cptgaio

@Kosmo: the problem is that until the mid-2000s (I can't remember the year), the rights holders of the photo (not the one who took it, namely Ebbetts) didn't even know who had taken it, and Ebbetts had died about thirty years earlier, to the point that a private investigation was commissioned to establish the authorship, so the various claims about "how" it was taken should always be taken with a grain of salt since the author himself never talked about it. Interestingly, the only "protagonist" of the photo whose identity is known is actually a Native (Jonh "Awkesane" Cook), and he always claimed that there were no "protective measures" underneath. It is highly likely that the other famous photo by Ebbetts, "Men asleep on a Girder," was the one that was "constructed"

The vote

As far as the photo is concerned, there have often been debates about its authenticity, but no evidence supporting the idea of a fake has really survived much, so I think it's fair to consider it authentic. The matter of the "natives" is also true, as it is, I don't know if it has already been mentioned in the previous comments, that at least one is present in the photo (with a bit of attention, you can spot it).
P.S. There's a typo in the title of the photo: "skyscraper" not "skycraper."

Don't worry... It's fine.

Hi! Thank you for the visit…and for the appreciation! The story of the daughter of the she-wolf is a painful matter that, unfortunately, too many have forgotten here (as mentioned, the historical memory here often stops at breakfast) but that I have personally always avoided digging up (in this case, I prefer the pacifism of Gandhi rather than that of Bertrand Russell): anyway, it's nice that someone remembers it. Take care.

"Russell has a new philosophy every 5 years while Moore has never had any." I'll let you guess whose quote it is, and you can choose which of the two options you find more "honorable." 😉

As mentioned, I will only discuss the topic of the review and nothing else (I have covered that sufficiently, even in a concise manner, when necessary). I remain at your disposal.

Vortex, honestly, I don't really understand what you mean (not that I'm particularly interested, to be honest, given the premises). The review is about Russell as a popularizer in general and Einstein in particular (and also, indirectly, about who I consider the best contemporary Italian popularizer, namely Odifreddi), and certainly not about the philosopher or the pacifist, period. You can agree with whoever you want about the rest (Fiquata, in this specific case): I never sought consensus (neither general nor, let alone, yours). To explain the concept, I return to the old Russell, who was a somewhat unconventional pacifist (during World War II, he labeled Gandhi's proposal to let the German invasion of Britain proceed so that they could be "civilized" with "reason" as absurd, approving, in extreme cases, even the use of force) and who, throughout his long life, "tried" many ideologies (as a young man, he even supported eugenic ideas, but fortunately changed his mind later), proving not to be an idiot who never changes their mind. I mention this because I (not to get closer to Russell, goodness gracious!) in a certain sense adopt this "politics" (to quote a well-known Turkish intellectual, I am a pacifist, not a peaceful one) so I respond to "idiotic" provocations, if I see them (but I try to do so remaining on a dialectical level). The idea of me being a "moralizer," a "paternalist," etc., is an invention of some debaserian minds. If someone, in this forum or in life, from my perspective, says nonsense, I point it out; if I find someone annoying (for various reasons), I let them know; if someone has, from my point of view, few or uninteresting arguments, I point that out too. In your case, I don’t like the way you approach conversations (but it’s a personal matter, just like the fact that I find certain of your viewpoints, in general, devoid of any logic, so don’t take it too personally), and so I tell you (as I have in the past) noting that I'm not particularly interested in interacting with you, being prepared for the fact that you might think the same of me (nema problema), unless the "confrontation" is mandatory, as in this case. The confusion regarding my being a "moralizer" or "paternalist" probably stems from the fact that I generally try to "moderate" my vocabulary without resorting to vulgarity, insults, or making it personal (with one user in particular, I do get personal, to be honest, but only because it’s mutual, and I certainly didn’t start it; plus, I enjoy watching them sink so low...): now I know that on this site, a certain type of "smartass" attitude is more appreciated than mine, but to confuse that with "moralizer" or "paternalist" is a stretch (and speaks volumes about the average user’s comprehension abilities on this site), yet it’s hardly for such reasons that I intend to change my approach (as stated, I leave the search for consensus to others). So summarizing: to the first nonsense from the Venetians that have nothing to do with the rest of the human assemblage, grasping the sarcasm, I responded equally sarcastically; you replied somewhat resentfully (insinuating, annoyingly, about my "lack of balance"), so I tried to explain my attitude as aseptically as possible (without hiding what I think of you, I like to be honest and direct: one thing that escapes me is that many debaserians consider this "slippery," and honestly, I find it quite "oxymoronic") and my doubts. Unfortunately, I haven’t been brief, but I hope you read this entire post carefully to understand that I have no polemical intent but only clarifying one. Take care. P.S. If there are no issues directly related to the topic of the review or regarding it, I believe I can also withdraw: greetings to everyone, both beautiful and ugly.

Vortex, are you here or just playing? Back to your first "beota" post about Veneto (62) (and come on, be precise, it’s not about "Vicentine magnagatti" but rather "what do the Venetians have to do with the rest of humanity?"), I responded in a "beota" way (64 and 65), and then to that "offended" one (67: and it is, let’s not beat around the bush, please) I replied in a "serious" manner (68). Well, it’s clear that around here, historical memory ends at breakfast, but it’s all written down, dear: I don’t understand the reference to Russell (apart from being the subject of the review). I mean, someone who talks about Russell has to give up responding, especially in a nuanced way? (I think you’re confusing him with the good, great soul of Gandhi). See why you’re not a good interlocutor? You keep moving the goalposts of the conversation (both in setup and content) and honestly, I don’t like this way of proceeding.

If it's the case, I'll reply to you tomorrow, because I really have to go now.