is punish those who treated me very badly. I am simply stating facts about myself. Why do so many idiots care so much about this? I would not care if I am not bothered and forced into castes because of this. According to Kurpatov's criteria, I am a reflector - a designer, and the cattle described above are centrists. That is, I am an observant person with an analytical mindset, who needs status at most so that they do not bother me and for career advancement (not for no reason, but because of my developments). And centrists are herd cattle, whose meaning of life is in domination, or belittling others, in order to raise their status.

You say "without any reasoned critical dialogue", but the very first response to you in this thread was exactly that. I don't think you're particularly open to the possibility that you might simply be mistaken.

If all you want is validation, deepseek and other AIs will give that to you. But what is that worth?

A real reasoned critical dialogue does not stop mid-sentence. I was not simply told. In my very first article, I cited many languages, but the bulk of them were presented as fallback words from dialects neighboring English, French, and Latin.
The first thing the commentators did was ridicule me, as if I did not assess all the potential risks myself, and would not be able to argue my position. They did not ask me in the first comments to reduce the variety of languages to three.
In my second article, where I made a calculation and showed that 90% of the text is English, Latin, and French, and the remaining 10% are borrowings from neighboring dialects, some commentators continued to write about twenty languages (not three), without arguing their position. Others continued to claim that the high percentage of fully recognized words (75%) is the result of my using three languages. When I answered that if it was just that I was using three languages instead of one, then I offered to help anyone who wanted to achieve a similarly high percentage of recognized words based on three languages and an alphabet different from mine, they kept silent. However, they had already managed to spoil the first impression of my method, without proving their case.
I asked to introduce me to people who could quickly calculate the number of recognized words using special programs. The commentators, instead of helping with this issue, or directly saying that they knew nothing about such people, only continued to state that I had not actually deciphered anything.
The same Tavie wrote that there are people on this site who have translated hundreds and thousands of words. When I answered that, firstly, it was important in this matter whether they translated these words from random samples, or perhaps word by word in a row, or only took words that were convenient for them, and secondly, what percentage of words matched there entirely, and not just the roots, and that I would like to receive links to records where I could read specific results on these issues - I was given absolutely no definite answer.
The point is that I pointed out the key aspects of the record productivity of my method for deciphering the Voynich manuscript, and wanted to receive specific confirmation or refutation of these records, but in response I received only negative characteristics, however, without specific evidence that results no worse than mine can be achieved based on another alphabet, but with three languages.
And as for the records, the commentators only devalued their significance. I would understand if my record was only a few percent different from the previous record, but when the result is twice as high and at the same time approaches 100%, I think the objective position is to pay careful attention to the study of the proposed method, and not to condemn without ev