We want dialogue. Insurance. Why in 15 years of dialogue there was too much. Maybe I should define a different monologue, but scadrei banal. Then if we consider that those who want the dialogue is he (or she ....) that dialectical logic has changed, then it's like trying to play the Mad Hatter with sollogismi. The rabbit is crazy leap, the sunsets are puppets to remove Saddam Hussein is alive. There. No no. No dialogue. "Dirty Communists Antitutto anti-liberal anti-democratic." No, not that I do not want the dialogue is because I am an SCAA Mh, how to explain.
Assume:
a child is kidnapped. The kidnapper says: If you give me 1 million euro kill him. The family decides to talk, and reach a mediation. The kidnapper gets € 999,999.99, in exchange for not killing the child. But do not return it.
Here the concept is this. I know you're too much a son of Troy to understand, small Aeneas. I know you think that after you save the child and the family is happy because it dies, and that in the end is inevitable, that if you give up the only dialogue that we have lost family members, and therefore it is better to talk. But in exchange for a criminal has it won. A criminal who never misses a chance to say that the baby smell, that the mother is a whore who the father is ipodotato that police investigating the case is a bunch of drunks, which in fact he has not kidnapped anyone, but is the child who came to him, that he really did not want to do that job there, but they are 15 years for others to oblige ... But if you place to talk about horses do not believe him: it is a hoax.
0 comments:
Post a Comment