This an argument ad hominem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I dont think is a strong argument

I also dont know what think about it. :) Ok. About the Ur-Cartolaio bolognese origin we have this clues: 1) Since the early fifteenth century was a flourishing industry of cards in Bologna, a city with university atmosphere. The University of Bologna enjoyed great prestige and attracted students fro...

Is Cary Sheet datation around 1500 (or two decades before as Ross noted a few days ago) considered doubtful to you ? Or do you mean that the Cary Sheet may not have been targeted at a "cheap" audience ? Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp! Somebody can explain me this, please? I can not the Ross explica...

A Cartolaio, btw. and only very likely as I'm not an expert in this, was a writing material or bookseller, not naturally an artist, who produced playing cards ... though it might have been occasionally also his business to sell playing cards. A document of 1559 gives this latter impression, but gen...

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=541&start=190#p10004

Are you saying that because Ur-Cartolaio was a Renaissance man that his thinking and invention would have been confined within the limits of what he read in Petrach, Dante and the Bible with no room for manoeuvre? Hi friend! :) No, sorry. I resume. I think in the century XV exists many authors who ...

LOL!

I dont know this funny Chickenmancy.

Thanks, dr bartolo!

Well... assume these points are true. 1. That the game... 2. That this person... [Can I named him the "Ur-cartolaio"? :) ] 4. That the hierarchy and the subjects of the trumps had to be obvious... OK. Now we can imagine Ur-cartolaio in her house. Sure, it seems a person creative, intellige...

OK. I understand. Thanks friend.

Ok, I need think your first post, and after I can answer.

Dear Pen, thanks for this very interesting development. %%- %%- %%- Its a good starting point for many interesting reflections. I need think about your exposure before responding, but I have some doubts. 7. War: a chariot <- why not the fame? 8. Fortune: <- why not the "vanitas"? (thats mi...