07-12-2025, 02:32 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2025, 02:36 AM by Bluetoes101.)
@Doireannjane
[I've tried getting rid of this "user URL.." a few times.. I give up]
[url=https://www.voynich.ninja/user-3073.html][/url]The frustration is due to the "blindness and deafness" that comes with having a theory that is very convincing to you.
Rich C has a long standing theory that the manuscript is a forgery, but it would be very hard to communicate properly if he said "it don't matter anyway because its a forgery" in posts, or masked it more due to requests of admins to "this may not be relevant, for more information see my blog here". It gets tiring. Its not a reflection of the strength of the theory but the "off-topic'ness" it introduces in places where it is not wanted.
When I come into this thread I accept that the proposals and theories may not align with my own. I think this is healthy honestly. I buy books by people that have the total opposite views to myself and its not to say "this is wrong!" but try to learn and see the other side. In this case in particular, refuting well done and presented research with "my theory" is not scientific or in a quest for truth. You will see Jorge say "this looks very good, I wonder how that fits into my theory", but not reject it as a threat to his theory. This is why "I'm tired, boss" with how you address things sometimes. If you have an Irish theory and enter the Chinese theory thread you should be looking to learn, not teach, imo.
Also, I am aware I've left a couple of your questions hanging Jorge, I'm not ignoring you I just need to reread a few things so that I'm not talking out my ***. Also I keep getting distracted
, I think I might have a definitive answer to your Kelly's powders question soon.
Also-also, do you prefer "Stolfi"? My default is using first names, but I've seen Rene address you this way and you sign off this way, so I thought I would ask.
[I've tried getting rid of this "user URL.." a few times.. I give up]
[url=https://www.voynich.ninja/user-3073.html][/url]The frustration is due to the "blindness and deafness" that comes with having a theory that is very convincing to you.
Rich C has a long standing theory that the manuscript is a forgery, but it would be very hard to communicate properly if he said "it don't matter anyway because its a forgery" in posts, or masked it more due to requests of admins to "this may not be relevant, for more information see my blog here". It gets tiring. Its not a reflection of the strength of the theory but the "off-topic'ness" it introduces in places where it is not wanted.
When I come into this thread I accept that the proposals and theories may not align with my own. I think this is healthy honestly. I buy books by people that have the total opposite views to myself and its not to say "this is wrong!" but try to learn and see the other side. In this case in particular, refuting well done and presented research with "my theory" is not scientific or in a quest for truth. You will see Jorge say "this looks very good, I wonder how that fits into my theory", but not reject it as a threat to his theory. This is why "I'm tired, boss" with how you address things sometimes. If you have an Irish theory and enter the Chinese theory thread you should be looking to learn, not teach, imo.
Also, I am aware I've left a couple of your questions hanging Jorge, I'm not ignoring you I just need to reread a few things so that I'm not talking out my ***. Also I keep getting distracted
, I think I might have a definitive answer to your Kelly's powders question soon. Also-also, do you prefer "Stolfi"? My default is using first names, but I've seen Rene address you this way and you sign off this way, so I thought I would ask.