Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations

[Jorge_Stolfi]

You have already figured it out. VM visuals are just decorations (done!) and you recently declared its text, in part, matched convincingly (to you) with another text, leading you to promise the rest of the text will be deciphered in due course.

Why the sneer?  

That the visuals are mostly decoration is my evaluation after studying them for many years, with all the tools I had.  (I have easily spent more than 5000 hours looking at VMS images over the last 25+ years.) Plus my experience with drawing and painting.   I am fairly confident, but still I admit that I don't have hard proof, and I may be wrong.

That the Starred Parags section (SPS) is a fairly literal version of the Shennong Bencaojing (SBJ), and that "daiin" is a keyword that precedes a list of uses of a remedy, is for me a closed matter.    I presented the evidence on the appropriate thread, and I think it is as hard as it could be.   If you have serious questions or objections, post them there.

I did not join this forum to study the Stolfi manuscript

It is definitely not "my" manuscript.  But I have bad news: you cannot choose what the manuscript is, nor who the Author was.  Reality does not care about your preferences, and obviously you will not like what it has decided.

I stopped commenting in other threads fearing anything I say will be (understandably) misunderstood as advancing mine, but you seem to be cherishing it and pursuing it without impunity.

I believe that I have kept my arguments and any substantial discussion for each of my theories in its appropriate thread. Are you saying that no one else should be allowed to comment on "your" thread? 

I see many people wasting huge amounts of time in misguided analysis of the drawings because they start with the assumptions that paints are original, that the drawings were done by the Author himself, and that every detail in them is deliberate and meaningful.  

Unfortunately much of what is written about the VMS implicitly transmits to the reader those assumptions as if they were established facts.  We must warn everybody that those are just unproven assumptions, and in fact that there plenty of evidence indicating that they are wrong.

I have even seen you quoting AI, at length, in posts, presumably to show its errors, though they may also function as boasting that you were cited by it. Your statistical findings seem to bypass the slop bucket quite well!

I have been very careful to not use AI for any statistics, or any analysis of Voynichese.  I have used it for translations from Chinese to English and other languages (it takes half an hour or more to obtain a translation of a single "recipe" that does not look obviously wrong.)  And I have used it to find things like photos of onion dome churches or Japanese prints of brawls in a bathhouse or how does one get rotated labels on a gnuplot plot.  

And I never posted any slop to this forum, on any thread (except for that dialogue, on the thread that was about AI and slop).

All the best, --stolfi