Re: VMs: could it not be a hoax (I would like it not to be it)

[Mart Vabar <mesinik@xxxxxx>]

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Gordon Rugg wrote:

> suggesting that the VMS dates from 1470-1586, and no solid evidence (as far as I
> know) suggesting a later date. A date of 1470-1586 is consistent with all the main

to tell the truth:
When looking at the chronology, I did not see "strong evidence" about our 
manuscript before XX century... 
... did I slept away something important? Could somebody help?


MV

PS.
The outlook of a not-so-good copy (penman not knowing exactly ,what he is doing) 
on other side, tells against (at least cheap) hoax.

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