07-10-2016, 10:23 AM
Don,
I mean you no ill-will. I have a long memory for kindnesses, and have not forgotten your courtesy and appeals for basic courtesy on the second mailing list.
That I hold different opinions from you about the imagery in one, not-cosmically-important fifteenth century manuscript should not be taken as a declaration of war or feud.
I do not feel as confident as you that the plant identifications you offer when decoding the written text are solid enough to be then retrospectively applied to an interpretation of the imagery in the botanical folios.
I do not see this hesitation on my part as anything other than a certain reservation. Just as I know you have reservations about the extent to which I rely, in forming my own assessment of the Voynich imagery, on academic matter which exists outside the parameters of Voynich studies.
Let us not take such differences too much to heart. There was a time, not all that long ago, when we lived in blissful un-wareness that this intriguing manuscript existed.
I mean you no ill-will. I have a long memory for kindnesses, and have not forgotten your courtesy and appeals for basic courtesy on the second mailing list.
That I hold different opinions from you about the imagery in one, not-cosmically-important fifteenth century manuscript should not be taken as a declaration of war or feud.
I do not feel as confident as you that the plant identifications you offer when decoding the written text are solid enough to be then retrospectively applied to an interpretation of the imagery in the botanical folios.
I do not see this hesitation on my part as anything other than a certain reservation. Just as I know you have reservations about the extent to which I rely, in forming my own assessment of the Voynich imagery, on academic matter which exists outside the parameters of Voynich studies.
Let us not take such differences too much to heart. There was a time, not all that long ago, when we lived in blissful un-wareness that this intriguing manuscript existed.