To be is not to have...but is to have to be?
The teacher:
To be or not to be that is the question.
Student:
Why not to have or not to have?
The teacher:
Because the question is not to have. It is to be.
The student:
To be what?
The teacher:
Don't ask silly questions.
The student:
Don't make silly comments.
The Teacher:
They are not silly.
The student:
You don't say! What would you call them?
The teacher:
Decisions, nasty decisions...Jesus H. Christ...I really don't know...ah....you're getting me confused...orders, that's it, you could call them orders, like the ones I received from my mother and my father and my uncle and my teachers and....
The Student:
Oh that's great! You mean according to your warped reasoning I have to be. Be what?
The Teacher:
You should just be. That's all. No questions asked. Just be. Like me.
The Student:
God help me! You want me to be like you? Should I really? You want me to be like you? Not if I can help it!
The Teacher:
Of course you have freedom of choice. That means you can be or not be.
The Student:
How's that?
The teacher:
It's in the book.
The Student:
In what book?
The Teacher:
In my book.
The Student:
There's the problem! Your book is different from my book.
The Teacher:
That can't be!
The Student:
Why in the Hell can't it be?
The Teacher:
Because when I was a student my teacher said to be or not to be and if he said to be or not to be it by no means can be to have or not to have.
The Student:
Unless the teacher hasn't got the foggiest idea about why frogs are born in the water or why the pink panther is a Western sex symnbol or why being in love is something like being lost and being lost is not knowing where you are and ipso facto to be must be the explanation for why teachers insist with a total lack of logic that to be is the contrary of not to be because in order not to be you must know what to be is and if not to be means that you do not exist there is no way of finding out whether you are or are not.
To be or not to be that is the question.
Student:
Why not to have or not to have?
The teacher:
Because the question is not to have. It is to be.
The student:
To be what?
The teacher:
Don't ask silly questions.
The student:
Don't make silly comments.
The Teacher:
They are not silly.
The student:
You don't say! What would you call them?
The teacher:
Decisions, nasty decisions...Jesus H. Christ...I really don't know...ah....you're getting me confused...orders, that's it, you could call them orders, like the ones I received from my mother and my father and my uncle and my teachers and....
The Student:
Oh that's great! You mean according to your warped reasoning I have to be. Be what?
The Teacher:
You should just be. That's all. No questions asked. Just be. Like me.
The Student:
God help me! You want me to be like you? Should I really? You want me to be like you? Not if I can help it!
The Teacher:
Of course you have freedom of choice. That means you can be or not be.
The Student:
How's that?
The teacher:
It's in the book.
The Student:
In what book?
The Teacher:
In my book.
The Student:
There's the problem! Your book is different from my book.
The Teacher:
That can't be!
The Student:
Why in the Hell can't it be?
The Teacher:
Because when I was a student my teacher said to be or not to be and if he said to be or not to be it by no means can be to have or not to have.
The Student:
Unless the teacher hasn't got the foggiest idea about why frogs are born in the water or why the pink panther is a Western sex symnbol or why being in love is something like being lost and being lost is not knowing where you are and ipso facto to be must be the explanation for why teachers insist with a total lack of logic that to be is the contrary of not to be because in order not to be you must know what to be is and if not to be means that you do not exist there is no way of finding out whether you are or are not.
0 comentarios