• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Stephen Bax's TED-ED video

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • News
  • [Movie] Stephen Bax's TED-ED video
• Stephen Bax's TED-ED video

• RE: Stephen Bax's TED-ED video

  thaosi > 29-05-2017, 07:38 AM

  That video is what made me research this topic, as a dilettante of course, these past couple of days. It is incredibly well made speaking from an instructional point of view, which is after all what TED ED is about. As an avid watcher of TED ED I can say that it's one of the most well done clips.

• RE: Stephen Bax's TED-ED video

  Stephen.Bax > 15-09-2017, 12:38 PM

  (27-05-2017, 06:34 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's a little bold for him to add his own research in when it's hardly taken seriously by most other researchers.

  
  My mummy always told me that it is rude to criticise people behind their back when you can do so to their face :-) 
  
  In any case, when making the TED ED video I added in my own angle on the manuscript (very obliquely) because that is what the TED ED people wanted me to do!
  
  Stephen

• RE: Stephen Bax's TED-ED video

  Emma May Smith > 17-09-2017, 12:22 AM

  (15-09-2017, 12:38 PM)Stephen.Bax Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (27-05-2017, 06:34 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's a little bold for him to add his own research in when it's hardly taken seriously by most other researchers.

  
  My mummy always told me that it is rude to criticise people behind their back when you can do so to their face :-) 
  
  In any case, when making the TED ED video I added in my own angle on the manuscript (very obliquely) because that is what the TED ED people wanted me to do!
  
  Stephen

  
  Okay: it's a little bold to add in your own research when it's hardly taken seriously by most other researchers. Is that better? I mean, I said it on a public forum, so I'm hardly talking behind your back. Indeed, I would guess it's far kinder than coming to your website to post such thoughts.
  
  The truth is, I'm a linguistic researcher, like you, yet I've read your work and am not interested in building upon it. There are too many assumptions and nothing really solid. I could go into the problems at length but at this stage it would be rather pointless. I don't see anybody referencing it any more so who would I be arguing against?

• RE: Stephen Bax's TED-ED video

  Stephen.Bax > 17-09-2017, 12:54 AM

  (17-09-2017, 12:22 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (15-09-2017, 12:38 PM)Stephen.Bax Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (27-05-2017, 06:34 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's a little bold for him to add his own research in when it's hardly taken seriously by most other researchers.

  
  My mummy always told me that it is rude to criticise people behind their back when you can do so to their face :-) 
  
  In any case, when making the TED ED video I added in my own angle on the manuscript (very obliquely) because that is what the TED ED people wanted me to do!
  
  Stephen

  
  Okay: it's a little bold to add in your own research when it's hardly taken seriously by most other researchers. Is that better? I mean, I said it on a public forum, so I'm hardly talking behind your back. Indeed, I would guess it's far kinder than coming to your website to post such thoughts.
  
  The truth is, I'm a linguistic researcher, like you, yet I've read your work and am not interested in building upon it. There are too many assumptions and nothing really solid. I could go into the problems at length but at this stage it would be rather pointless. I don't see anybody referencing it any more so who would I be arguing against?

  
  Ok, let's agree to differ. But you know I have an open forum so you could always come to that and ask me instead of speaking about me in the third person. 
  
  You say you have read my work and you are not interested in building on it - your choice. But a large number of people have discussed it and referenced it. So far my site has had over 500K page views in three years and over 280K unique visits (i.e. different visitors, not including repeats), so it is clear that some are interested. Every week I am asked about my work - yesterday I was invited to contribute to a significant volume being planned for next year, so that keeps me busy enough. 
  
  As for your own work, I confess to my shame that I have never come across it and never seen it referenced either. I hope to see you make some interesting breakthrough soon.

• RE: Stephen Bax's TED-ED video

  Emma May Smith > 17-09-2017, 01:07 AM

  (17-09-2017, 12:54 AM)Stephen.Bax Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (17-09-2017, 12:22 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (15-09-2017, 12:38 PM)Stephen.Bax Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (27-05-2017, 06:34 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's a little bold for him to add his own research in when it's hardly taken seriously by most other researchers.

  
  My mummy always told me that it is rude to criticise people behind their back when you can do so to their face :-) 
  
  In any case, when making the TED ED video I added in my own angle on the manuscript (very obliquely) because that is what the TED ED people wanted me to do!
  
  Stephen

  
  Okay: it's a little bold to add in your own research when it's hardly taken seriously by most other researchers. Is that better? I mean, I said it on a public forum, so I'm hardly talking behind your back. Indeed, I would guess it's far kinder than coming to your website to post such thoughts.
  
  The truth is, I'm a linguistic researcher, like you, yet I've read your work and am not interested in building upon it. There are too many assumptions and nothing really solid. I could go into the problems at length but at this stage it would be rather pointless. I don't see anybody referencing it any more so who would I be arguing against?

  
  Ok, let's agree to differ. But you know I have an open forum so you could always come to that and ask me instead of speaking about me in the third person. 
  
  You say you have read my work and you are not interested in building on it - your choice. But a large number of people have discussed it and referenced it. So far my site has had over 500K page views in three years and over 280K unique visits (i.e. different visitors, not including repeats), so it is clear that some are interested. Every week I am asked about my work - yesterday I was invited to contribute to a significant volume being planned for next year, so that keeps me busy enough. 
  
  As for your own work, I confess to my shame that I have never come across it and never seen it referenced either. I hope to see you make some interesting breakthrough soon.

  
  Can I ask what volume you're being asked to contribute to? I'm genuinely interested.
  
  PS: you proposed a Voynich solution, that's why you got so much attention. Nicholas Gibbs got as much as you this last week.

• RE: Stephen Bax's TED-ED video

  -JKP- > 17-09-2017, 02:05 AM

  (17-09-2017, 12:54 AM)Stephen.Bax Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You say you have read my work and you are not interested in building on it - your choice. But a large number of people have discussed it and referenced it. So far my site has had over 500K page views in three years and over 280K unique visits (i.e. different visitors, not including repeats), so it is clear that some are interested. Every week I am asked about my work - yesterday I was invited to contribute to a significant volume being planned for next year, so that keeps me busy enough. 
  ...

  
  
  That's to be expected when the world's largest news organizations spread the word that the manuscript has been solved. It was a VERY BIG publicity event. It makes the Gibbs furor look like a post-it note in comparison.
  
  It's also expected since there was no VMS forum at the time the announcement hit the news. Some very talented people have contributed the majority of the content on your site.
  
  
  That Emma is not interested in building on your work I'm sure is based on facts and differences of opinion (which I don't have a problem with), not on page clicks. I'm surprised you would bring up bandwidth as an argument in favor of your theories. Isn't it the ideas that matter rather than the number of clicks?
• Next Oldest Next Newest