4 ms·
This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want some cred
by jack9 9y ago
This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want some credit for their time spent, rather bash a casual observer in lieu of that. His crime is putting together a contextual narrative based on some existing deductions. It's a health book - "sleuths that had already reached that conclusion".
There was nothing spectacular about that article, other than he said it was settled and that doesn't sit well with people looking for greater meaning and glory. Then the "can't prove an index just because pages are missing" is basically ignoring a coherent narrative for no purpose. Even the objection to the interpretations - "Personally I object to his interpretation of abbreviations." is strangely contrarian. As you might imagine, the Voynich solution looks reasonable to me, but that's probably because I'm an ignorant layman with no stake in it.
- coldtea 9y ago>This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want some credit for their time spent, rather bash a casual observer in lieu of that. This looks like cheering for the "little man" who went against the establishment, similarly to people championing alternative diets, crystals, perpetual motion machines, and cold fusion inventors...
- jack9 9y ago"Little man" meaning what? A generalist in comparison to specialists too timid to put together a sensible conclusion for a publication?
- coldtea 9y agoFor one, many of those specialists have indeed "put together a sensible conclusion for a publication". They even have written articles and even books about their opinions on this manuscript (and others). What they didn't do (well, what most didn't do, some did that too) was go ahead and shout to the media "we broke the code" when they had just as much and just as inconclusive information as any other. The "generalist" just didn't have such qualms. It's not about him being brave enough to put 2+2 together when those pesky specialists (where he got all his knowledge from) failed to dare.
- jack9 9y agoI gave an alternate characterization and you ran with it, ignoring the core question of what you meant by "little man" to move the goalpost. Good luck with whatever.
- firasd 9y agoYou can't say you cracked a mysterious coded text and then not provide the solution except to hand-wave it away by saying there's an additional reference that was lost. I can 'solve' anything that way. If Gibbs doesn't have the plain text, at best he has a theory.
- ethnic_throw 9y agoWell, you can, but you probably won't get any serious critique and people will dismiss you (it seems like rightfully so in this case).
- whipoodle 9y agoI figured someone would post this take. I was right.