<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_02_027236</id>
	<title>The Voynich Manuscript May Have Been Decoded</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259759820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.foobarsoft.com/" rel="nofollow">MBCook</a> sends word on a <a href="http://www.edithsherwood.com/voynich\_decoded/index.php">possible solution to the mystery of the Voynich Manuscript</a>, which we last visited <a href="//it.slashdot.org/story/03/12/31/0117210/Making-The-Case-That-Voynich-Is-A-Hoax?art\_pos=1">nearly 6 years ago</a>. <i>"The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich\_manuscript">Voynich Manuscript</a> has confounded attempts to decode it for nearly 100 years. A person named Edith Sherwood, who has previously suggested a <a href="http://www.edithsherwood.com/voynich\_author\_da\_vinci/index.php">possible link to DaVinci</a>, has a new idea: perhaps the text is simply anagrams of Italian words. There are three pages of examples from the herb section of the book, showing the original text, the plaintext Italian words, and the English equivalents. Has someone cracked the code?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MBCook sends word on a possible solution to the mystery of the Voynich Manuscript , which we last visited nearly 6 years ago .
" The Voynich Manuscript has confounded attempts to decode it for nearly 100 years .
A person named Edith Sherwood , who has previously suggested a possible link to DaVinci , has a new idea : perhaps the text is simply anagrams of Italian words .
There are three pages of examples from the herb section of the book , showing the original text , the plaintext Italian words , and the English equivalents .
Has someone cracked the code ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MBCook sends word on a possible solution to the mystery of the Voynich Manuscript, which we last visited nearly 6 years ago.
"The Voynich Manuscript has confounded attempts to decode it for nearly 100 years.
A person named Edith Sherwood, who has previously suggested a possible link to DaVinci, has a new idea: perhaps the text is simply anagrams of Italian words.
There are three pages of examples from the herb section of the book, showing the original text, the plaintext Italian words, and the English equivalents.
Has someone cracked the code?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30303642</id>
	<title>Re:Debunked almost a year ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yah, if my dog had written Dan Brown's books, *they'd be a lot better.*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yah , if my dog had written Dan Brown 's books , * they 'd be a lot better .
*</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yah, if my dog had written Dan Brown's books, *they'd be a lot better.
*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301712</id>
	<title>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary. . .</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1259573160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leonard Nimoy is smiling.</p><p>Let's take a look at what one of the more lucid channeled sources has to say on the matter.  (Why not?  We're already off the reservation with this manuscript.)</p><blockquote><div><p>Q: (L) Well, that settled that! Let me ask a couple of quick questions<br>for my kid. She wants to know the source of the Voynich Manuscript.<br>A: Disinformation.<br>Q: (L) Who put it together?<br>A: Various sources.<br>Q: (L) Why?<br>A: Monetary gain.<br>Q: (L) So, somebody just faked up an ancient manuscript to sell it for<br>big bucks?<br>A: Yes.<br>Q: (T) Well, they did it with the Hitler diaries. (L) Her next question is:<br>how are some people able to walk on fiery coals, pierce their bodies<br>all over, or lie on a bed of nails without pain or permanent physical<br>disfigurement.<br>A: Mentalism.<br>Q: (L) What causes some planes, people and ships to disappear in<br>the Bermuda Triangle? Where do they go and what happens to<br>them?<br>A: Already covered this.</p></div></blockquote><p>-FL</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leonard Nimoy is smiling.Let 's take a look at what one of the more lucid channeled sources has to say on the matter .
( Why not ?
We 're already off the reservation with this manuscript .
) Q : ( L ) Well , that settled that !
Let me ask a couple of quick questionsfor my kid .
She wants to know the source of the Voynich Manuscript.A : Disinformation.Q : ( L ) Who put it together ? A : Various sources.Q : ( L ) Why ? A : Monetary gain.Q : ( L ) So , somebody just faked up an ancient manuscript to sell it forbig bucks ? A : Yes.Q : ( T ) Well , they did it with the Hitler diaries .
( L ) Her next question is : how are some people able to walk on fiery coals , pierce their bodiesall over , or lie on a bed of nails without pain or permanent physicaldisfigurement.A : Mentalism.Q : ( L ) What causes some planes , people and ships to disappear inthe Bermuda Triangle ?
Where do they go and what happens tothem ? A : Already covered this.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leonard Nimoy is smiling.Let's take a look at what one of the more lucid channeled sources has to say on the matter.
(Why not?
We're already off the reservation with this manuscript.
)Q: (L) Well, that settled that!
Let me ask a couple of quick questionsfor my kid.
She wants to know the source of the Voynich Manuscript.A: Disinformation.Q: (L) Who put it together?A: Various sources.Q: (L) Why?A: Monetary gain.Q: (L) So, somebody just faked up an ancient manuscript to sell it forbig bucks?A: Yes.Q: (T) Well, they did it with the Hitler diaries.
(L) Her next question is:how are some people able to walk on fiery coals, pierce their bodiesall over, or lie on a bed of nails without pain or permanent physicaldisfigurement.A: Mentalism.Q: (L) What causes some planes, people and ships to disappear inthe Bermuda Triangle?
Where do they go and what happens tothem?A: Already covered this.-FL
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296582</id>
	<title>So there is no "unbreakable" code?</title>
	<author>cpscotti</author>
	<datestamp>1259592540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is NOT funny in many ways..
I used to amaze people around me with the story of the never solved, very old, famous manuscript. I was really happy living with this "mistery"...

now what.. I'll have to go back talking about the origin of "guy"/Fawkes again?

no... I'll skip this solution and continue with the Voynich!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is NOT funny in many ways. . I used to amaze people around me with the story of the never solved , very old , famous manuscript .
I was really happy living with this " mistery " .. . now what.. I 'll have to go back talking about the origin of " guy " /Fawkes again ?
no... I 'll skip this solution and continue with the Voynich !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is NOT funny in many ways..
I used to amaze people around me with the story of the never solved, very old, famous manuscript.
I was really happy living with this "mistery"...

now what.. I'll have to go back talking about the origin of "guy"/Fawkes again?
no... I'll skip this solution and continue with the Voynich!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296970</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1259595000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work.  Someone lost in a period of time where autism was misunderstood and they are forever lost to anonymity except they'll get the last laugh because we'll never understand what message they were trying to get to us.  And some of us might go mad spending hours and hours and hours trying to figure this out with no luck.</p></div><p>This is an interesting possibility, but a problem with this hypothesis is that the Voynich Manuscript exhibits a statistical property of natural languages called Zipf's Law ("the frequency of any word is inversely proportional to its rank in a word frequency table"). Possibly the postulated artist produced imaginary symbols following this law? It would be interesting to see if studies of work created by autistic individuals commonly possess this property. If this is not a common pattern then this possibility would be much reduced.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... If you want my theory , we 're dealing with an unknown autistic artist 's work .
Someone lost in a period of time where autism was misunderstood and they are forever lost to anonymity except they 'll get the last laugh because we 'll never understand what message they were trying to get to us .
And some of us might go mad spending hours and hours and hours trying to figure this out with no luck.This is an interesting possibility , but a problem with this hypothesis is that the Voynich Manuscript exhibits a statistical property of natural languages called Zipf 's Law ( " the frequency of any word is inversely proportional to its rank in a word frequency table " ) .
Possibly the postulated artist produced imaginary symbols following this law ?
It would be interesting to see if studies of work created by autistic individuals commonly possess this property .
If this is not a common pattern then this possibility would be much reduced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work.
Someone lost in a period of time where autism was misunderstood and they are forever lost to anonymity except they'll get the last laugh because we'll never understand what message they were trying to get to us.
And some of us might go mad spending hours and hours and hours trying to figure this out with no luck.This is an interesting possibility, but a problem with this hypothesis is that the Voynich Manuscript exhibits a statistical property of natural languages called Zipf's Law ("the frequency of any word is inversely proportional to its rank in a word frequency table").
Possibly the postulated artist produced imaginary symbols following this law?
It would be interesting to see if studies of work created by autistic individuals commonly possess this property.
If this is not a common pattern then this possibility would be much reduced.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30303132</id>
	<title>Re:what</title>
	<author>Gaffod</author>
	<datestamp>1259577540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Dipshit", how insightful indeed. By the way, maybe no one should try to solve it at all, since it's been centuries and someone must have tried your idea, whatever it is!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Dipshit " , how insightful indeed .
By the way , maybe no one should try to solve it at all , since it 's been centuries and someone must have tried your idea , whatever it is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Dipshit", how insightful indeed.
By the way, maybe no one should try to solve it at all, since it's been centuries and someone must have tried your idea, whatever it is!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296476</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259591940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then why does she only offer up a single page of plants as decoded anagrams? What about the other ~199 pages? What about the pages of block text?</p></div><p>She calls for help from people knowing medieval Italian. Apparently she used a reference book on the medieval Italian name of certain plants ot get these hints. She makes the interesting suggestion that this was written by a child, maybe mimicking scientists he knows be drawing "obvious" stuff, i.e. the plants in the garden and in the kitchen, and "hiding" his discoveries using a code used by scientists of the time.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You found that on Wikipedia? Call Yale University, you've decoded it. Citing Wikipedia for a fact while analyzing centuries old manuscripts? Why you bother to put PhD after you name bewilders me.</p></div><p>She referred to Wikipedia as an inspiration to explore an anagram-based lead. Not such a bad thing to do.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work.</p> </div><p>That was the theory that sounded the most plausible to me too, but these new leads and discoveries call for more investigation, I would say.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why does she only offer up a single page of plants as decoded anagrams ?
What about the other ~ 199 pages ?
What about the pages of block text ? She calls for help from people knowing medieval Italian .
Apparently she used a reference book on the medieval Italian name of certain plants ot get these hints .
She makes the interesting suggestion that this was written by a child , maybe mimicking scientists he knows be drawing " obvious " stuff , i.e .
the plants in the garden and in the kitchen , and " hiding " his discoveries using a code used by scientists of the time.You found that on Wikipedia ?
Call Yale University , you 've decoded it .
Citing Wikipedia for a fact while analyzing centuries old manuscripts ?
Why you bother to put PhD after you name bewilders me.She referred to Wikipedia as an inspiration to explore an anagram-based lead .
Not such a bad thing to do.If you want my theory , we 're dealing with an unknown autistic artist 's work .
That was the theory that sounded the most plausible to me too , but these new leads and discoveries call for more investigation , I would say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why does she only offer up a single page of plants as decoded anagrams?
What about the other ~199 pages?
What about the pages of block text?She calls for help from people knowing medieval Italian.
Apparently she used a reference book on the medieval Italian name of certain plants ot get these hints.
She makes the interesting suggestion that this was written by a child, maybe mimicking scientists he knows be drawing "obvious" stuff, i.e.
the plants in the garden and in the kitchen, and "hiding" his discoveries using a code used by scientists of the time.You found that on Wikipedia?
Call Yale University, you've decoded it.
Citing Wikipedia for a fact while analyzing centuries old manuscripts?
Why you bother to put PhD after you name bewilders me.She referred to Wikipedia as an inspiration to explore an anagram-based lead.
Not such a bad thing to do.If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work.
That was the theory that sounded the most plausible to me too, but these new leads and discoveries call for more investigation, I would say.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296796</id>
	<title>security through obscurity</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1259593920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't work,  you would think he would have been smarter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't work , you would think he would have been smarter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't work,  you would think he would have been smarter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30304720</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>adiposity</author>
	<datestamp>1259582760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When it comes to the Voynich Manuscript, you get to call "bullshit" without anyone questioning you.  Because, you are always right.  The decoding always fails.  All you need is a knowledge of the history of this manuscript to know that this amateur is extremely unlikely to have decoded it.</p><p>-Dan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to the Voynich Manuscript , you get to call " bullshit " without anyone questioning you .
Because , you are always right .
The decoding always fails .
All you need is a knowledge of the history of this manuscript to know that this amateur is extremely unlikely to have decoded it.-Dan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to the Voynich Manuscript, you get to call "bullshit" without anyone questioning you.
Because, you are always right.
The decoding always fails.
All you need is a knowledge of the history of this manuscript to know that this amateur is extremely unlikely to have decoded it.-Dan</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297742</id>
	<title>I happen to be a linguistics major</title>
	<author>Naznarreb</author>
	<datestamp>1259598900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I happen to be a linguistics major, and I don't want the manuscript to ever be decoded. To me, the manuscript is a symbol of the complexity of language and the depth of human ingenuity and creativity. The fact the best minds of the last 100ish years haven't cracked it reminds me that there is always some further mystery waiting to be solved and that we should be leery of anyone who claims to have all the answers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I happen to be a linguistics major , and I do n't want the manuscript to ever be decoded .
To me , the manuscript is a symbol of the complexity of language and the depth of human ingenuity and creativity .
The fact the best minds of the last 100ish years have n't cracked it reminds me that there is always some further mystery waiting to be solved and that we should be leery of anyone who claims to have all the answers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I happen to be a linguistics major, and I don't want the manuscript to ever be decoded.
To me, the manuscript is a symbol of the complexity of language and the depth of human ingenuity and creativity.
The fact the best minds of the last 100ish years haven't cracked it reminds me that there is always some further mystery waiting to be solved and that we should be leery of anyone who claims to have all the answers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30304402</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Seriously:  an error-free exotic MS with bizarre and suggestive (in the broadest sense) drawings that we are pretty sure passed through the hands of known "magicians" at least some of whom almost certainly accepted in their own minds that much of what they sold was fraudulent (many probably at least half-believed in what they were doing, but still...)</i></p><p>Never assume intelligence when venality will do, or something like that.</p></div><p>Seriously, you anti-Microsoft folks disappoint me.  I'm positive there's a joke just staring you in the face ("error-free exotic MS...").</p><p>Step it up kids!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously : an error-free exotic MS with bizarre and suggestive ( in the broadest sense ) drawings that we are pretty sure passed through the hands of known " magicians " at least some of whom almost certainly accepted in their own minds that much of what they sold was fraudulent ( many probably at least half-believed in what they were doing , but still... ) Never assume intelligence when venality will do , or something like that.Seriously , you anti-Microsoft folks disappoint me .
I 'm positive there 's a joke just staring you in the face ( " error-free exotic MS... " ) .Step it up kids !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Seriously:  an error-free exotic MS with bizarre and suggestive (in the broadest sense) drawings that we are pretty sure passed through the hands of known "magicians" at least some of whom almost certainly accepted in their own minds that much of what they sold was fraudulent (many probably at least half-believed in what they were doing, but still...)Never assume intelligence when venality will do, or something like that.Seriously, you anti-Microsoft folks disappoint me.
I'm positive there's a joke just staring you in the face ("error-free exotic MS...").Step it up kids!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296830</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259594040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love it when idiots on Slashdot "call bullshit" like it's some great intellectual veto power. Hey moron: you can't "call bullshit" and sit there with a smug smile. Explain why she's wrong and offer up a better theory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love it when idiots on Slashdot " call bullshit " like it 's some great intellectual veto power .
Hey moron : you ca n't " call bullshit " and sit there with a smug smile .
Explain why she 's wrong and offer up a better theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love it when idiots on Slashdot "call bullshit" like it's some great intellectual veto power.
Hey moron: you can't "call bullshit" and sit there with a smug smile.
Explain why she's wrong and offer up a better theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30305182</id>
	<title>Re:Debunked almost a year ago</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1259584740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, 272 pages? Romance novel dude<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  Passes the time and is fun to look at and dream.<br>
Or the world works out the Voynich work before 2012 and finds warnings about a scarlet lady from the wilderness, giving birth to a man-child who is will rule all nations with an iron rod.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , 272 pages ?
Romance novel dude : ) Passes the time and is fun to look at and dream .
Or the world works out the Voynich work before 2012 and finds warnings about a scarlet lady from the wilderness , giving birth to a man-child who is will rule all nations with an iron rod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, 272 pages?
Romance novel dude :)  Passes the time and is fun to look at and dream.
Or the world works out the Voynich work before 2012 and finds warnings about a scarlet lady from the wilderness, giving birth to a man-child who is will rule all nations with an iron rod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300230</id>
	<title>Distributed Deciphering</title>
	<author>don\_carnage</author>
	<datestamp>1259610060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the Voynich Manuscript in its entirety available for public review? I've only seem short page excerpts. Perhaps the right person hasn't seen it yet. (See <a href="http://www.maydaymystery.org/mayday/" title="maydaymystery.org">Mayday Mystery</a> [maydaymystery.org]).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the Voynich Manuscript in its entirety available for public review ?
I 've only seem short page excerpts .
Perhaps the right person has n't seen it yet .
( See Mayday Mystery [ maydaymystery.org ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the Voynich Manuscript in its entirety available for public review?
I've only seem short page excerpts.
Perhaps the right person hasn't seen it yet.
(See Mayday Mystery [maydaymystery.org]).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301744</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>branewalker</author>
	<datestamp>1259573280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, just because she doesn't have credentials means that she is an idiot?

If that were the case, we would have no universities, because where were the people with PhD's to teach the others?

Discoveries come from smart people.  Some smart people have pursued formal education in their areas of expertise. Others have simply used their brains to figure out hard problems. No PhD required.

Heck, if this were a high school student, I'd be inclined to let my interest be piqued.  What is so wrong with giving this woman's ideas a chance, despite her lack of specialization?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , just because she does n't have credentials means that she is an idiot ?
If that were the case , we would have no universities , because where were the people with PhD 's to teach the others ?
Discoveries come from smart people .
Some smart people have pursued formal education in their areas of expertise .
Others have simply used their brains to figure out hard problems .
No PhD required .
Heck , if this were a high school student , I 'd be inclined to let my interest be piqued .
What is so wrong with giving this woman 's ideas a chance , despite her lack of specialization ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, just because she doesn't have credentials means that she is an idiot?
If that were the case, we would have no universities, because where were the people with PhD's to teach the others?
Discoveries come from smart people.
Some smart people have pursued formal education in their areas of expertise.
Others have simply used their brains to figure out hard problems.
No PhD required.
Heck, if this were a high school student, I'd be inclined to let my interest be piqued.
What is so wrong with giving this woman's ideas a chance, despite her lack of specialization?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298548</id>
	<title>Re:I cracked the code years ago.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The title is "To Serve Man"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The title is " To Serve Man "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title is "To Serve Man"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259592600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read (medieval Italian) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like, is not a botanist, a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p><p>For her next trick she will disprove Einstein, and prove the world is flat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read ( medieval Italian ) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like , is not a botanist , a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind .....For her next trick she will disprove Einstein , and prove the world is flat .... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read (medieval Italian) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like, is not a botanist, a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind .....For her next trick she will disprove Einstein, and prove the world is flat .....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296436</id>
	<title>I have a theory too.</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1259591640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The key to discovering the secrets of this manuscript are to be found by first finding Wilfrid Voynich's Bacon Factor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The key to discovering the secrets of this manuscript are to be found by first finding Wilfrid Voynich 's Bacon Factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key to discovering the secrets of this manuscript are to be found by first finding Wilfrid Voynich's Bacon Factor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296498</id>
	<title>Debunked almost a year ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259592060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2009/02/17/edith-sherwoods-anagram-cipher" title="ciphermysteries.com">http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2009/02/17/edith-sherwoods-anagram-cipher</a> [ciphermysteries.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ciphermysteries.com/2009/02/17/edith-sherwoods-anagram-cipher [ ciphermysteries.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2009/02/17/edith-sherwoods-anagram-cipher [ciphermysteries.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296876</id>
	<title>I've had this great idea...</title>
	<author>iapetus</author>
	<datestamp>1259594340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We take an infinite number of monkeys, and an infinite number of parchments, and eventually one of them will write a new play by that Shakespeare fellow...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We take an infinite number of monkeys , and an infinite number of parchments , and eventually one of them will write a new play by that Shakespeare fellow.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We take an infinite number of monkeys, and an infinite number of parchments, and eventually one of them will write a new play by that Shakespeare fellow...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301112</id>
	<title>Re:Debunked almost a year ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm Dan Brown &amp; so's my wife.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm Dan Brown &amp; so 's my wife .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm Dan Brown &amp; so's my wife.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296898</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1259594520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I can't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings. This is what a garlic plant looks like [wikispaces.com]. Not like this [edithsherwood.com]. I mean, come on! </i></p><p>But maybe the manuscript author didn't. I mean, the whole mystery aside, we all know the level of accuracy of scientific texts of that time. The fact it is hard to decode doesn't mean it is true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I ca n't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings .
This is what a garlic plant looks like [ wikispaces.com ] .
Not like this [ edithsherwood.com ] .
I mean , come on !
But maybe the manuscript author did n't .
I mean , the whole mystery aside , we all know the level of accuracy of scientific texts of that time .
The fact it is hard to decode does n't mean it is true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I can't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings.
This is what a garlic plant looks like [wikispaces.com].
Not like this [edithsherwood.com].
I mean, come on!
But maybe the manuscript author didn't.
I mean, the whole mystery aside, we all know the level of accuracy of scientific texts of that time.
The fact it is hard to decode doesn't mean it is true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301556</id>
	<title>Picking nits.</title>
	<author>bmearns</author>
	<datestamp>1259572620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alright, the "Wikipedia's report" just about knocked me down, but now you're getting inspired by Dan Brown? It would not be ironic at all if "Leonardo da Vinci is established as the author", unless perhaps the manuscript turns out to be a ridiculous action/adventure story about Dan Brown. Otherwise, it would be coincidence, at best.

The fact that there's a website called "Italian Anagram Dictionary" truly amazes me. Variation on rule 34, I guess.

Is "collelation" a word?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright , the " Wikipedia 's report " just about knocked me down , but now you 're getting inspired by Dan Brown ?
It would not be ironic at all if " Leonardo da Vinci is established as the author " , unless perhaps the manuscript turns out to be a ridiculous action/adventure story about Dan Brown .
Otherwise , it would be coincidence , at best .
The fact that there 's a website called " Italian Anagram Dictionary " truly amazes me .
Variation on rule 34 , I guess .
Is " collelation " a word ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright, the "Wikipedia's report" just about knocked me down, but now you're getting inspired by Dan Brown?
It would not be ironic at all if "Leonardo da Vinci is established as the author", unless perhaps the manuscript turns out to be a ridiculous action/adventure story about Dan Brown.
Otherwise, it would be coincidence, at best.
The fact that there's a website called "Italian Anagram Dictionary" truly amazes me.
Variation on rule 34, I guess.
Is "collelation" a word?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299072</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>XantheKnight</author>
	<datestamp>1259604840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read (medieval Italian) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like, is not a botanist, a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p><p>For her next trick she will disprove Einstein, and prove the world is flat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p></div><p>Oh, by the way-- Einstein WAS wrong<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  God does indeed play dice.

"Spooky," no?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read ( medieval Italian ) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like , is not a botanist , a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind .....For her next trick she will disprove Einstein , and prove the world is flat .....Oh , by the way-- Einstein WAS wrong : ) God does indeed play dice .
" Spooky , " no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read (medieval Italian) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like, is not a botanist, a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind .....For her next trick she will disprove Einstein, and prove the world is flat .....Oh, by the way-- Einstein WAS wrong :)  God does indeed play dice.
"Spooky," no?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296454</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259591700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, she does say she doesn't speak Italian<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... If this is true then I'm sure someone familiar with medieval Italian will come along and decode the whole thing. As for the labeling, yes of course it's 'bullshit', the manuscript is recognized as being fiction for a long time now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , she does say she does n't speak Italian ... If this is true then I 'm sure someone familiar with medieval Italian will come along and decode the whole thing .
As for the labeling , yes of course it 's 'bullshit ' , the manuscript is recognized as being fiction for a long time now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, she does say she doesn't speak Italian ... If this is true then I'm sure someone familiar with medieval Italian will come along and decode the whole thing.
As for the labeling, yes of course it's 'bullshit', the manuscript is recognized as being fiction for a long time now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301532</id>
	<title>This Just In: RIAA File Lawsuit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Voynich Manuscript decoded is actually the lyrics to "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" by Steam</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Voynich Manuscript decoded is actually the lyrics to " Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye " by Steam</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Voynich Manuscript decoded is actually the lyrics to "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" by Steam</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30311110</id>
	<title>The author does not know italian</title>
	<author>aBaldrich</author>
	<datestamp>1259859660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First of all, his screenshot has 3 words, not 5. And this is not the florentian dialect ("he would have used the language of Dante" - Author says)

He claims "Povere leter rimon mist(e) ispero" means "Plain letter reassemble mixed inspire".
1) "ispero" means "I hope" not "they inspire". It is a gross error. He cant have taken a 1 year course and do this.
2) "leter" is by no means florentian. latin "littera" &gt; florentian "lettera". With double t. ALWAYS. And it is in singular, plurals end in "s".
3) "rimon" is not florentian too. It can be split in prefix "ri-" that means "again", suffix "-on" that is present mood, third preson plural. I cant immagine any connection with the italian equivalent of "reassemble".

4) Leonardo at age 14 and 15 was an apprentice at Verrochio's. He painted. How would an apprentice painter get 200 pages of precious paper?

100\% crap.

Sombody mentioned Zecharia Zitchin?</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , his screenshot has 3 words , not 5 .
And this is not the florentian dialect ( " he would have used the language of Dante " - Author says ) He claims " Povere leter rimon mist ( e ) ispero " means " Plain letter reassemble mixed inspire " .
1 ) " ispero " means " I hope " not " they inspire " .
It is a gross error .
He cant have taken a 1 year course and do this .
2 ) " leter " is by no means florentian .
latin " littera " &gt; florentian " lettera " .
With double t. ALWAYS. And it is in singular , plurals end in " s " .
3 ) " rimon " is not florentian too .
It can be split in prefix " ri- " that means " again " , suffix " -on " that is present mood , third preson plural .
I cant immagine any connection with the italian equivalent of " reassemble " .
4 ) Leonardo at age 14 and 15 was an apprentice at Verrochio 's .
He painted .
How would an apprentice painter get 200 pages of precious paper ?
100 \ % crap .
Sombody mentioned Zecharia Zitchin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, his screenshot has 3 words, not 5.
And this is not the florentian dialect ("he would have used the language of Dante" - Author says)

He claims "Povere leter rimon mist(e) ispero" means "Plain letter reassemble mixed inspire".
1) "ispero" means "I hope" not "they inspire".
It is a gross error.
He cant have taken a 1 year course and do this.
2) "leter" is by no means florentian.
latin "littera" &gt; florentian "lettera".
With double t. ALWAYS. And it is in singular, plurals end in "s".
3) "rimon" is not florentian too.
It can be split in prefix "ri-" that means "again", suffix "-on" that is present mood, third preson plural.
I cant immagine any connection with the italian equivalent of "reassemble".
4) Leonardo at age 14 and 15 was an apprentice at Verrochio's.
He painted.
How would an apprentice painter get 200 pages of precious paper?
100\% crap.
Sombody mentioned Zecharia Zitchin?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297834</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>C0vardeAn0nim0</author>
	<datestamp>1259599380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there are known cases of cyphers being broken by someone who does not speak the language in with the original message was written. some classical cypers can be decoded using frequency tables for the language. this requires the breaker to know (or guess) the original language, but it can be done.</p><p>now, do you really think \_ALL\_ workers of bletchley park were fluent in german ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there are known cases of cyphers being broken by someone who does not speak the language in with the original message was written .
some classical cypers can be decoded using frequency tables for the language .
this requires the breaker to know ( or guess ) the original language , but it can be done.now , do you really think \ _ALL \ _ workers of bletchley park were fluent in german ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are known cases of cyphers being broken by someone who does not speak the language in with the original message was written.
some classical cypers can be decoded using frequency tables for the language.
this requires the breaker to know (or guess) the original language, but it can be done.now, do you really think \_ALL\_ workers of bletchley park were fluent in german ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297870</id>
	<title>It is obvious!</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1259599560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you take the third letter of every fifth page divided by the square of the absolute answer to life the universe and everything and add it to a nice, hot cup of tea, you'll get that the book simply lists technological achievements and political issues discussed by anonymous contributors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you take the third letter of every fifth page divided by the square of the absolute answer to life the universe and everything and add it to a nice , hot cup of tea , you 'll get that the book simply lists technological achievements and political issues discussed by anonymous contributors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you take the third letter of every fifth page divided by the square of the absolute answer to life the universe and everything and add it to a nice, hot cup of tea, you'll get that the book simply lists technological achievements and political issues discussed by anonymous contributors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296744</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1259593560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Umm... really? The manuscript has still yet to be decoded at all -- how would we go about determining that it is fiction?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm... really ? The manuscript has still yet to be decoded at all -- how would we go about determining that it is fiction ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm... really? The manuscript has still yet to be decoded at all -- how would we go about determining that it is fiction?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300482</id>
	<title>Here's the translation</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1259611200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One pages translation:</p><p>Somebody set up us the bomb.<br>Main screen turn on.<br>All your base are belong to us.<br>You have no chance to survive make your time.<br>For great justice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One pages translation : Somebody set up us the bomb.Main screen turn on.All your base are belong to us.You have no chance to survive make your time.For great justice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One pages translation:Somebody set up us the bomb.Main screen turn on.All your base are belong to us.You have no chance to survive make your time.For great justice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299588</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>Ecuador</author>
	<datestamp>1259607000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For her next trick she will disprove Einstein, and prove the world is flat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p></div><p>Well, the world is not flat, but it USED to be. Then, the ancient Greeks found a way to inflate it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For her next trick she will disprove Einstein , and prove the world is flat .....Well , the world is not flat , but it USED to be .
Then , the ancient Greeks found a way to inflate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For her next trick she will disprove Einstein, and prove the world is flat .....Well, the world is not flat, but it USED to be.
Then, the ancient Greeks found a way to inflate it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30302202</id>
	<title>Re:Distributed Deciphering</title>
	<author>FCD1</author>
	<datestamp>1259574720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is the Voynich Manuscript in its entirety available for public review?</p></div><p>
<a href="http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl\_crosscollex/SetsSearchExecXC.asp?srchtype=ITEM" title="yale.edu" rel="nofollow">http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl\_crosscollex/SetsSearchExecXC.asp?srchtype=ITEM</a> [yale.edu]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the Voynich Manuscript in its entirety available for public review ?
http : //beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl \ _crosscollex/SetsSearchExecXC.asp ? srchtype = ITEM [ yale.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the Voynich Manuscript in its entirety available for public review?
http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl\_crosscollex/SetsSearchExecXC.asp?srchtype=ITEM [yale.edu]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297268</id>
	<title>Boring...</title>
	<author>joh</author>
	<datestamp>1259596560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever looked at that book? Look at the pictures and you'll know that there's nothing to decode. It's just phantasizing, all made up. There's no reason to waste any time with the text, especially since many people have tried and nobody found any kind of sense in it.</p><p>It's still beautiful, mind you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever looked at that book ?
Look at the pictures and you 'll know that there 's nothing to decode .
It 's just phantasizing , all made up .
There 's no reason to waste any time with the text , especially since many people have tried and nobody found any kind of sense in it.It 's still beautiful , mind you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever looked at that book?
Look at the pictures and you'll know that there's nothing to decode.
It's just phantasizing, all made up.
There's no reason to waste any time with the text, especially since many people have tried and nobody found any kind of sense in it.It's still beautiful, mind you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296522</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1259592240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work.</i></p><p>That's an interesting idea, with the key word being "artist".  The almost complete lack of errors and corrections in the text strongly suggest that it's nonsense rather than any kind of encoded message.  Considered as a weird kind of autistic art, that might be kind of cool, although by far the more likely solution is that John Dee or one of his associates created the thing as a fraud to bilk gullible aristocrats or royalty (Charles V gets mentioned as a possible target, if I recall correctly.)</p><p>Seriously:  an error-free exotic MS with bizarre and suggestive (in the broadest sense) drawings that we are pretty sure passed through the hands of known "magicians" at least some of whom almost certainly accepted in their own minds that much of what they sold was fraudulent (many probably at least half-believed in what they were doing, but still...)</p><p>Never assume intelligence when venality will do, or something like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want my theory , we 're dealing with an unknown autistic artist 's work.That 's an interesting idea , with the key word being " artist " .
The almost complete lack of errors and corrections in the text strongly suggest that it 's nonsense rather than any kind of encoded message .
Considered as a weird kind of autistic art , that might be kind of cool , although by far the more likely solution is that John Dee or one of his associates created the thing as a fraud to bilk gullible aristocrats or royalty ( Charles V gets mentioned as a possible target , if I recall correctly .
) Seriously : an error-free exotic MS with bizarre and suggestive ( in the broadest sense ) drawings that we are pretty sure passed through the hands of known " magicians " at least some of whom almost certainly accepted in their own minds that much of what they sold was fraudulent ( many probably at least half-believed in what they were doing , but still... ) Never assume intelligence when venality will do , or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work.That's an interesting idea, with the key word being "artist".
The almost complete lack of errors and corrections in the text strongly suggest that it's nonsense rather than any kind of encoded message.
Considered as a weird kind of autistic art, that might be kind of cool, although by far the more likely solution is that John Dee or one of his associates created the thing as a fraud to bilk gullible aristocrats or royalty (Charles V gets mentioned as a possible target, if I recall correctly.
)Seriously:  an error-free exotic MS with bizarre and suggestive (in the broadest sense) drawings that we are pretty sure passed through the hands of known "magicians" at least some of whom almost certainly accepted in their own minds that much of what they sold was fraudulent (many probably at least half-believed in what they were doing, but still...)Never assume intelligence when venality will do, or something like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296472</id>
	<title>Oh Crap!</title>
	<author>AnotherBrian</author>
	<datestamp>1259591880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like we need another lame Dan Brown book+movie.</p><p>Also, <a href="http://xkcd.com/593/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/593/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like we need another lame Dan Brown book + movie.Also , http : //xkcd.com/593/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like we need another lame Dan Brown book+movie.Also, http://xkcd.com/593/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296536</id>
	<title>Re:I cracked the code years ago.</title>
	<author>donaggie03</author>
	<datestamp>1259592300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It says:</p><p>Pound pastrami, can kraut,six bagels--bring home for Emma."</p></div><p>NO NO NO! Whoever heard of "A Canticle for Voynich" ??  It just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It says : Pound pastrami , can kraut,six bagels--bring home for Emma .
" NO NO NO !
Whoever heard of " A Canticle for Voynich " ? ?
It just does n't have the same ring to it , does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It says:Pound pastrami, can kraut,six bagels--bring home for Emma.
"NO NO NO!
Whoever heard of "A Canticle for Voynich" ??
It just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300800</id>
	<title>Uh, What Did She Say?</title>
	<author>Spencerian</author>
	<datestamp>1259612760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I followed along with the original article's premise, which was intriguing enough...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Until she started to cite Dan Brown's horribly written book, "The Da Vinci Code," which purports itself to be a "sourced" novel.</p><p>Right. And Wikipedia's data cannot be wrong, and Oswald really acted alone.</p><p>Not that the writer has to be Christian or even a theologian, but mixing her research alongside (jaw-droppingly bad and easily refuted) fictional information (the "Priory of Sion" was made up in 1954 or so) just asks someone to call BS on her whole entire study.</p><p>That would be too bad, since she might have stumbled onto the first decent lead in the decoding riddle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I followed along with the original article 's premise , which was intriguing enough... ...Until she started to cite Dan Brown 's horribly written book , " The Da Vinci Code , " which purports itself to be a " sourced " novel.Right .
And Wikipedia 's data can not be wrong , and Oswald really acted alone.Not that the writer has to be Christian or even a theologian , but mixing her research alongside ( jaw-droppingly bad and easily refuted ) fictional information ( the " Priory of Sion " was made up in 1954 or so ) just asks someone to call BS on her whole entire study.That would be too bad , since she might have stumbled onto the first decent lead in the decoding riddle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I followed along with the original article's premise, which was intriguing enough... ...Until she started to cite Dan Brown's horribly written book, "The Da Vinci Code," which purports itself to be a "sourced" novel.Right.
And Wikipedia's data cannot be wrong, and Oswald really acted alone.Not that the writer has to be Christian or even a theologian, but mixing her research alongside (jaw-droppingly bad and easily refuted) fictional information (the "Priory of Sion" was made up in 1954 or so) just asks someone to call BS on her whole entire study.That would be too bad, since she might have stumbled onto the first decent lead in the decoding riddle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301436</id>
	<title>Re:Debunked almost a year ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your dog <i> <b>is</b></i>  a better writer than Dan Brown though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your dog is a better writer than Dan Brown though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your dog  is  a better writer than Dan Brown though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300882</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>aix tom</author>
	<datestamp>1259613120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, not so long ago *everyone* familiar with Greek history was absolutely sure that Troy was just a figment of Homers imagination, until a ridiculous (much laughed about in the archaeological circles) nut-case named <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich\_Schliemann" title="wikipedia.org">Heinrich Schliemann</a> [wikipedia.org] came along.</p><p>Fresh ideas are good. I guess 99.9\% of them will most likely turn out to be bullshit, but the 0.1\% that make it are the things that advance science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , not so long ago * everyone * familiar with Greek history was absolutely sure that Troy was just a figment of Homers imagination , until a ridiculous ( much laughed about in the archaeological circles ) nut-case named Heinrich Schliemann [ wikipedia.org ] came along.Fresh ideas are good .
I guess 99.9 \ % of them will most likely turn out to be bullshit , but the 0.1 \ % that make it are the things that advance science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, not so long ago *everyone* familiar with Greek history was absolutely sure that Troy was just a figment of Homers imagination, until a ridiculous (much laughed about in the archaeological circles) nut-case named Heinrich Schliemann [wikipedia.org] came along.Fresh ideas are good.
I guess 99.9\% of them will most likely turn out to be bullshit, but the 0.1\% that make it are the things that advance science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300196</id>
	<title>Unfortunately..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259609880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..Professor Sherwood is now in a straightjacket, drooling and twitching, and screaming about http://scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/2008/07/flesheating\_slug\_invades\_wales.php</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..Professor Sherwood is now in a straightjacket , drooling and twitching , and screaming about http : //scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/2008/07/flesheating \ _slug \ _invades \ _wales.php</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..Professor Sherwood is now in a straightjacket, drooling and twitching, and screaming about http://scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/2008/07/flesheating\_slug\_invades\_wales.php</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296652</id>
	<title>It seems highly repetitive</title>
	<author>srussia</author>
	<datestamp>1259592960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hypothesis: Leonardo Da Vinci had a son (perhaps named Bartolomeo). As punishment for Bart's mischief, Leonardo ordered him to write 300 pages' worth of "Non rivelero il segreto di mio padre" using Da Vinci's secret script in mirror image.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hypothesis : Leonardo Da Vinci had a son ( perhaps named Bartolomeo ) .
As punishment for Bart 's mischief , Leonardo ordered him to write 300 pages ' worth of " Non rivelero il segreto di mio padre " using Da Vinci 's secret script in mirror image .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hypothesis: Leonardo Da Vinci had a son (perhaps named Bartolomeo).
As punishment for Bart's mischief, Leonardo ordered him to write 300 pages' worth of "Non rivelero il segreto di mio padre" using Da Vinci's secret script in mirror image.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296506</id>
	<title>Re:I cracked the code years ago.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259592180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up for best literary reference.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up for best literary reference.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up for best literary reference.--BMO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298096</id>
	<title>Re:Boring...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259600520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"theres no reason to waste any time with the text"</p><p>even if its a work of pure firction (which then why the code?) the ability to imagine is one of the few things that separates us from animals and is a very redeeming and valuable thing. works of fiction have motivated and inspired people for thousands of years. this one has never had that opportunity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" theres no reason to waste any time with the text " even if its a work of pure firction ( which then why the code ?
) the ability to imagine is one of the few things that separates us from animals and is a very redeeming and valuable thing .
works of fiction have motivated and inspired people for thousands of years .
this one has never had that opportunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"theres no reason to waste any time with the text"even if its a work of pure firction (which then why the code?
) the ability to imagine is one of the few things that separates us from animals and is a very redeeming and valuable thing.
works of fiction have motivated and inspired people for thousands of years.
this one has never had that opportunity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299712</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1259607600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's widely accepted at this point that the manuscript is a deliberate fiction, intended to look mysterious for the purpose of enriching its author.   Looked at in that light, it's still an amazing work of art, particularly because the author needed to be literate about cryptanalysis to make such a convincing fake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's widely accepted at this point that the manuscript is a deliberate fiction , intended to look mysterious for the purpose of enriching its author .
Looked at in that light , it 's still an amazing work of art , particularly because the author needed to be literate about cryptanalysis to make such a convincing fake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's widely accepted at this point that the manuscript is a deliberate fiction, intended to look mysterious for the purpose of enriching its author.
Looked at in that light, it's still an amazing work of art, particularly because the author needed to be literate about cryptanalysis to make such a convincing fake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298358</id>
	<title>Re:Debunked almost a year ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259601720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>" [...] both of which are key first steps without which you&rsquo;ll very probably get nowhere."<br> <br>
It's a good thing he doesn't write books.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ ... ] both of which are key first steps without which you    ll very probably get nowhere .
" It 's a good thing he does n't write books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" [...] both of which are key first steps without which you’ll very probably get nowhere.
" 
It's a good thing he doesn't write books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301866</id>
	<title>Re:So there is no "unbreakable" code?</title>
	<author>bmearns</author>
	<datestamp>1259573700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Sure nuff, it's an OTP. There, you can still amaze your friends.
</p><p>
And of course, there's always Qwghlmian to try to decipher.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure nuff , it 's an OTP .
There , you can still amaze your friends .
And of course , there 's always Qwghlmian to try to decipher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Sure nuff, it's an OTP.
There, you can still amaze your friends.
And of course, there's always Qwghlmian to try to decipher.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30308202</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259872380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She wasn't offering proof.  She was offering a heuristic.  It wasn't a law, it was a possibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She was n't offering proof .
She was offering a heuristic .
It was n't a law , it was a possibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She wasn't offering proof.
She was offering a heuristic.
It wasn't a law, it was a possibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301356</id>
	<title>Bile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259571900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, so many crypto experts here, you think with all this brainpower we would have been able to crack the VM before? I mean the vitriol and bile here is pretty bad. The document, if you read it only points out a hypothesis, and makes suggestions for others to confirm or challenge it. That is scientific discourse, the replies here to that which are dismissive and heated do not represent a scientific attitude, nor are they in any way helpful, which begs the question, have any of you done better? What's stopping you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , so many crypto experts here , you think with all this brainpower we would have been able to crack the VM before ?
I mean the vitriol and bile here is pretty bad .
The document , if you read it only points out a hypothesis , and makes suggestions for others to confirm or challenge it .
That is scientific discourse , the replies here to that which are dismissive and heated do not represent a scientific attitude , nor are they in any way helpful , which begs the question , have any of you done better ?
What 's stopping you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, so many crypto experts here, you think with all this brainpower we would have been able to crack the VM before?
I mean the vitriol and bile here is pretty bad.
The document, if you read it only points out a hypothesis, and makes suggestions for others to confirm or challenge it.
That is scientific discourse, the replies here to that which are dismissive and heated do not represent a scientific attitude, nor are they in any way helpful, which begs the question, have any of you done better?
What's stopping you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296446</id>
	<title>I cracked the code years ago.</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1259591640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It says:</p><p>Pound pastrami, can kraut,six bagels--bring home for Emma."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It says : Pound pastrami , can kraut,six bagels--bring home for Emma .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It says:Pound pastrami, can kraut,six bagels--bring home for Emma.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296694</id>
	<title>What the heck? It's that time of the year...</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1259593200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>besuretodrinkyourovaltine</htmltext>
<tokenext>besuretodrinkyourovaltine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>besuretodrinkyourovaltine</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299856</id>
	<title>Re:Debunked almost a year ago</title>
	<author>Johnny Mnemonic</author>
	<datestamp>1259608200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, 272 pages?  With pictures?  That seems like a lot of work for a "fun little hoax", although with a profit motive I suppose there's a lot of people that will spend a lot of time creating something that they can foist on the gullible.  With one rich patron who is known to be interested in curiosities, and to pay well for them, I suppose someone might spend the time and energy to create this lengthy of a hoax.  Even to construct an artificial language behind it.<br> <br>I personally have done a lot of glossolalia, especially when I was younger, and that seems the most probable to me.  I even used "invented script" which the wikipedia article claims to be rare.  I have no idea what an analysis of it would show in terms of patterns and grammar, but frankly it probably would be seen to follow the patterns of English, by-and-large.  Still 250+ pages of that including pictures would take a lot of dedication.  Perhaps if I made a point of it, including subjecting myself to some kind of period-appropriate hallucinogenic, either accidental exposure or on purpose "to channel the energies".<br> <br>The use of repeated words--sometimes three in a row!--would seem to exclude any European author that was either speaking in their native language or an invented one.  I can't imagine that grammar pattern to seem natural, even if generating an invented language attempting at naturalness, to a European language speaker.  I can't think of a single instance where I have used triple words, and only very rarely use doubles (eg "that that" or "had had").   I don't think I did when I was performing glossolalia even, I was following my, and my instinct for the language conformed to what I found natural patterns, which is English natch.  Perhaps if writing trailing sentences, like verbal ellipses?  "I wanted to slay the dragon, if if if only I could find the sword."  It's interesting that that (!) construction is more common in Asiatic languages, which leads me to think that it was perhaps a European taking dictation from an Asian language speaker.  A European author would explain the lack of Asian symbolism in the drawings, but might still account for their unusualness if they were drawing by description.  One would think, though, that they would have more errors then too;  the text as well.  Perhaps the rough draft had the corrections and errors, and this is a copy from that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , 272 pages ?
With pictures ?
That seems like a lot of work for a " fun little hoax " , although with a profit motive I suppose there 's a lot of people that will spend a lot of time creating something that they can foist on the gullible .
With one rich patron who is known to be interested in curiosities , and to pay well for them , I suppose someone might spend the time and energy to create this lengthy of a hoax .
Even to construct an artificial language behind it .
I personally have done a lot of glossolalia , especially when I was younger , and that seems the most probable to me .
I even used " invented script " which the wikipedia article claims to be rare .
I have no idea what an analysis of it would show in terms of patterns and grammar , but frankly it probably would be seen to follow the patterns of English , by-and-large .
Still 250 + pages of that including pictures would take a lot of dedication .
Perhaps if I made a point of it , including subjecting myself to some kind of period-appropriate hallucinogenic , either accidental exposure or on purpose " to channel the energies " .
The use of repeated words--sometimes three in a row ! --would seem to exclude any European author that was either speaking in their native language or an invented one .
I ca n't imagine that grammar pattern to seem natural , even if generating an invented language attempting at naturalness , to a European language speaker .
I ca n't think of a single instance where I have used triple words , and only very rarely use doubles ( eg " that that " or " had had " ) .
I do n't think I did when I was performing glossolalia even , I was following my , and my instinct for the language conformed to what I found natural patterns , which is English natch .
Perhaps if writing trailing sentences , like verbal ellipses ?
" I wanted to slay the dragon , if if if only I could find the sword .
" It 's interesting that that ( !
) construction is more common in Asiatic languages , which leads me to think that it was perhaps a European taking dictation from an Asian language speaker .
A European author would explain the lack of Asian symbolism in the drawings , but might still account for their unusualness if they were drawing by description .
One would think , though , that they would have more errors then too ; the text as well .
Perhaps the rough draft had the corrections and errors , and this is a copy from that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, 272 pages?
With pictures?
That seems like a lot of work for a "fun little hoax", although with a profit motive I suppose there's a lot of people that will spend a lot of time creating something that they can foist on the gullible.
With one rich patron who is known to be interested in curiosities, and to pay well for them, I suppose someone might spend the time and energy to create this lengthy of a hoax.
Even to construct an artificial language behind it.
I personally have done a lot of glossolalia, especially when I was younger, and that seems the most probable to me.
I even used "invented script" which the wikipedia article claims to be rare.
I have no idea what an analysis of it would show in terms of patterns and grammar, but frankly it probably would be seen to follow the patterns of English, by-and-large.
Still 250+ pages of that including pictures would take a lot of dedication.
Perhaps if I made a point of it, including subjecting myself to some kind of period-appropriate hallucinogenic, either accidental exposure or on purpose "to channel the energies".
The use of repeated words--sometimes three in a row!--would seem to exclude any European author that was either speaking in their native language or an invented one.
I can't imagine that grammar pattern to seem natural, even if generating an invented language attempting at naturalness, to a European language speaker.
I can't think of a single instance where I have used triple words, and only very rarely use doubles (eg "that that" or "had had").
I don't think I did when I was performing glossolalia even, I was following my, and my instinct for the language conformed to what I found natural patterns, which is English natch.
Perhaps if writing trailing sentences, like verbal ellipses?
"I wanted to slay the dragon, if if if only I could find the sword.
"  It's interesting that that (!
) construction is more common in Asiatic languages, which leads me to think that it was perhaps a European taking dictation from an Asian language speaker.
A European author would explain the lack of Asian symbolism in the drawings, but might still account for their unusualness if they were drawing by description.
One would think, though, that they would have more errors then too;  the text as well.
Perhaps the rough draft had the corrections and errors, and this is a copy from that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296470</id>
	<title>Hypothesis testing</title>
	<author>PopeOptimusPrime</author>
	<datestamp>1259591880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hypothesis: The manuscript is anagrammatic Italian.<br>
Corollary 1: The manuscript should contain appropriate letter frequencies for said language.<br>
Corollary 2: The manuscript should contain all relevant letters.<br>
Conclusion: Neither Corollary 1 nor 2 are true, thus hypothesis is rejected.<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
???<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
Add to the annals of the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hypothesis : The manuscript is anagrammatic Italian .
Corollary 1 : The manuscript should contain appropriate letter frequencies for said language .
Corollary 2 : The manuscript should contain all relevant letters .
Conclusion : Neither Corollary 1 nor 2 are true , thus hypothesis is rejected .
.. . ? ? ?
.. . Add to the annals of the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hypothesis: The manuscript is anagrammatic Italian.
Corollary 1: The manuscript should contain appropriate letter frequencies for said language.
Corollary 2: The manuscript should contain all relevant letters.
Conclusion: Neither Corollary 1 nor 2 are true, thus hypothesis is rejected.
...
???
...
Add to the annals of the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298706</id>
	<title>Re:I cracked the code years ago.</title>
	<author>sfsp</author>
	<datestamp>1259603340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A Canticle for Liebowitz"! Great book!</p><p>Emily had a gold tooth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A Canticle for Liebowitz " !
Great book ! Emily had a gold tooth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A Canticle for Liebowitz"!
Great book!Emily had a gold tooth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298246</id>
	<title>Da Vinci makes sense</title>
	<author>Pedrito</author>
	<datestamp>1259601180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm no handwriting expert, but doing a quick google image search lead to a number of images of Leonardo's work with handwriting to compare against and frankly, it looks like a dead-on match to me. The little X thing he does in place of "ver" not only looks the same, but has the same little incidental serifs and stuff. The occurrences of "l" look the same, the "i"s that look like alphas, the funky "P". Again, I'm no expert, but either the writer was da Vinci or someone copying his writing style.<br> <br>
The fact that she used tools available on the web to help her out in areas where she's not an expert, ought not be held against her. Personally, I think it shows that she's pretty damn clever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no handwriting expert , but doing a quick google image search lead to a number of images of Leonardo 's work with handwriting to compare against and frankly , it looks like a dead-on match to me .
The little X thing he does in place of " ver " not only looks the same , but has the same little incidental serifs and stuff .
The occurrences of " l " look the same , the " i " s that look like alphas , the funky " P " .
Again , I 'm no expert , but either the writer was da Vinci or someone copying his writing style .
The fact that she used tools available on the web to help her out in areas where she 's not an expert , ought not be held against her .
Personally , I think it shows that she 's pretty damn clever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no handwriting expert, but doing a quick google image search lead to a number of images of Leonardo's work with handwriting to compare against and frankly, it looks like a dead-on match to me.
The little X thing he does in place of "ver" not only looks the same, but has the same little incidental serifs and stuff.
The occurrences of "l" look the same, the "i"s that look like alphas, the funky "P".
Again, I'm no expert, but either the writer was da Vinci or someone copying his writing style.
The fact that she used tools available on the web to help her out in areas where she's not an expert, ought not be held against her.
Personally, I think it shows that she's pretty damn clever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334</id>
	<title>It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259590860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>perhaps the text is simply anagrams of Italian words.</p></div><p>Then why does she only offer up a single page of plants as decoded anagrams?  What about the other ~199 pages?  What about the pages of block text?  <br> <br>

More importantly, why does the Voynich Manuscript flip between things derived from plants like gallic acid, oil and then return to naming the plants?  Furthermore, I call the labeling of the plants to be absolute complete bullshit.  Yes, I said it.  I'm not a botanist but I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I can't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings.  <a href="http://wakawikiwiki.wikispaces.com/file/view/GarlicHarvest.jpg" title="wikispaces.com" rel="nofollow">This is what a garlic plant looks like</a> [wikispaces.com].  Not like <a href="http://www.edithsherwood.com/voynich\_decoded/images/folio\_88r\_1.jpg" title="edithsherwood.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [edithsherwood.com].  I mean, <b>come on</b>!  Did Edith Sherwood ever stop to think that maybe -- similar to numerology in The Bible -- she'd be able to make words out of any strange text regardless of its true origin?  <br> <br>

Here's a real gem:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This brief sentence indicated that the use of anagrams should be investigated. This was further supported by reading Wikipedia&rsquo;s report that anagrams were popular throughout Europe during the Middle Ages and that some 17th century astronomers, while engaged in verification of their discoveries, used anagrams to hide their ideas.</p></div><p>You found that on Wikipedia?  Call Yale University, you've decoded it.  Citing Wikipedia for a fact while analyzing centuries old manuscripts?  Why you bother to put PhD after you name bewilders me.  <br> <br>

This is the game that will be played with the Voynich Manuscript.  Every so often people will claim to have 'decoded it' by offering up a small part of the manuscript which very imaginative minds have pulled together 10+ very very flimsy clues that point to some individual.  The fact that there are so many coincidences will add weight to it being the real explanation.  But it oddly won't work for 99\% of the manuscript.  Now <b>if</b> the manuscript is ever decoded, a hell of a lot more than two pages is going to make sense.  In fact, when someone figures it out, 99\% of the manuscript will make sense.  <br> <br>

If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work.  Someone lost in a period of time where autism was misunderstood and they are forever lost to anonymity except they'll get the last laugh because we'll never understand what message they were trying to get to us.  And some of us might go mad spending hours and hours and hours trying to figure this out with no luck.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>perhaps the text is simply anagrams of Italian words.Then why does she only offer up a single page of plants as decoded anagrams ?
What about the other ~ 199 pages ?
What about the pages of block text ?
More importantly , why does the Voynich Manuscript flip between things derived from plants like gallic acid , oil and then return to naming the plants ?
Furthermore , I call the labeling of the plants to be absolute complete bullshit .
Yes , I said it .
I 'm not a botanist but I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I ca n't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings .
This is what a garlic plant looks like [ wikispaces.com ] .
Not like this [ edithsherwood.com ] .
I mean , come on !
Did Edith Sherwood ever stop to think that maybe -- similar to numerology in The Bible -- she 'd be able to make words out of any strange text regardless of its true origin ?
Here 's a real gem : This brief sentence indicated that the use of anagrams should be investigated .
This was further supported by reading Wikipedia    s report that anagrams were popular throughout Europe during the Middle Ages and that some 17th century astronomers , while engaged in verification of their discoveries , used anagrams to hide their ideas.You found that on Wikipedia ?
Call Yale University , you 've decoded it .
Citing Wikipedia for a fact while analyzing centuries old manuscripts ?
Why you bother to put PhD after you name bewilders me .
This is the game that will be played with the Voynich Manuscript .
Every so often people will claim to have 'decoded it ' by offering up a small part of the manuscript which very imaginative minds have pulled together 10 + very very flimsy clues that point to some individual .
The fact that there are so many coincidences will add weight to it being the real explanation .
But it oddly wo n't work for 99 \ % of the manuscript .
Now if the manuscript is ever decoded , a hell of a lot more than two pages is going to make sense .
In fact , when someone figures it out , 99 \ % of the manuscript will make sense .
If you want my theory , we 're dealing with an unknown autistic artist 's work .
Someone lost in a period of time where autism was misunderstood and they are forever lost to anonymity except they 'll get the last laugh because we 'll never understand what message they were trying to get to us .
And some of us might go mad spending hours and hours and hours trying to figure this out with no luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>perhaps the text is simply anagrams of Italian words.Then why does she only offer up a single page of plants as decoded anagrams?
What about the other ~199 pages?
What about the pages of block text?
More importantly, why does the Voynich Manuscript flip between things derived from plants like gallic acid, oil and then return to naming the plants?
Furthermore, I call the labeling of the plants to be absolute complete bullshit.
Yes, I said it.
I'm not a botanist but I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I can't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings.
This is what a garlic plant looks like [wikispaces.com].
Not like this [edithsherwood.com].
I mean, come on!
Did Edith Sherwood ever stop to think that maybe -- similar to numerology in The Bible -- she'd be able to make words out of any strange text regardless of its true origin?
Here's a real gem:This brief sentence indicated that the use of anagrams should be investigated.
This was further supported by reading Wikipedia’s report that anagrams were popular throughout Europe during the Middle Ages and that some 17th century astronomers, while engaged in verification of their discoveries, used anagrams to hide their ideas.You found that on Wikipedia?
Call Yale University, you've decoded it.
Citing Wikipedia for a fact while analyzing centuries old manuscripts?
Why you bother to put PhD after you name bewilders me.
This is the game that will be played with the Voynich Manuscript.
Every so often people will claim to have 'decoded it' by offering up a small part of the manuscript which very imaginative minds have pulled together 10+ very very flimsy clues that point to some individual.
The fact that there are so many coincidences will add weight to it being the real explanation.
But it oddly won't work for 99\% of the manuscript.
Now if the manuscript is ever decoded, a hell of a lot more than two pages is going to make sense.
In fact, when someone figures it out, 99\% of the manuscript will make sense.
If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work.
Someone lost in a period of time where autism was misunderstood and they are forever lost to anonymity except they'll get the last laugh because we'll never understand what message they were trying to get to us.
And some of us might go mad spending hours and hours and hours trying to figure this out with no luck.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299342</id>
	<title>Simpler explanation</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1259605980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The manuscript is not written in anagrams at all; it is simply the work of a medieval Italian dyslexic who also spells poorly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The manuscript is not written in anagrams at all ; it is simply the work of a medieval Italian dyslexic who also spells poorly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The manuscript is not written in anagrams at all; it is simply the work of a medieval Italian dyslexic who also spells poorly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297332</id>
	<title>Re:Debunked almost a year ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont know why people cant accept that this thing is just a fun little hoax from 500 years ago.  16th century people had senses of humor and mystery too.  Someone concocted it for shits and giggles or perhaps from a serious mental illness. Its a shame this person isnt around today to hear these tales of connections with da vinci, aliens, etc.  Shame, for now it just brings out the "Dan Brown is the realz" crowd and other conspiracy nutters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont know why people cant accept that this thing is just a fun little hoax from 500 years ago .
16th century people had senses of humor and mystery too .
Someone concocted it for shits and giggles or perhaps from a serious mental illness .
Its a shame this person isnt around today to hear these tales of connections with da vinci , aliens , etc .
Shame , for now it just brings out the " Dan Brown is the realz " crowd and other conspiracy nutters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont know why people cant accept that this thing is just a fun little hoax from 500 years ago.
16th century people had senses of humor and mystery too.
Someone concocted it for shits and giggles or perhaps from a serious mental illness.
Its a shame this person isnt around today to hear these tales of connections with da vinci, aliens, etc.
Shame, for now it just brings out the "Dan Brown is the realz" crowd and other conspiracy nutters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299630</id>
	<title>Re:Da Vinci makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or perhaps all the obvious "personal" quirks are simply how text was written back then and you are missing all the more subtle ones. Try comparing it with other mideival text.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or perhaps all the obvious " personal " quirks are simply how text was written back then and you are missing all the more subtle ones .
Try comparing it with other mideival text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or perhaps all the obvious "personal" quirks are simply how text was written back then and you are missing all the more subtle ones.
Try comparing it with other mideival text.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296586</id>
	<title>Possible hoax,,,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259592540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
I know it seems outlandish for something of that time period, but isn't it even remotely possible that someone could have created this document just for the purposes of confounding scholars?  Perhaps it started as a joke for a collegue and got out of hand, or just happens to be the work of a mad man.  Perhaps there is nothing to decode.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it seems outlandish for something of that time period , but is n't it even remotely possible that someone could have created this document just for the purposes of confounding scholars ?
Perhaps it started as a joke for a collegue and got out of hand , or just happens to be the work of a mad man .
Perhaps there is nothing to decode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I know it seems outlandish for something of that time period, but isn't it even remotely possible that someone could have created this document just for the purposes of confounding scholars?
Perhaps it started as a joke for a collegue and got out of hand, or just happens to be the work of a mad man.
Perhaps there is nothing to decode.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299938</id>
	<title>Re:Debunked almost a year ago</title>
	<author>nickpelling2</author>
	<datestamp>1259608560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's my blog: I've been documenting Edith Sherwood's amazing (but wobbly) Voynich claims for the last few years, such as:-<br>
(1) <i>That a very young Leonardo da Vinci wrote it</i> <br>
<b>Problem:</b> LdV was left-handed, while the Voynich Ms was written by a right-hander. D'oh!<br>
<a href="http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2008/01/25/mona-lisa-overkill" title="ciphermysteries.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2008/01/25/mona-lisa-overkill</a> [ciphermysteries.com] <br>
<br>
(2) <i>That she has managed to decode the Voynich plants</i> <br>
<b>Problem:</b> her botany and history both seem thin (if not actually transparent). Duh!<br>
<a href="http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2008/09/13/edith-sherwoods-voynich-plants" title="ciphermysteries.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2008/09/13/edith-sherwoods-voynich-plants</a> [ciphermysteries.com] <br>
<br>
(3) <i>That the VMs is anagrammed, as evidenced by the unreadable marginalia on the back page</i> <br>
<b>Problem:</b> this is just optimistic rubbish, based on her reading of the third letter. Drat! See the above link as well as:-<br>
<a href="http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2009/04/11/a-guide-to-leonardo-da-vincis-handwriting" title="ciphermysteries.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2009/04/11/a-guide-to-leonardo-da-vincis-handwriting</a> [ciphermysteries.com] <br>
<br>
Honestly, why does she keep posting up this stuff? And (perhaps more interestingly) why does she keep promoting it via Google Adwords? Given that she must have spent thousands of dollars by now, perhaps she's planning to write an amazing "The-Voynich-was-by-Leonardo" book? All nonsensical grist for the long-suffering Voynich mill, I'm afraid.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's my blog : I 've been documenting Edith Sherwood 's amazing ( but wobbly ) Voynich claims for the last few years , such as : - ( 1 ) That a very young Leonardo da Vinci wrote it Problem : LdV was left-handed , while the Voynich Ms was written by a right-hander .
D'oh ! http : //www.ciphermysteries.com/2008/01/25/mona-lisa-overkill [ ciphermysteries.com ] ( 2 ) That she has managed to decode the Voynich plants Problem : her botany and history both seem thin ( if not actually transparent ) .
Duh ! http : //www.ciphermysteries.com/2008/09/13/edith-sherwoods-voynich-plants [ ciphermysteries.com ] ( 3 ) That the VMs is anagrammed , as evidenced by the unreadable marginalia on the back page Problem : this is just optimistic rubbish , based on her reading of the third letter .
Drat ! See the above link as well as : - http : //www.ciphermysteries.com/2009/04/11/a-guide-to-leonardo-da-vincis-handwriting [ ciphermysteries.com ] Honestly , why does she keep posting up this stuff ?
And ( perhaps more interestingly ) why does she keep promoting it via Google Adwords ?
Given that she must have spent thousands of dollars by now , perhaps she 's planning to write an amazing " The-Voynich-was-by-Leonardo " book ?
All nonsensical grist for the long-suffering Voynich mill , I 'm afraid .
: - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's my blog: I've been documenting Edith Sherwood's amazing (but wobbly) Voynich claims for the last few years, such as:-
(1) That a very young Leonardo da Vinci wrote it 
Problem: LdV was left-handed, while the Voynich Ms was written by a right-hander.
D'oh!
http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2008/01/25/mona-lisa-overkill [ciphermysteries.com] 

(2) That she has managed to decode the Voynich plants 
Problem: her botany and history both seem thin (if not actually transparent).
Duh!
http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2008/09/13/edith-sherwoods-voynich-plants [ciphermysteries.com] 

(3) That the VMs is anagrammed, as evidenced by the unreadable marginalia on the back page 
Problem: this is just optimistic rubbish, based on her reading of the third letter.
Drat! See the above link as well as:-
http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2009/04/11/a-guide-to-leonardo-da-vincis-handwriting [ciphermysteries.com] 

Honestly, why does she keep posting up this stuff?
And (perhaps more interestingly) why does she keep promoting it via Google Adwords?
Given that she must have spent thousands of dollars by now, perhaps she's planning to write an amazing "The-Voynich-was-by-Leonardo" book?
All nonsensical grist for the long-suffering Voynich mill, I'm afraid.
:-(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301564</id>
	<title>Expense</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1259572680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the book is as old as it is claimed, then it would be as making a fake golden iPhone today just to confuse people a hundred years from now. Paper hasn't always been a throw away article.
</p><p>Neither is it really that easy to create random writing that still looks legit, try it. Hell, even try it with just hitting random keys on yourkeyboard and still have it look like a real language. now do it for 200 pages, written by hand on expensive paper.
</p><p>Anyway, it would be a first. There are plenty of known encoding tricks, where people encoded something purely for the challenge, but pure gibberish just to fool people? I don't know of any big example (as in 200 pages of work).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the book is as old as it is claimed , then it would be as making a fake golden iPhone today just to confuse people a hundred years from now .
Paper has n't always been a throw away article .
Neither is it really that easy to create random writing that still looks legit , try it .
Hell , even try it with just hitting random keys on yourkeyboard and still have it look like a real language .
now do it for 200 pages , written by hand on expensive paper .
Anyway , it would be a first .
There are plenty of known encoding tricks , where people encoded something purely for the challenge , but pure gibberish just to fool people ?
I do n't know of any big example ( as in 200 pages of work ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the book is as old as it is claimed, then it would be as making a fake golden iPhone today just to confuse people a hundred years from now.
Paper hasn't always been a throw away article.
Neither is it really that easy to create random writing that still looks legit, try it.
Hell, even try it with just hitting random keys on yourkeyboard and still have it look like a real language.
now do it for 200 pages, written by hand on expensive paper.
Anyway, it would be a first.
There are plenty of known encoding tricks, where people encoded something purely for the challenge, but pure gibberish just to fool people?
I don't know of any big example (as in 200 pages of work).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296608</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1259592660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps she referenced Wikipedia because it initially gave her the inspiration, and not because she thinks it is the word of god.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps she referenced Wikipedia because it initially gave her the inspiration , and not because she thinks it is the word of god .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps she referenced Wikipedia because it initially gave her the inspiration, and not because she thinks it is the word of god.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301132</id>
	<title>Wikipedia does not issue reports.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Wikipedia&rsquo;s report". Maybe she'd like to request membership in Anonymous, or talk to the board of directors of the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Wikipedia    s report " .
Maybe she 'd like to request membership in Anonymous , or talk to the board of directors of the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Wikipedia’s report".
Maybe she'd like to request membership in Anonymous, or talk to the board of directors of the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298070</id>
	<title>Re:Debunked almost a year ago</title>
	<author>Kadagan AU</author>
	<datestamp>1259600400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It does seem to be kind of old "news" if you can call it news.. The bottom of the page in TFA says Copyright 2002...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does seem to be kind of old " news " if you can call it news.. The bottom of the page in TFA says Copyright 2002.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does seem to be kind of old "news" if you can call it news.. The bottom of the page in TFA says Copyright 2002...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296762</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259593620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes I'm sure no one familiar with Medieval Italian has taken a gander at this world famous manuscript... Which is why it's so ridiculous that this woman is taking a shot at it. Give me a break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes I 'm sure no one familiar with Medieval Italian has taken a gander at this world famous manuscript... Which is why it 's so ridiculous that this woman is taking a shot at it .
Give me a break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes I'm sure no one familiar with Medieval Italian has taken a gander at this world famous manuscript... Which is why it's so ridiculous that this woman is taking a shot at it.
Give me a break.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30302320</id>
	<title>Re:Distributed Deciphering</title>
	<author>nscott89</author>
	<datestamp>1259575020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is available on Wikimedia Commons here.<br><a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Voynich\_manuscript" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Voynich\_manuscript</a> [wikimedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is available on Wikimedia Commons here.http : //commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Voynich \ _manuscript [ wikimedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is available on Wikimedia Commons here.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Voynich\_manuscript [wikimedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298614</id>
	<title>Wet ink</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The book was written well before the times of the roller ball pen.  the "Mirrored Images" described are probably ink from other inserts that are missing smearing onto the previous page.  This is only half the manual, and they have probably not taken the time to look at the impressions on the page to determine the ORDER of writing, as well as what was actually written on the page and what was simply "pressed" onto it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The book was written well before the times of the roller ball pen .
the " Mirrored Images " described are probably ink from other inserts that are missing smearing onto the previous page .
This is only half the manual , and they have probably not taken the time to look at the impressions on the page to determine the ORDER of writing , as well as what was actually written on the page and what was simply " pressed " onto it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The book was written well before the times of the roller ball pen.
the "Mirrored Images" described are probably ink from other inserts that are missing smearing onto the previous page.
This is only half the manual, and they have probably not taken the time to look at the impressions on the page to determine the ORDER of writing, as well as what was actually written on the page and what was simply "pressed" onto it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300212</id>
	<title>Re:Leonardo, not daVinci</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1259610000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, but us English speakers make a point of assuming that everything works according to our system so when we meet a chinese person named Lu Hong we refer to her as Ms. Hong or, if we're friendly, Lu.  Same goes for Leonardo da Vinci.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , but us English speakers make a point of assuming that everything works according to our system so when we meet a chinese person named Lu Hong we refer to her as Ms. Hong or , if we 're friendly , Lu .
Same goes for Leonardo da Vinci .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, but us English speakers make a point of assuming that everything works according to our system so when we meet a chinese person named Lu Hong we refer to her as Ms. Hong or, if we're friendly, Lu.
Same goes for Leonardo da Vinci.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297564</id>
	<title>Re:Possible hoax,,,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259598000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's certainly possible, but it's incredibly long and detailed to be a hoax.</p><p>I'm reminded of a scene from Star Trek DS9 when Dr Bashir is trying to cure an engineered disease and has the following exchange with Jadzia (paraphrased):</p><p>Bashir: "There is no cure.  The Dominion saw to that.  These people have been suffering with this disease for hundreds of years and I arrogantly thought I could cure it within a week.".</p><p>Jadzia: "Maybe that was arrogant, but it's even more arrogant to think that there is no cure just because YOU couldn't find it one."</p><p>I've always thought that little bit of dialog held wisdom, and applies to us on a generational level and even as a species.  Just because we haven't been able to crack it doesn't mean it's a hoax.</p><p>While we're speculating though, I've always though that it may just be in a made up language that was then ciphered.  Even in high school some friends and I had a very basic "language" of maybe a few hundred words that we would use to talk about things without others knowing what were were talking about.  I can't remember most of the words know but mixing that with English just as a trivial little game we were able to communicate decently.  Someone (or group) with more time and motivation could do much better.  Heck Klingon and Tolkein's Elvish are remarkably well fleshed out for fictional languages.  Such a move would prove difficult to crack indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's certainly possible , but it 's incredibly long and detailed to be a hoax.I 'm reminded of a scene from Star Trek DS9 when Dr Bashir is trying to cure an engineered disease and has the following exchange with Jadzia ( paraphrased ) : Bashir : " There is no cure .
The Dominion saw to that .
These people have been suffering with this disease for hundreds of years and I arrogantly thought I could cure it within a week .
" .Jadzia : " Maybe that was arrogant , but it 's even more arrogant to think that there is no cure just because YOU could n't find it one .
" I 've always thought that little bit of dialog held wisdom , and applies to us on a generational level and even as a species .
Just because we have n't been able to crack it does n't mean it 's a hoax.While we 're speculating though , I 've always though that it may just be in a made up language that was then ciphered .
Even in high school some friends and I had a very basic " language " of maybe a few hundred words that we would use to talk about things without others knowing what were were talking about .
I ca n't remember most of the words know but mixing that with English just as a trivial little game we were able to communicate decently .
Someone ( or group ) with more time and motivation could do much better .
Heck Klingon and Tolkein 's Elvish are remarkably well fleshed out for fictional languages .
Such a move would prove difficult to crack indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's certainly possible, but it's incredibly long and detailed to be a hoax.I'm reminded of a scene from Star Trek DS9 when Dr Bashir is trying to cure an engineered disease and has the following exchange with Jadzia (paraphrased):Bashir: "There is no cure.
The Dominion saw to that.
These people have been suffering with this disease for hundreds of years and I arrogantly thought I could cure it within a week.
".Jadzia: "Maybe that was arrogant, but it's even more arrogant to think that there is no cure just because YOU couldn't find it one.
"I've always thought that little bit of dialog held wisdom, and applies to us on a generational level and even as a species.
Just because we haven't been able to crack it doesn't mean it's a hoax.While we're speculating though, I've always though that it may just be in a made up language that was then ciphered.
Even in high school some friends and I had a very basic "language" of maybe a few hundred words that we would use to talk about things without others knowing what were were talking about.
I can't remember most of the words know but mixing that with English just as a trivial little game we were able to communicate decently.
Someone (or group) with more time and motivation could do much better.
Heck Klingon and Tolkein's Elvish are remarkably well fleshed out for fictional languages.
Such a move would prove difficult to crack indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297008</id>
	<title>what</title>
	<author>bistromath007</author>
	<datestamp>1259595240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>How did it not occur to this dipshit that if the "code" were just Italian anagrams, <i>Italians would've figured it out a long time ago?</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did it not occur to this dipshit that if the " code " were just Italian anagrams , Italians would 've figured it out a long time ago ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did it not occur to this dipshit that if the "code" were just Italian anagrams, Italians would've figured it out a long time ago?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298506</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1259602440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no idea the validity of her work, but I do find it interesting that you've juxtaposed derision of her work as that of an outsider with a reference elevating Einstein - who did much of his formative work as a scientific outsider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea the validity of her work , but I do find it interesting that you 've juxtaposed derision of her work as that of an outsider with a reference elevating Einstein - who did much of his formative work as a scientific outsider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea the validity of her work, but I do find it interesting that you've juxtaposed derision of her work as that of an outsider with a reference elevating Einstein - who did much of his formative work as a scientific outsider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301372</id>
	<title>Re:Distributed Deciphering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259571960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole thing is out there.  I found a full pdf of it a while ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole thing is out there .
I found a full pdf of it a while ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole thing is out there.
I found a full pdf of it a while ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297652</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>sennyk</author>
	<datestamp>1259598420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The world is flat; it only appears to be round, because it is periodic.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The world is flat ; it only appears to be round , because it is periodic .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The world is flat; it only appears to be round, because it is periodic.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296616</id>
	<title>FFS...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259592720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Da Vinci was Leonardo's address, not his name.  Sort yourself out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Da Vinci was Leonardo 's address , not his name .
Sort yourself out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Da Vinci was Leonardo's address, not his name.
Sort yourself out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30304502</id>
	<title>-1 idiots</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1259582100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there a way of modding every fucker who has posted to this story a troll ? Because the post is a troll, and anybody who replies is a troll. If you don't get it, you're a troll. Ooops that appears to be everybody - says a lot...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a way of modding every fucker who has posted to this story a troll ?
Because the post is a troll , and anybody who replies is a troll .
If you do n't get it , you 're a troll .
Ooops that appears to be everybody - says a lot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a way of modding every fucker who has posted to this story a troll ?
Because the post is a troll, and anybody who replies is a troll.
If you don't get it, you're a troll.
Ooops that appears to be everybody - says a lot...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298108</id>
	<title>First two lines decoded (from the article)</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1259600580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
In case you don't want to read the article, here are the first two lines they decoded:</p><blockquote><div><p>Never gonna give you up,<br>
Never gonna let you down</p></div>

</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In case you do n't want to read the article , here are the first two lines they decoded : Never gon na give you up , Never gon na let you down</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In case you don't want to read the article, here are the first two lines they decoded:Never gonna give you up,
Never gonna let you down


	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297680</id>
	<title>Leonardo, not daVinci</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259598480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's try to stay well clear of pot boilers. Art historians refer to the renaissance polymath as "Leonardo," not as "Mr. Da Vinci." Sidmilarly, Dante, rather than "Mr Alligheri" wrote the Divine Comedy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's try to stay well clear of pot boilers .
Art historians refer to the renaissance polymath as " Leonardo , " not as " Mr. Da Vinci .
" Sidmilarly , Dante , rather than " Mr Alligheri " wrote the Divine Comedy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's try to stay well clear of pot boilers.
Art historians refer to the renaissance polymath as "Leonardo," not as "Mr. Da Vinci.
" Sidmilarly, Dante, rather than "Mr Alligheri" wrote the Divine Comedy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296578</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1259592540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it could just be a randomly generated joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it could just be a randomly generated joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it could just be a randomly generated joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299198</id>
	<title>Yes...</title>
	<author>sarkeizen</author>
	<datestamp>1259605320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you apply a loose decoding scheme (that is, sometimes certain rules apply and sometimes they don't) to a tiny subset of the text then you increase your likelihood of producing a internally consistent system.   Personally I don't know much about medieval vegetables but looking at modern pictures of a few of those decoded wasn't very compelling.   From there people seem to be arguing for an equally loose interpretation of the pictures (or supposing of the way the older plants looked) which sounds a lot like the arguments I heard about remote viewing drawings...and about as compelling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you apply a loose decoding scheme ( that is , sometimes certain rules apply and sometimes they do n't ) to a tiny subset of the text then you increase your likelihood of producing a internally consistent system .
Personally I do n't know much about medieval vegetables but looking at modern pictures of a few of those decoded was n't very compelling .
From there people seem to be arguing for an equally loose interpretation of the pictures ( or supposing of the way the older plants looked ) which sounds a lot like the arguments I heard about remote viewing drawings...and about as compelling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you apply a loose decoding scheme (that is, sometimes certain rules apply and sometimes they don't) to a tiny subset of the text then you increase your likelihood of producing a internally consistent system.
Personally I don't know much about medieval vegetables but looking at modern pictures of a few of those decoded wasn't very compelling.
From there people seem to be arguing for an equally loose interpretation of the pictures (or supposing of the way the older plants looked) which sounds a lot like the arguments I heard about remote viewing drawings...and about as compelling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299272</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>FingerDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1259605560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The almost complete lack of errors and corrections in the text strongly suggest that it's nonsense rather than any kind of encoded message.</p></div><p>Granted, I know next to nothing about this controversy or Medieval history.  But before conveniences like the printing press I believe it was pretty common to write out a draft and then copy very carefully the final version without errors.  If someone could throw out any pages they made a mistake on, it wouldn't be too hard to come up with an error free manuscript given enough time and attention to detail.  Even if the whole thing was done on some kind of prebound book, if someone had alot of practice making careful copies like this and went slow enough, an error free manuscript doesn't seem too far fetched to me.  <br> <br>That's not to say it isn't nonsense, but I don't know that the error rate is that strong an indicator.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The almost complete lack of errors and corrections in the text strongly suggest that it 's nonsense rather than any kind of encoded message.Granted , I know next to nothing about this controversy or Medieval history .
But before conveniences like the printing press I believe it was pretty common to write out a draft and then copy very carefully the final version without errors .
If someone could throw out any pages they made a mistake on , it would n't be too hard to come up with an error free manuscript given enough time and attention to detail .
Even if the whole thing was done on some kind of prebound book , if someone had alot of practice making careful copies like this and went slow enough , an error free manuscript does n't seem too far fetched to me .
That 's not to say it is n't nonsense , but I do n't know that the error rate is that strong an indicator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The almost complete lack of errors and corrections in the text strongly suggest that it's nonsense rather than any kind of encoded message.Granted, I know next to nothing about this controversy or Medieval history.
But before conveniences like the printing press I believe it was pretty common to write out a draft and then copy very carefully the final version without errors.
If someone could throw out any pages they made a mistake on, it wouldn't be too hard to come up with an error free manuscript given enough time and attention to detail.
Even if the whole thing was done on some kind of prebound book, if someone had alot of practice making careful copies like this and went slow enough, an error free manuscript doesn't seem too far fetched to me.
That's not to say it isn't nonsense, but I don't know that the error rate is that strong an indicator.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30306964</id>
	<title>Re:Distributed Deciphering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. Search for "Voynich" at http://beinecke.library.yale.edu</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Search for " Voynich " at http : //beinecke.library.yale.edu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Search for "Voynich" at http://beinecke.library.yale.edu</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296554</id>
	<title>It's a cook book!</title>
	<author>Rhaban</author>
	<datestamp>1259592420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a cook book!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a cook book !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a cook book!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296846</id>
	<title>Unless...</title>
	<author>jDeepbeep</author>
	<datestamp>1259594160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now <b>if</b> the manuscript is ever decoded, a hell of a lot more than two pages is going to make sense.  In fact, when someone figures it out, 99\% of the manuscript will make sense.</p></div><p>That is, unless the manuscript is using a collection of ciphers (one for each section perhaps?), in which case,  one key won't unlock everything. <br> <br>Just a thought.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if the manuscript is ever decoded , a hell of a lot more than two pages is going to make sense .
In fact , when someone figures it out , 99 \ % of the manuscript will make sense.That is , unless the manuscript is using a collection of ciphers ( one for each section perhaps ?
) , in which case , one key wo n't unlock everything .
Just a thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if the manuscript is ever decoded, a hell of a lot more than two pages is going to make sense.
In fact, when someone figures it out, 99\% of the manuscript will make sense.That is, unless the manuscript is using a collection of ciphers (one for each section perhaps?
), in which case,  one key won't unlock everything.
Just a thought.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296612</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259592720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C'mon, this article can't be serious. Anyone with a bit (and I mean a BIT) of knowledge about cryptography knows this can't be true, for all the motivations that many have already posted above.<br>And, I'm Italian, and we study Italian literature for 10 years in school, and I can swear that the italian language wasn't that different than the actual one 700 years ago. I mean, a letter frequency analysis would have already solved this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C'mon , this article ca n't be serious .
Anyone with a bit ( and I mean a BIT ) of knowledge about cryptography knows this ca n't be true , for all the motivations that many have already posted above.And , I 'm Italian , and we study Italian literature for 10 years in school , and I can swear that the italian language was n't that different than the actual one 700 years ago .
I mean , a letter frequency analysis would have already solved this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C'mon, this article can't be serious.
Anyone with a bit (and I mean a BIT) of knowledge about cryptography knows this can't be true, for all the motivations that many have already posted above.And, I'm Italian, and we study Italian literature for 10 years in school, and I can swear that the italian language wasn't that different than the actual one 700 years ago.
I mean, a letter frequency analysis would have already solved this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299052</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>XantheKnight</author>
	<datestamp>1259604780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read (medieval Italian) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like, is not a botanist, a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p><p>For her next trick she will disprove Einstein, and prove the world is flat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p></div><p>Goodness, gentlemen and ladies, I am astounded by the skepticism and nay-saying that is on this thread.  Isn't anyone else actually inspired by what this person has done here?  It sounds like the old American dream analogized into the field of science to me: despite the odds, the obstacles, the reputation of the problem for complexity, this person bravely took the problem on nonetheless and actually had a measure of success by coming up with a pretty damn good idea that nobody else did.

</p><p>It reminds me of the Star Trek episode where the Enterprise encounters that world full of genetically engineered humans... each person specifically bred for a task, nobody allowed to stray away from their "destined" field of work.  Yet, they are hundreds of years behind un-genetically-engineered Earth technology for the very reason of their prejudice and entitlement syndrome.  They think they are better qualified to do the job, so they never allow anyone else to have a go; never allow anyone to surprise them, never allow stray sparks of genius to infect their genetically engineered perfection.  And lo and behold, in comes Geordi LaForge with his VISOR, which contains the technology they needed to solve their technical problem and save the day.  All that was needed, right there in the fake eyes for a blind man - a source of inspiration they'd never have expected.

</p><p>Please don't buy into the idea that nobody else could or should "do" science except those with a PhD or 18 articles published.  <b>Science is for everyone.  It is a method, not a club.</b>  The very day we start evaluating peoples' ideas SOLELY on the basis of the person's status, as opposed to the merit of the idea, is the day we should just go ahead and shoot ourselves, because we have become idiots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read ( medieval Italian ) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like , is not a botanist , a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind .....For her next trick she will disprove Einstein , and prove the world is flat .....Goodness , gentlemen and ladies , I am astounded by the skepticism and nay-saying that is on this thread .
Is n't anyone else actually inspired by what this person has done here ?
It sounds like the old American dream analogized into the field of science to me : despite the odds , the obstacles , the reputation of the problem for complexity , this person bravely took the problem on nonetheless and actually had a measure of success by coming up with a pretty damn good idea that nobody else did .
It reminds me of the Star Trek episode where the Enterprise encounters that world full of genetically engineered humans... each person specifically bred for a task , nobody allowed to stray away from their " destined " field of work .
Yet , they are hundreds of years behind un-genetically-engineered Earth technology for the very reason of their prejudice and entitlement syndrome .
They think they are better qualified to do the job , so they never allow anyone else to have a go ; never allow anyone to surprise them , never allow stray sparks of genius to infect their genetically engineered perfection .
And lo and behold , in comes Geordi LaForge with his VISOR , which contains the technology they needed to solve their technical problem and save the day .
All that was needed , right there in the fake eyes for a blind man - a source of inspiration they 'd never have expected .
Please do n't buy into the idea that nobody else could or should " do " science except those with a PhD or 18 articles published .
Science is for everyone .
It is a method , not a club .
The very day we start evaluating peoples ' ideas SOLELY on the basis of the person 's status , as opposed to the merit of the idea , is the day we should just go ahead and shoot ourselves , because we have become idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read (medieval Italian) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like, is not a botanist, a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind .....For her next trick she will disprove Einstein, and prove the world is flat .....Goodness, gentlemen and ladies, I am astounded by the skepticism and nay-saying that is on this thread.
Isn't anyone else actually inspired by what this person has done here?
It sounds like the old American dream analogized into the field of science to me: despite the odds, the obstacles, the reputation of the problem for complexity, this person bravely took the problem on nonetheless and actually had a measure of success by coming up with a pretty damn good idea that nobody else did.
It reminds me of the Star Trek episode where the Enterprise encounters that world full of genetically engineered humans... each person specifically bred for a task, nobody allowed to stray away from their "destined" field of work.
Yet, they are hundreds of years behind un-genetically-engineered Earth technology for the very reason of their prejudice and entitlement syndrome.
They think they are better qualified to do the job, so they never allow anyone else to have a go; never allow anyone to surprise them, never allow stray sparks of genius to infect their genetically engineered perfection.
And lo and behold, in comes Geordi LaForge with his VISOR, which contains the technology they needed to solve their technical problem and save the day.
All that was needed, right there in the fake eyes for a blind man - a source of inspiration they'd never have expected.
Please don't buy into the idea that nobody else could or should "do" science except those with a PhD or 18 articles published.
Science is for everyone.
It is a method, not a club.
The very day we start evaluating peoples' ideas SOLELY on the basis of the person's status, as opposed to the merit of the idea, is the day we should just go ahead and shoot ourselves, because we have become idiots.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296530</id>
	<title>And it says...</title>
	<author>halcyon1234</author>
	<datestamp>1259592240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duis ut nibh et nunc scelerisque vestibulum non ac diam. Sed porttitor mauris a lorem tempus faucibus.</p><p> This is a test of my new pen."</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet , consectetur adipiscing elit .
Duis ut nibh et nunc scelerisque vestibulum non ac diam .
Sed porttitor mauris a lorem tempus faucibus .
This is a test of my new pen .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Duis ut nibh et nunc scelerisque vestibulum non ac diam.
Sed porttitor mauris a lorem tempus faucibus.
This is a test of my new pen.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297860</id>
	<title>Re:It Hurts</title>
	<author>cream wobbly</author>
	<datestamp>1259599560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Einstein had solid proof. There is no mystery. A better comparison is saying the Emperor will get a chill, gallivanting about like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Einstein had solid proof .
There is no mystery .
A better comparison is saying the Emperor will get a chill , gallivanting about like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Einstein had solid proof.
There is no mystery.
A better comparison is saying the Emperor will get a chill, gallivanting about like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30308896</id>
	<title>Re:Hypothesis testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259841300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apart from h it contains all of the letters of the italian alphabet!<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian\_alphabet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apart from h it contains all of the letters of the italian alphabet ! http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian \ _alphabet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apart from h it contains all of the letters of the italian alphabet!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian\_alphabet</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297828</id>
	<title>Re:Debunked almost a year ago</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1259599320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>now it just brings out the "Dan Brown is the realz" crowd and other conspiracy nutters.</p></div><p>Dan Brown IS real.  You Dan Brown deniers are the real conspiracy nuts.  "It's a ghost-writer"  "It's plagiarized from aliens" "My dog is Dan Brown"  Nutters all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>now it just brings out the " Dan Brown is the realz " crowd and other conspiracy nutters.Dan Brown IS real .
You Dan Brown deniers are the real conspiracy nuts .
" It 's a ghost-writer " " It 's plagiarized from aliens " " My dog is Dan Brown " Nutters all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now it just brings out the "Dan Brown is the realz" crowd and other conspiracy nutters.Dan Brown IS real.
You Dan Brown deniers are the real conspiracy nuts.
"It's a ghost-writer"  "It's plagiarized from aliens" "My dog is Dan Brown"  Nutters all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30308286</id>
	<title>Re:what</title>
	<author>sjwt</author>
	<datestamp>1259873940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be the same reason why 5 years ago a German Freind of mine pissed him self laughing when their was all the hype about the newly discoverd "spear of destiny". He pulled out an old 1960's highschool german medevil history text book and told us all about it a good week before the documentry was on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be the same reason why 5 years ago a German Freind of mine pissed him self laughing when their was all the hype about the newly discoverd " spear of destiny " .
He pulled out an old 1960 's highschool german medevil history text book and told us all about it a good week before the documentry was on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be the same reason why 5 years ago a German Freind of mine pissed him self laughing when their was all the hype about the newly discoverd "spear of destiny".
He pulled out an old 1960's highschool german medevil history text book and told us all about it a good week before the documentry was on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30314406</id>
	<title>What fun!</title>
	<author>jim.shilliday</author>
	<datestamp>1259870820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To convince anyone that the page she discusses has something to do with Leonardo's astrological chart, it seems to me she also needs to explain this:  <a href="http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl\_crosscollex/brbldl/oneITEM.asp?pid=2002046&amp;iid=1006202&amp;srchtype=ITEM" title="yale.edu" rel="nofollow">http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl\_crosscollex/brbldl/oneITEM.asp?pid=2002046&amp;iid=1006202&amp;srchtype=ITEM</a> [yale.edu] .  It's another page with the same animal in the center, the same word under it (complete with what Sherwood interprets as an inserted "r" above the word), fifteen tub ladies (dressed this time), all holding stars in their outstretched hands instead of on "strings."  No babies in sight that I can see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To convince anyone that the page she discusses has something to do with Leonardo 's astrological chart , it seems to me she also needs to explain this : http : //beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl \ _crosscollex/brbldl/oneITEM.asp ? pid = 2002046&amp;iid = 1006202&amp;srchtype = ITEM [ yale.edu ] .
It 's another page with the same animal in the center , the same word under it ( complete with what Sherwood interprets as an inserted " r " above the word ) , fifteen tub ladies ( dressed this time ) , all holding stars in their outstretched hands instead of on " strings .
" No babies in sight that I can see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To convince anyone that the page she discusses has something to do with Leonardo's astrological chart, it seems to me she also needs to explain this:  http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl\_crosscollex/brbldl/oneITEM.asp?pid=2002046&amp;iid=1006202&amp;srchtype=ITEM [yale.edu] .
It's another page with the same animal in the center, the same word under it (complete with what Sherwood interprets as an inserted "r" above the word), fifteen tub ladies (dressed this time), all holding stars in their outstretched hands instead of on "strings.
"  No babies in sight that I can see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297996</id>
	<title>wikipedia article</title>
	<author>memnock</author>
	<datestamp>1259600040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the 3rd reference:<br>Manly, John Matthews (1931). "Roger Bacon and the Voynich MS". Speculum 6 (3): 345-391. doi:10.2307/2848508+.</p><p>has a "+" at the end of the doi that doesn't belong there. i think the article's editor is part of the conspiracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the 3rd reference : Manly , John Matthews ( 1931 ) .
" Roger Bacon and the Voynich MS " .
Speculum 6 ( 3 ) : 345-391. doi : 10.2307/2848508 + .has a " + " at the end of the doi that does n't belong there .
i think the article 's editor is part of the conspiracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the 3rd reference:Manly, John Matthews (1931).
"Roger Bacon and the Voynich MS".
Speculum 6 (3): 345-391. doi:10.2307/2848508+.has a "+" at the end of the doi that doesn't belong there.
i think the article's editor is part of the conspiracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30302202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30308286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30308202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30304402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30304720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30305182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30303642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30302320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30303132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30306964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30308896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_027236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299856
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30305182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297828
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301436
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30303642
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30308896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30308202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296762
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296744
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30304720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30304402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30299272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30296612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30300230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30306964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30302202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30302320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30301372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30303132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30308286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_027236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30297268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_027236.30298096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
