Well, now were down to it then. You must now agree that a small amount of precise criticism gets everyone right to the point.
You don't need verbosity, you don't need eloquence, you need a suscint point.
"democratic pluralism" is it, now. How about etymological nonsequituir?
Politicians are verbose, they do that to give everyone something to find in their words.
It is a waste of time.
The only thing now we disagree with as I understand it is the "TRUTH".
The problem with your thinking is that as ecumenical and erudite as your words are, you think, at bottom line in terms of black and white. Very weak.
You care what the "truth" is. Big bulletin for you, and politely put, too, it doesn't matter.
What matters is what works, how it works, and what are the ramifications.
[the following is an optional homework assignment, not necessary for the final exam on the analysis of this post, which will be straight pass/fail]
Or as Bob Dylan would say,
"The Princess and the Prince discuss what's real and what is not,
And there are no Truths outside the Gates of Eden"
I could go on....
Relationships of ownership,
they whisper in the wings,
to those condemned to act accordingly,
and wait for succeeding Kings,
and I try to harmonize with songs,
the lonely sparrow sings,
and deep inside there are no words
but these to tell what true,
.....There ARE no truths outside the Gates of Eden. |
