Re: VMs: Re: RuggWatch

[Dennis <tsalagi@xxxxxxxx>]

Nick Pelling wrote:

> Why did you think that immediately? Have there ever been any other 
> unreadable manuscript hoaxes of a comparable size?

	Maybe the Codex Seraphinianus in modern times (but it 
may not be a hoax either!).

	Have there been any other kinds of hoaxes 
(archeological, etc.) of comparable complexity?

> (7) If the intention was to duplicate a simple Quattrocento 
> monoalphabetic cipher, why make it so internally complex?

	Too, if such was the intention, why not simply 
encipher a meaningful plaintext of innocuous content? 
As Trithemius did.

> BTW, "gibberish" (according to 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gibberish ) is possibly not the 
> differentiator you're looking for, as it seems to be broad enough to 
> include most VMs viewpoints, not just hoax theories:-
>
>         1.  Unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing.
>         2.  a. Highly technical or esoteric language.
>              b. Unnecessarily pretentious or vague language.

	As I just said.

	Maybe "michiton oladabas multos portas"  does mean 
something - it means "Rudolf is just a big a sucker as 
Dee".  ;-)

Dennis


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