About the scribes

[ololololo]

Well, you probably know the view of Lisa Fagin Davies who is a professional paleographer and who claims that there were 5 and not 3 scribes.

There are, however, people who don't agree with that and for example claim that there was only one scribe.

Personally I just ... don't know. It seems to me there were more than one but I'm not sure about the exact number. And how could such claims be "proven"?

I would be also careful with "psychoanalysis" of the scribes. As I said you end with long shots that not only have a low chance to hit but you never really know if you hit or not.

I completely agree with you! Especially about the last one. I'm not sure about all of this myself, and it's a big speculation at the moment. 
Yes, I am aware of Lisa Fagin Davis's point of view. Of course, she is an expert and her opinion will be more accurate than mine, however, in my division of scribes into A, B and C, I was guided by their "language" features. These differences could also help identify the authors, as it is expected that the words and speech patterns used by different people may vary.
Regarding the language of balneology, I want to say that I really have doubts about it. Of course, it is most likely meaningful, but in the process, the scribe may have copied others without much understanding (copying symbols like x or words). It seems suspicious to me that despite the fact that the rules for writing words and symbols are almost identical in Voynich A and Voynich B, the statistics are different.
I also want to say that the post itself did not carry any high value. It would be better to pay attention specifically to the differences between Herbal A, Herbal B, and balneology, rather than to the handwriting, which does not provide us with any information on its own (except for the assumption that the differences in the "languages" are not algorithmic but lexical).
And don't forget, I might be wrong, even about everything I've said above.