Re: Astrological symbols... decoded!

["Gabriel Landini" <G.Landini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3 Oct 2001, at 13:12, Nick Pelling wrote:
> His January 2001 comment (on f57v) is *absolutely* spot on. Decoding
> the (2nd ring in) sequence of 17 x 4 is so obvious it's *shocking*.

I cannot find that message, perhaps I never received.
I must say that I fail to see the obvious. It seems to me that with so 
many "stylised forms" (almost all , really) one could swap them 
around and claim the sequence still makes sense since almost 
none of them resemble the symbols claimed.

For those in the UK, remember that tomorrow a 8:00 pm in Radio 4 
is the programme about the vms (called Document).  

Cheers,
G.