The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[asteckley]

Please stop this. This is - as you are aware - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..  You may disagree with it in general, or its application in specific cases.  I've extended multiple invitations to PM me to discuss this privately and politely so that this did not become another open row and defeat the entire purpose of the rule.  You are within your rights to have not taken this offer up for whatever reason, but it is neither fair nor acceptable for both you and Rich instead to take to other threads to make accusations about me.   

I am asking you to stop and stay on topic, which in this thread is purely about the modern hoax theory.  Let's have a respectful debate about the evidence for and against this, which may or may not include the watermark.

First of all, no one has even suggested a disagreement with the actual rule, which is "You are welcome to discuss your theory, but keep it in a single thread".  That is a very good rule. You have morphed it into something you have repeatedly called "one thread per theory" which is nonsensical. It is not just infeasible to have one thread be the sole container for a theory,  it is effectively impossible. The most popular theory on this forum is that the manuscript was written in the 15th century.  And a significant number of the threads assume that theory and therefore implicitly deal with it -- at least as much as those posts that you have decided to shut down deal with a particular theory.  We can't insist they all be kept in one thread. And, in any case, it is not what Koen's rule is even saying. Most threads are not even dealing with a "theory". Many are observations, questions, or simply prompts to achieve helpful discussion. The intent of Koen's rule is to stop people jimmy-rigging their pet theory into multiple threads where it has no relevance.

I have not responded to your PM invitation because declaring a new rule, or why you have distorted an existing one, is a matter that you need to explain and defend publicly. How can hundreds of people active on this forum possibly understand or follow it otherwise?

It is also useful when a thread stays flowing essentially on a single topic, although that also is not among the rules that Koen outlined.  Discussions, regardless of the thread's initial title, evolve and and often diverge into other topics. That is both inevitable and productive.  It is the nature of a subject as complex and multi-faceted as the Voynich Manuscript.  When that divergence of topic is significant, it really helps to have a moderator to, if necessary, split the thread, re-title it, or cross-link it or take some similar action.  But that is not what you are doing. You have SHUT DOWN multiple threads that have NOT even diverged in that way and which have in fact been ON TOPIC. And you did so, even after your misinterpretation was pointed out to you. There are dozens of threads in which the topics have evolved to a far greater degree, but which apparently did not warrant your censorship. So the fact that you had a prejudice against the postings in question --because you THOUGHT they were related to, or MIGHT become about, some theory you happen to dislike-- was pretty obvious.

Forums do not have "editors"  as you have dubbed yourself. They typically have "moderators" who moderate the discussion: to stop actual abusive behavior, identify actual rule violations, or to split up a long thread to improve the utility of the forum's content.  They don't edit it. Voynich.ninja is one of the most useful online forums available for those interested in the Voynich Manuscript and wanting to take part in the many discussions around observations, analyses, theories, debates -- and yes, sometimes "rows" that arise between conflicting opinions. No one wants to see it become a useless mess of truncated threads because of an out-of-control editor.

So "Please stop it"?... yes... Please stop it.