RE: VMs: Time to get hands dirty

["John Grove" <John@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We've been through this before (thanks, Big Jim). I understand enough of the
Slavic languages to know that what you have produced doesn't work without
someone making random choices for the number of vowels they wish to put in
to make a stream of selective consonants resemble some sort of sense.

	John, please go back to the archives and look at all the questions you
refused to answer back then.

	John.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of john stojko
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 9:21 PM
To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: VMs: Time to get hands dirty


John, you wrote;
"So, in my view John's theory as it stands is wrong, because no one else is
capable of duplicating the results."

To duplicate any result one has to do the work. But if one, like you John,
only believes that it is wrong than the truth will be believe but not the
truth.



Now is the "time to get hands dirty".

In my site  http://home.att.net/~oko/home.htm  I give step by step the
process of my decipherment. I believe it is transparent and by use of my
alphabet that is given, one can easily duplicate my steps. Obviously one has
to know Ukrainian language.

Ukrainian belongs to the Slavic branch of languages. Hence, any one who
knows Slavic language can follow my steps and read and understand in their
own language from 60% to 80% what is written.

I believe that in this group there are enthusiasts that know Slavic language
or are of Slavic origin. One does not have to know Ukrainian to prove or
disprove my decipherment. The rule is given and is transparent.

But if one does not know Ukrainian he has no choice but to believe in what
he believes.


john


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Grove" <John@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 11:45 AM
Subject: RE: VMs: Time to get hands dirty


> >Rule of thumb: You can NOT prove something is "wrong" unless you know
what
> is "right." If you don't know what is right, it is ALL speculation.
>
> If the same results can not be accomplished by anyone else following
> the given set of rules - then the rules that make up the solution can
> certainly
> be considered wrong. If it doesn't work - it's wrong. This doesn't mean
that
> the
> concept is wrong necessarily, but if it can't be duplicated then the
> inventor of
> the hypothetical solution needs to revise his rules so that others could
> repeat
> the application of those rules and arrive at the same results.
>
> So, in my view John's theory as it stands is wrong, because no one else is
> capable of duplicating the results. You are right that it is impossible to
> disprove
> a belief. People believe in lots of things and very little will ever
> convince them
> not to stop believing. Logic doesn't play a role in those discussions, but
> logic
> does play a role in 'reading'.
>
> John.
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list