Talk:Gordon Rugg

cleanup
Article requires an MOS scrubbing, categorization, wikification, and a GFDL image if available. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously unprofessional language here
"Rugg failed to explain the topicality of the manuscript, the natural prefix frequencies, the two-level word natural entropies and most other peer reviewed statistical properties in work by academic researchers, all of which his pseudo random pseudo scientific method miserably fails to duplicate. Rugg was able to get BBC publicity for his rugged research. What he lacked in substance, he made up by arrogance."

I am removing this paragraph until I can write it in a less aggressive and inflammatory fashion chrisboote (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Voynich Manuscript
At the end it says 'The debate continues.' While this is undoubtedly true, the sentence is not necessarily in WP style (though more appropriate than the section whose deletion is mentioned above). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)