12-02-2026, 06:54 PM
@ eggyk
I appreciate your reading back in my posts. I can see that you are also trying to understand what is happening to this thread. I disagree with some things you have said, but agree with others, and the value of what you shared is that we can discuss things in an evidence-based way, in the sense that now I understand why you may say this or that.
Regarding your point about not segmenting my thread may explain why others may not find and engage with my findings, I respectfully disagree, and your point to me demonstrates that you have not considered the very reason why I started this thread in “seeing the whole elephant (in the room).”
First of all, things can’t be so cleanly separated, and those who wish to find things, can find that a lot of times things have been mixed up, and that actually says a lot about why splitting the elephant does not help seeing the whole.
Breaking the text, image, physical, or historical material into parts will just defeat my purpose. It just won’t work. The length of my posts (beside my writing style) have also to do with the effort I am making to incorporate and appreciate other contributions in this forum and elsewhere.
The elephant is not just the Voynich manuscript, but includes how we go about understanding it. Even the distractive comments about someone’s writing style, when it becomes obsessive and preventive of engaging with the substance of what people say is part of the elephant, as far as I am concerned.
For me, these cannot be separated. Having empathy toward a contributor, or not, that is, understanding (or not) why he or she is trying to contribute rather than judging them based on matters of form or style, is a part of the elephant. Empathy is not just a moral issue, but goes to the heart of what can help us solve the VM puzzle, since without putting ourselves in the author’s shoes, we cannot succeed in knowing why the authorship happened.
Yes, you are correct that what I said about the need for a “phenomenological” method, questioning what we take for granted, is not easy on any of us. Thanks for reading my point carefully there. But, I really don’t think we can make progress in the VM research without putting ourselves in the subject matter of our studies, questioning our own methods or views as well, or even how we receive a newcomer to this forum. We can’t separate our own likes or dislikes, beliefs or biases, from the research process, and that can make us uncomfortable.
But I have also learned that often, a negation of an idea does not make it go away entirely, but, if it is a useful point, it will HAVE to come back in some way to see the whole elephant. So, I have learned in my own research to welcome such moments when something does not fit or explain things, and even when I find something negates my earlier findings. I see those moments as wonderful opportunities for new learnings, than losses.
So, I have no problem at all with hearing reasonable critiques. But silences, I can’t do anything about and never ever will they mean to me as being proper peer reviews. How could they? Those who remain silently judgmental are not doing themselves a favor, since it is only expressing them that can subject their own assumed “peer review” judgments and abilities to the test of being peer reviewed. I mean, do you think that someone offering (or not) an opinion qualifies it as being correct and a “scientific peer review”! You think peer reviewers don't deserve being seriously peer reviewed themselves?
What has really struck me as odd ever since I joined this forum is this continual obsessive commenting on the length of my posts. In some ways it is actually quite interesting; in others, it is hurtful and those who use pseudonyms may not feel the hurt as much if they were themselves the target of such comments.
Some are so focused on my writing style and its length that they don’t seem to be interested in the substance of what I am saying, regardless of their views, pro or con. As imperfect as my writing style (in a forum context) may be in others' views, I do NOT think it is so hard or opaque that others can’t follow it. Solving the VM puzzle requires integrative attention spans, not short ones. I can’t do anything about it. Without patience and integrative attention, nobody can solve this puzzle, sorry to say.
This seems odd to me because I would never EVER do such a thing to others in this forum or elsewhere, judging people’s writing styles and use words or labels to stigmatize them and what they offer, simply because they don’t have time to read them, or do so fully, or carefully. Sorry, I am not into summary sound bites. Not my style. My posts may be longer than others, but are short enough to be copied and pasted in google AI for a summary, for those who are interested to do it for their own needs, without asking me to repeat myself.
Let me just say here that, as far as I am concerned and the way I see it, I think the continual focus on labeling someone as “long-winded” and “verbose,” finding such excuses not to engage with the substance of what someone is saying, is an indication that some sort of ad hominem put down is going on in disguise, funny-faced icons used or not. I find it insulting, sorry to say, and those who continue to use them are displaying their own self-defeating ways of going about learning things.
This is a very well moderated forum, judging from others I have seen. In my view, sometimes, inadvertently or not, ad hominem attack take on a disguised form to avoid more moderation scrutiny and benevolent funny-face icons are used to disguise them. By labeling someone "long-winded" and "verbose" you are directing attention away from the substance of what they are trying to say and minimizing their contributions.
I don’t think labels such as “long-windedness” or “verbose” (especially when they are used without substantive engagements) serve any purpose other than continual replacing of character judgment for substantive engagement, especially when it is done in the context of double standards, not applied elsewhere, when authors of even longer, and even less accessible, narrative or statistical, texts are not labeled the same way, sent to the bucket or not.
I mean, can you visit some other posts on this site where much longer texts are shared without anyone resorting to such labels immediately? For me even these observations are part of the whole elephant we wish to see in this forum. They are red flags for disguised ad hominem comments.
If folks think that the resources they wish to learn from will be packaged neatly for them and summarized, they have not seen what is out there, especially in academia. So, navigating different writing styles of researchers is, in my view, a basic skill all need to learn in research. It is the alphabet of research undertaking.
I have never EVER let any writing styles in ANY material I read to stop me from learning useful information contained in them. I will hunt for their useful information no matter who they are and how they say it. I will leave nothing unscrutinized, and will dig as much as I can for what is useful in them. I understand that they are not offered in a silver platter for me.
An eager researcher that wishes to learn something at all costs, will not complain about why an author writes this way or that way. For decades, or centuries, people have tried to learn what the Voynich manuscript is all about without even understanding a word of it. That should be the spirit of those who read research material, which are supposedly even more accessible than the VM.
I hope I have addressed the general spirit of what you kindly shared, and in the interest of not making this longer, I stop here.
I appreciate your reading back in my posts. I can see that you are also trying to understand what is happening to this thread. I disagree with some things you have said, but agree with others, and the value of what you shared is that we can discuss things in an evidence-based way, in the sense that now I understand why you may say this or that.
Regarding your point about not segmenting my thread may explain why others may not find and engage with my findings, I respectfully disagree, and your point to me demonstrates that you have not considered the very reason why I started this thread in “seeing the whole elephant (in the room).”
First of all, things can’t be so cleanly separated, and those who wish to find things, can find that a lot of times things have been mixed up, and that actually says a lot about why splitting the elephant does not help seeing the whole.
Breaking the text, image, physical, or historical material into parts will just defeat my purpose. It just won’t work. The length of my posts (beside my writing style) have also to do with the effort I am making to incorporate and appreciate other contributions in this forum and elsewhere.
The elephant is not just the Voynich manuscript, but includes how we go about understanding it. Even the distractive comments about someone’s writing style, when it becomes obsessive and preventive of engaging with the substance of what people say is part of the elephant, as far as I am concerned.
For me, these cannot be separated. Having empathy toward a contributor, or not, that is, understanding (or not) why he or she is trying to contribute rather than judging them based on matters of form or style, is a part of the elephant. Empathy is not just a moral issue, but goes to the heart of what can help us solve the VM puzzle, since without putting ourselves in the author’s shoes, we cannot succeed in knowing why the authorship happened.
Yes, you are correct that what I said about the need for a “phenomenological” method, questioning what we take for granted, is not easy on any of us. Thanks for reading my point carefully there. But, I really don’t think we can make progress in the VM research without putting ourselves in the subject matter of our studies, questioning our own methods or views as well, or even how we receive a newcomer to this forum. We can’t separate our own likes or dislikes, beliefs or biases, from the research process, and that can make us uncomfortable.
But I have also learned that often, a negation of an idea does not make it go away entirely, but, if it is a useful point, it will HAVE to come back in some way to see the whole elephant. So, I have learned in my own research to welcome such moments when something does not fit or explain things, and even when I find something negates my earlier findings. I see those moments as wonderful opportunities for new learnings, than losses.
So, I have no problem at all with hearing reasonable critiques. But silences, I can’t do anything about and never ever will they mean to me as being proper peer reviews. How could they? Those who remain silently judgmental are not doing themselves a favor, since it is only expressing them that can subject their own assumed “peer review” judgments and abilities to the test of being peer reviewed. I mean, do you think that someone offering (or not) an opinion qualifies it as being correct and a “scientific peer review”! You think peer reviewers don't deserve being seriously peer reviewed themselves?
What has really struck me as odd ever since I joined this forum is this continual obsessive commenting on the length of my posts. In some ways it is actually quite interesting; in others, it is hurtful and those who use pseudonyms may not feel the hurt as much if they were themselves the target of such comments.
Some are so focused on my writing style and its length that they don’t seem to be interested in the substance of what I am saying, regardless of their views, pro or con. As imperfect as my writing style (in a forum context) may be in others' views, I do NOT think it is so hard or opaque that others can’t follow it. Solving the VM puzzle requires integrative attention spans, not short ones. I can’t do anything about it. Without patience and integrative attention, nobody can solve this puzzle, sorry to say.
This seems odd to me because I would never EVER do such a thing to others in this forum or elsewhere, judging people’s writing styles and use words or labels to stigmatize them and what they offer, simply because they don’t have time to read them, or do so fully, or carefully. Sorry, I am not into summary sound bites. Not my style. My posts may be longer than others, but are short enough to be copied and pasted in google AI for a summary, for those who are interested to do it for their own needs, without asking me to repeat myself.
Let me just say here that, as far as I am concerned and the way I see it, I think the continual focus on labeling someone as “long-winded” and “verbose,” finding such excuses not to engage with the substance of what someone is saying, is an indication that some sort of ad hominem put down is going on in disguise, funny-faced icons used or not. I find it insulting, sorry to say, and those who continue to use them are displaying their own self-defeating ways of going about learning things.
This is a very well moderated forum, judging from others I have seen. In my view, sometimes, inadvertently or not, ad hominem attack take on a disguised form to avoid more moderation scrutiny and benevolent funny-face icons are used to disguise them. By labeling someone "long-winded" and "verbose" you are directing attention away from the substance of what they are trying to say and minimizing their contributions.
I don’t think labels such as “long-windedness” or “verbose” (especially when they are used without substantive engagements) serve any purpose other than continual replacing of character judgment for substantive engagement, especially when it is done in the context of double standards, not applied elsewhere, when authors of even longer, and even less accessible, narrative or statistical, texts are not labeled the same way, sent to the bucket or not.
I mean, can you visit some other posts on this site where much longer texts are shared without anyone resorting to such labels immediately? For me even these observations are part of the whole elephant we wish to see in this forum. They are red flags for disguised ad hominem comments.
If folks think that the resources they wish to learn from will be packaged neatly for them and summarized, they have not seen what is out there, especially in academia. So, navigating different writing styles of researchers is, in my view, a basic skill all need to learn in research. It is the alphabet of research undertaking.
I have never EVER let any writing styles in ANY material I read to stop me from learning useful information contained in them. I will hunt for their useful information no matter who they are and how they say it. I will leave nothing unscrutinized, and will dig as much as I can for what is useful in them. I understand that they are not offered in a silver platter for me.
An eager researcher that wishes to learn something at all costs, will not complain about why an author writes this way or that way. For decades, or centuries, people have tried to learn what the Voynich manuscript is all about without even understanding a word of it. That should be the spirit of those who read research material, which are supposedly even more accessible than the VM.
I hope I have addressed the general spirit of what you kindly shared, and in the interest of not making this longer, I stop here.