The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

Evening, everyone.

Let me clarify something since it is important people understand how we apply this rule.

1. It may get little attention in most cases - which is usually a good thing since we don't want to create more disruption - but the rule has been enforced multiple times over the last year or two by Koen, and in the last few months also by me. The rule is our way of finding a balance: it helps keep the original thread on topic while still allowing people to continue sharing their theories and debate them.

2. We aim to be consistent. We don't want this to be a rule that is seen as applying to some people and not others. If you think we've not intervened when we should have, you can report the post to bring it to our attention. It may be that we missed the post in question. It may instead be that we disagreed: we thought it was neither a clear-cut issue, nor related to a topic that is likely to overshadow the original subject with a lot of replies.

3. With particular reference to the above point, had someone responded to the watermark thread saying "This is a known 17th century watermark, that's even more evidence that it's not a modern hoax", I would have taken the same action as I did in this case: asked people to take that particular argument to the modern hoax thread, and - if it continued - moved the posts both for and against modern hoax.  This has nothing to do with my thoughts on the modern hoax theory and a lot to do with how it is a topic that always generates a lot of replies, likely to overshadow the original subject. 

And back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Tavie, with all due respect, the content you are referring to, the other content relating to it, the stated nature of the claimed "offenses" by me, and the punishment doled out... all do not match your explanation, above. You are re-writing history here. And by doing so, you have created "more disruption". I was and had put this behind me, and was happily obeying your dictates. It was done.

But since you have now decided to open the wound, I will point out that you have not applied your rules with consistence. In every thread, and even in the very thread I was censored from and removed from, by you, the discussion spreads out into a great many ideas, and alternate theories, and the implications in the discussions to all of them. That is not considered "derailing" the discussion. And yet, ONLY the discussion of Modern Forgery was considered, by you, as breaking the rules. And also ironically, I was ONLY addressing previous statements which were meant to affirm the authenticity of the letter! My comments were absolutely on target, on topic, and addressing an ongoing topic of discussion: How can the finding of this watermark be used to determine the genuine nature of the 1665/66 Marci letter. Those points remain, my counter point to them, removed. That is clearly biased. Anyone reading that thread will have NO IDEA of all the implications of the finding of that watermark, EXCEPT that they "support a genuine and old verdict for the 1665/66 Marci letter".

And anyone who reads that thread will have a skewed and biased understanding of that letter. That is the end result of your actions, which will now mislead researchers who are innocently trying to learn the truth about the Voynich and the letter. And THAT is clearly the point of your actions, whether you realize it, or never will. You also don't realize it, but most of what you know is not correct, or incomplete (in this very thread alone there are several instances in which it is clear that posters didn't know certain facts), I guarantee it... and this precisely because of the type of actions you took, for the Voynich can ONLY appear to be flawless if the many problems with it are ignored.

Read Thomas Kuhn, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., if you have not. You are a part of the currently accepted Paradigm, and knowingly or not, are working against challenges to that paradigm. And the mechanizations within paradigms are complex, and not always pretty, and also, not always scientific. And that book is almost a prophetic description of the entire structure of Voynich research, from the Beinecke's aquisition, to the books written, the hiearchy of the players involved, including you and I. Every action, every policy, every person, in the Voynich "world" is in that book, written long before we were born.

And even though I have dutifully and respectfully followed your uneven application of the rules, removed myself to this "Modern Forgery" thread (my little cell, it's cozy!), and except when Koen, and Rene, had commented on it, I still remained silent. What more can I do, than follow your rules? Now you seem to want me to agree that you have acted properly? I'm sorry, but they are patently, demonstrably, incorrect. Isn't following rules enough, or do you also insist I admonish you of culpability for doing what you did? 

As said, I have moderated a half dozen forums, on all subjects, gaming, research, 3D modeling, submarines, iceboating... and the Voynich Mailing List and now, forum. Some of them probably before you were even born! I am 68 years old. And in any of these cases, I have not demanded that viewpoints alternate to any discussion be banned, censored, deleted, or moved. Not once. You are the first and only case I have seen so far. My rules for mailing list and forum posts has always and only been to abstain from threats, insults and obscenities. I only had to ban two people in decades of forum and list moderation, for direct threats and racist insults to other members... NOT for alternative viewpoints, even those strongly opposed to my own. As the introduction to the venerable and long lived Voynich mailing list and forum states,

"This is the headquarters site for VMs-list, the primary mailing list for scholars attempting to read the enigmatic Voynich Manuscript. The list was started in 1991 by Jim Gillogly (then of the RAND Corporation) and Jim Reeds (then of Bell Labs), and it moved here to voynich.net in December 2002. It is managed by the Mailman program, which allows you to subscribe and unsubscribe yourself. You can find complete instruction at that link. Send mail to the list administrator, Rich SantaColoma, if you need help with the directions.

"In April of 2020, the administrator began the Official Voynich Net Forum. It is my hope that the forum will continue the unique tradition of being an outlet for all ideas about the manuscript, so that researchers of all backgrounds, with their varied perspectives, will feel free to discuss both their mainstream, but also sometimes unconventional, and even controversial, ideas.  I have long believed that this investigation cannot move forward without such an approach, and so perhaps extending this philosophy to a forum format will induce an even greater flow of free ideas."

You are welcome, of course, to run this forum however you like. And as always I will follow your rules, however I feel those rules detrimental to the free flow of ideas, and counter to open discussion as it is. I obeyed, and stayed here as of late, in order to address rebuttals to my own theories and ideas, due to the interest of others, and also to my belief that people have a right to know all aspects of any problem. I've watched people devote years to this problem, and several die during the pursuit. I deeply believe they have to right to a full picture of the thing they have devoted themselves to, and should not have the picture clouded for them, do to the preconceptions and biases of others. So, I stayed for a bit, to at least fill in missing information, and give my opinion on those, so they can make up their own minds with a full picture.

But the one thing I will not do is give you a pass for the way you have unfairly applied your rules, and how you have treated me. You actually owe me an apology, and should return those posts you moved, back to their appropriate thread. I am sure you will do neither, however, and I won't bring it up again... unless you choose to.