I understand that some discussion groups have been copying/downloading my posts entire, the better to facilitate their own research and inter-group conversations.
This is something of a compliment – to learn these posts are of interest. I shouldn’t have published them if I didn’t want it to help other researchers.
However, I would say –
(a) let me know which posts you download entire; (b) please distinguish my work and its results from generic information gained from wikis etc.; (c) note that in some cases, my own bibliographic sources are retained but are available on request, and will be included in any hard-copy version I might offer later. Those non-Voynich sources are mainly academic ones and while they have contributed to my argument they also serve as proof that my work is the original.
To have to make this point about acknowledgements again is not comfortable, but more than once I’ve encountered my argument, observations or conclusions aired as if they were general knowledge rather than derived from sometimes lengthy research combined with the background knowledge acquired over decades in some cases.
Very little of what I’ve published here is just an ‘idea’ or ‘hypothesis’ and when it is, I’ll say so).
What I’ve published is from my own systematic analysis and contextualization of the Voynich manuscript’s imagery; each of these posts was composed – if not always typed – by a person whose formal qualifications are in relevant disciplines.
I won’t deny it has been a pleasure today to learn from the wordpress statistics that in the past two days alone three hundred (300) visits were made from just two countries. I would love to be part of that discussion circle and get some real-time feedback.
(That said.. enjoy!)