______________________________________________________________________________________________________
In the middle of the scenary there is a table with three chairs. On the chair on the right John is sat, on the middle one Marie and on the left one Kate.
John: I think potatoes are yellow.
Marie: I fully agree.
John: Oh, I am glad you agree with me.
Kate: I also fully agree.
Marie: What you said is undeniable.
Kate: I agree with you, Marie.
John: Me too. My arguement is undeniable.
Marie: I am glad you agree with the fact that I agree with John's arguement.
Kate: I am glad you are glad with the fact that we agree with the fact that you agree with Jhon's arguement.
John: I am glad that both of you agree with my perspective and that you feel glad that you agree with me.
Marie: I am glad that you are glad that we share your perspective, it is a good perspective by the way.
Kate: Of course, your perspective is quite intresting. A good perspective is built though the combination of several others perspectives well built just like yours.
John: In fact, perspectives are intresting due to the fact that others perspectives do exist and that arguements are made through discrimination and Socratic philosophy.
Marie: Of course, the perspective is elevated to the perspectivity constant to create a well formed perspective in combination with with other well formed perspectives.
John: The perspectivity constant is basic when making an arguement, since this defines the perspectivation and respectivity of a well formed arguement and an intresting phrase related to other intresting phrases formed through arguements elevated to the perspectivity constant.
Marie: I am glad you consider the perspectivity constant so important when defining the perspectivity of an arguement and its respective respectivity and at the same time a properly formed phrase based on others properly formed phrases which are based on well formed arguements elevated to the perspecivity constant.
Kate: The perspectivity consant is equal to squared Ciceron plus the ammount of words, am I right?
John (dissapointed): Jesus, Kate. You sound as if you have never read the Ciceron on greek. This way you lose the main arguement. The perspectivity constant is given by the Real Academia Española; and it depends on which kind of arguement it is applied on. If your perspective is based on phrases formed by arguements, the perspectivity constant will be diferent than if your perspective is based on arguements formed by phrases.
Marie: If I am not mistaken, I believe than in the first case, the perspectivity constant is equal to one. However, on the second case, I believe it is equal to the historical context minus the squared root of Descartes.
Kate: Like Decartes said once, I only know I know nothing at all. Sorry for my mistakes.
John: Marx said that. Either way, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Marie: Kate, you have obviously never read Socrates.
John: they are wonderful.
Marie: and brilliant.
John: and wonderful.
Marie: and brilliant.
Kate: and just ok.
John: they are fine.
Marie: I agree, Socrates' books are a piece of sh*t.
Kate: this is just too much for me. I shall leave.
(Kate stands up and leaves)
John: what do you think about president Bush?
Marie: what do YOU think about president Bush?
John: I asked you first.
Marie: I asked you second.
John: we all know and it is a convention that first is always more important than second.
Marie: unless positions are inverse.
John: an image on inverse proportionality cannot exist if X is equal to cero.
Marie: But Bush is not cero. He may be corrupt, but not cero.
John: He is cero. He was useless and crappy. He is obviously a cero. An annoying cero that only annoyed me.
Marie: He may be negative, and an image on inverse proportionality does exist if X is negative!
John: I told you he is a cero.
Marie: Well, if X is cero, the image tends to infinite. Ergo, you must give me infinity opinions about Bush.
John (annoyed): Fine. Bush, Bush plus one, Bush plus two, Bush plus three...
Marie (interrupting): That is fine, as long as I get the tendency that is enough.
Both remain awkwardly on silence for some seconds.
John: Did you know that, when I went to Cuba, a guy told me that La Española was an island?
Marie: An island or a dock?
John: A dock.
Marie: A dock?
John: Yes, a dock.
Marie: A dock?!
John: a dock!
Marie: A DOCK?!
John (yelling while banging the table): LA ESPAÑOLA IS AN ISLAND!
Marie: Oh, it is good to have that clarified.
Jhon: Indeed it is.
Again, they remain in silence for about ten seconds.
Marie: It is so late. I should be going. And...I don't think I am coming back.
John: Awww, what a bummer.
Marie: I am sorry, good luck with your life.
John: Ok, see ya next time!
Marie (she stands up): Jhon...goodbye...
Marie leaves crying.
John: In retrospect, they are mostly white.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This has a purpose by the way, there is a kind of criticism hidden in this dialogue, it is not all random ♥♥♥♥ (though a lot of it is lol).
Hope you enjoyed. And sorry for the bad grammar.
