The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

Your arguments are equally rhetorical and overwhelms your opponent with sheer volume, a technique that was already used in political speeches in Caesar's time   (and, I assume, even by the Greeks). But no offence intended. It was meant more as a humorous objection  : you argue that your conviction has become even stronger through your work, and I simply found that to be an untenable argument.

But I disagree with almost all of the other arguments as well, and you have not yet convinced me otherwise with all your responses, but that doesn't mean anything. We may find out soon. As more and more books and manuscripts are digitised, it is no longer necessary to travel to libraries to find sources. Add to that AI, which is getting better and better, and in another 10 years it will be able to solve even more complex problems, maybe in another 20 years. I would be delighted if I could live to see it, but we'll see.

But Jojo, you have completely misstated my claims entirely, and substituted the exact opposite of what I said, with, "...you argue that your conviction has become even stronger through your work, and I simply found that to be an untenable argument."

I do not "argue that". I would remove "conviction" and replace it with "my opinions have become stronger". I've already demonstrated to you that my ideas are not presented as "convictions", so repeating that wording, here, is ignoring my case... I did NOT "argue that [my] conviction has become stronger".

It is fine if you disagree with my ideas, or my claims of innocence to your yours, about me... but please don't say I said things I didn't write.

As for, "As more and more books and manuscripts are digitised, it is no longer necessary to travel to libraries to find sources. Add to that AI, which is getting better and better, and in another 10 years it will be able to solve even more complex problems, maybe in another 20 years. I would be delighted if I could live to see it, but we'll see."

As I just pointed out to Egg, and you actually describe, above, I would ask, "How much longer before you consider the inability to find any of the hoped for supporting evidence of the Voynich, that you would consider the lack thereof evidence in and of itself?". You are hoping it will happen in your lifetime.

Well that so far fruitless quest has been going on for 114 years as I write this, and through the age of hands on scholarship, photographic images, the early internet, the digital age with the scanning of vast numbers of medieval manuscripts, not to mention the application of the very first computers, which broke the Enigma code and arguable won WWII for the allies... and yes, as you point out, the advent of A.I....

Doesn't this complete, 100% ability to find anything so far, reflected in your worry that you will have left your mortal coil before it is found, worth anything? That is pretty strong evidence to me, but how much more, and when, would you think might be important? And at one point would you, too, begin to suspect that what is looked for, is probably, simply, not out there?

Rich