For some 'time in this part Latimer seems to have become the capital of morality. Just browse through some magazines and see some press releases, or stroll through the streets of the city and pointed out some posters and flyers of some party, to realize how many latianesi have committed against this phantom derived immorality ... the well-publicized - in negative terms - appointing technical staff.
Before making a necessary debate about who these latianesi "master morality" is just paying attention, not so much on staff, as well as on critical staff ... In practice, I wonder how you can criticize the ex ante future results of a working group, where there is still no result is liable to a real and objective verification.
Let me explain. I always thought that to get an idea based on something you must have an objective proof of that "something"; Now, how do you say today that the technical staff is unnecessary and represents a waste, when there is a total absence of objective evidence to confirm this theory?
I have always attached great importance to the words because you just need one too to give a different meaning to a sentence. Perhaps it would be fair to say that the coaching staff is an expense, but because to say a priori that this expenditure will certainly be a waste? It could not possibly represent the value added of the administration and be a good investment? You see how it changes the meaning of a sentence by changing a single word and using the word appropriate to the context (and not wasteful spending)?
My position - as I said - and remains vigilant favorably critical but far be it from me prior to blame the actions of someone without any kind of objective verification. What seems to me is that the right staff - now appointed - work in peace and show us all as soon as possible to its actual value. Only after the first results will be right to give opinions, the merit or demerit.
hours A brief reflection on the authors of this demagogic criticism. The authors of these posters, press releases, articles, posts, etc ... are all politically motivated individuals and opponents of the Mayor of De Giorgi in the last election campaign (apart from someone who is not even able to stand). That says a lot, do not you think? Our young mayor might also find the philosopher's stone and give it to the city, would be targeted by these people who are critical of demagoguery and dishonesty at the core of their arguments (which among other things shown in the last election campaign). Tell me, what can be objective and impartial in the words of those who are blinded by resentment and bitterness caused by the defeat? Why are these good intentions and words, today expressed with such vigor and commitment, when it was part of the majority not occurred in many useful interventions for the city? Or shall we consider useful the world's smallest roundabout in this way Francavilla, which may serve more to participate in the Guinness Book of Records for regular traffic ...?
My personal hope is that these controversies is not given ample space in the Municipal Councils (to exclude them would be futile to hope), the City Council must be that serious space-time frame where must necessarily be addressed the many problems of the country, which - in dialogue, discussing or even arguing heatedly - proposals must be possible solutions. Use the City Council to make demagoguery, screaming proclamations worthy of the worst election campaign, based on the dialectical process pitfalls resentment, as well as being unnecessary and disrespectful to the majority, is IRRAGUARDOSO to the voters - all voters - that they deserve the attention of people who have been elected is placed on the many problems of the city.
Finally let us not forget one thing: we agree that the immoral morality unleashed in recent weeks against the current administration is a direct consequence of resentment due to electoral defeat remedied 3 months ago but keep in mind that decides the outcome of the public were not elected. Those elected were only proposed, then the citizens were to have chosen.
So if the old majority did not win was because he probably will not believe ...?
probably ... probably the first people to vote have evaluated ....
... of course on the basis of objective evidence ...
Before making a necessary debate about who these latianesi "master morality" is just paying attention, not so much on staff, as well as on critical staff ... In practice, I wonder how you can criticize the ex ante future results of a working group, where there is still no result is liable to a real and objective verification.
Let me explain. I always thought that to get an idea based on something you must have an objective proof of that "something"; Now, how do you say today that the technical staff is unnecessary and represents a waste, when there is a total absence of objective evidence to confirm this theory?
I have always attached great importance to the words because you just need one too to give a different meaning to a sentence. Perhaps it would be fair to say that the coaching staff is an expense, but because to say a priori that this expenditure will certainly be a waste? It could not possibly represent the value added of the administration and be a good investment? You see how it changes the meaning of a sentence by changing a single word and using the word appropriate to the context (and not wasteful spending)?
My position - as I said - and remains vigilant favorably critical but far be it from me prior to blame the actions of someone without any kind of objective verification. What seems to me is that the right staff - now appointed - work in peace and show us all as soon as possible to its actual value. Only after the first results will be right to give opinions, the merit or demerit.
hours A brief reflection on the authors of this demagogic criticism. The authors of these posters, press releases, articles, posts, etc ... are all politically motivated individuals and opponents of the Mayor of De Giorgi in the last election campaign (apart from someone who is not even able to stand). That says a lot, do not you think? Our young mayor might also find the philosopher's stone and give it to the city, would be targeted by these people who are critical of demagoguery and dishonesty at the core of their arguments (which among other things shown in the last election campaign). Tell me, what can be objective and impartial in the words of those who are blinded by resentment and bitterness caused by the defeat? Why are these good intentions and words, today expressed with such vigor and commitment, when it was part of the majority not occurred in many useful interventions for the city? Or shall we consider useful the world's smallest roundabout in this way Francavilla, which may serve more to participate in the Guinness Book of Records for regular traffic ...?
My personal hope is that these controversies is not given ample space in the Municipal Councils (to exclude them would be futile to hope), the City Council must be that serious space-time frame where must necessarily be addressed the many problems of the country, which - in dialogue, discussing or even arguing heatedly - proposals must be possible solutions. Use the City Council to make demagoguery, screaming proclamations worthy of the worst election campaign, based on the dialectical process pitfalls resentment, as well as being unnecessary and disrespectful to the majority, is IRRAGUARDOSO to the voters - all voters - that they deserve the attention of people who have been elected is placed on the many problems of the city.
Finally let us not forget one thing: we agree that the immoral morality unleashed in recent weeks against the current administration is a direct consequence of resentment due to electoral defeat remedied 3 months ago but keep in mind that decides the outcome of the public were not elected. Those elected were only proposed, then the citizens were to have chosen.
So if the old majority did not win was because he probably will not believe ...?
probably ... probably the first people to vote have evaluated ....
... of course on the basis of objective evidence ...
Daniel Pascariello
