I think we should pause here and calm down. 
There are actually four groups of arguments, if I understand correctly.
Group 1: Stolfi and others who say that the statistical results are highly significant and that a Chinese text is possible to very probable.
Group 2: The statistical results are not sufficient for proof.
Group 3: There is a lack of evidence for other words in both directions: duplicate words from the Chinese passage have no correspondence in the Voynich manuscript, and duplicate words from the Voynich passage have no correspondence in the Chinese passage.
4th group: The background of the theory is questionable, i.e. is a Chinese text logical at all and consistent with the VMS?
Regarding the individual points:
4. is purely hypothetical on both sides. I think it will be difficult to find evidence for either side here – it remains a matter of conjecture – the discussion has been going on for a long time and is not getting us anywhere – because that is not what is at issue at the moment.
3. Here, of course, it would be helpful if another word with a correspondence in both texts could be found. Finding this could take some time before it can be proven or disproven.
1. / 2. Here comes the crucial question, and I think we should focus on it:
Re 1. What could be added to Stolfi's analysis to further support the evidence?
Re 2. What would be necessary to clearly refute the evidence?
I think this would be a good way to return to a reasonable discussion.
There are actually four groups of arguments, if I understand correctly.
Group 1: Stolfi and others who say that the statistical results are highly significant and that a Chinese text is possible to very probable.
Group 2: The statistical results are not sufficient for proof.
Group 3: There is a lack of evidence for other words in both directions: duplicate words from the Chinese passage have no correspondence in the Voynich manuscript, and duplicate words from the Voynich passage have no correspondence in the Chinese passage.
4th group: The background of the theory is questionable, i.e. is a Chinese text logical at all and consistent with the VMS?
Regarding the individual points:
4. is purely hypothetical on both sides. I think it will be difficult to find evidence for either side here – it remains a matter of conjecture – the discussion has been going on for a long time and is not getting us anywhere – because that is not what is at issue at the moment.
3. Here, of course, it would be helpful if another word with a correspondence in both texts could be found. Finding this could take some time before it can be proven or disproven.
1. / 2. Here comes the crucial question, and I think we should focus on it:
Re 1. What could be added to Stolfi's analysis to further support the evidence?
Re 2. What would be necessary to clearly refute the evidence?
I think this would be a good way to return to a reasonable discussion.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)