Re: Moot points, was Re: VMs: Re: How to write <ch> and <sh>...?

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gosh Elmar,

Someone says "Tell me I'm wrong" and you're certain to find a host of
applicants stepping to the line in wait.  You're going to be really
surprised when you've discovered I've relinquished my place in that line.
I'm not the type to kick a puppy - no offense.

The long-term discussion of EVA vs/ whatever has usually only one
participant, myself, and being the only active participant on the opposing
side, I'm not willing to allow the "mootness" of the point, thank you.  If
you don't like it don't listen, but don't call it moot without good reason -
no offense intended again.  Censorship is your only option, since I'm not
about to back off.  If your censorship includes all my posts, you'd be the
one suffering, not me.  Do you mind if I quote you here for a moment?

IMHO, only once we find a _concept_ which is able to explain the more
> fundamental features of the VM will it be crucial to develop the Only One
Real
> Transcription. Until then, it doesn't really matter if there's one, two or
> three different kinds of plumes...

You've actually nailed the argument here more than you know.  Those that
require _concepts_ in order to move forward are nothing more than
_engineers_ who wait for science itself to create a workable _concept_.  I
may be an engineer in real-life, so I do understand the limitations of that
position, and in my Voynich alter-ego I don't make those mistakes.  Here
it's pure science.

There's only one concept of importance in the Voynich, the concept that
matches the actual construction.  EVA doesn't even come close to claiming
that this was part of the effort.  EVA claimed to be a transcription capable
of being "spoken".  Now that's really useful and analytic, isn't it?  And
with such a grand purpose in mind, this makes all other efforts moot,
doesn't it?

All I can say is, if this subject is of no interest to you, you're ignoring
the most prominent feature of the Voynich, and the most potentially
rewarding. The text by square inch takes up more area than the drawings, and
it is only through the text that further gains may be made. It is only
through the text that we may gather an insight into the intelligence of the
person who wrote this manuscript, and discover his reasons as to why.

I'll go a step further, if you don't mind.  If you're not examining the text
and asking your own questions, you're a spectator, a tourist.  You're just
looking for thrills and not trying to solve.  "Tell me I'm wrong".

GC


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <elvogt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 5:57 AM
Subject: Moot points, was Re: VMs: Re: How to write <ch> and <sh>...?


>
> Dear all,
>
> For the longest time I've been following the discussion about the Only One
and
> Real Transcription (tm), the pros and cons of EVA etc., and now it finally
> struck me why I never really got engaged in this discussion:
>
> It's moot.
>
> Up to now, _every_ deciphering attempt has failed due to the inability to
> explain even the most basic features of the VM -- the limited number of
> symbols, repetivity, glyph order in words and lines, etc. _None_ of the
> deciphering attempts ever got into a stage where a detailled statistical
> analysis would have made any difference.
>
> IMHO, only once we find a _concept_ which is able to explain the more
> fundamental features of the VM will it be crucial to develop the Only One
Real
> Transcription. Until then, it doesn't really matter if there's one, two or
> three different kinds of plumes...
>
> "Tell me that I'm wrong."
>
>    Elmar
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> debitel.net Webmail
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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