“We know we are right. We don't need to offend anyone.". This is what we wrote two weeks ago in response to letters from Federisf "executives" who, through a surreptitious exposition of the facts, tried to divert the attention of colleagues from the possible reunification of the Associations to the dialectical skirmish for its own sake.
In the aforementioned press release we wrote that “we feared” the reaction of “former colleagues” who, having nothing else to do, devoted their time, and that of their children, perhaps lawyers, to attacking ISF who they considered their enemies.
We feared the action of these “former”, dazzled only by the casual management of their daily reality which often leads them to boast of non-existent merits. The forced removal of these "formers" from the national trade union organization is indicative. The incident is presented by the "ex" to unaware colleagues, not as a fact immediately but as a "resignation presented" for "the love of the ISF".
We have tried to avoid any dialectical skirmish with people who talk for the sake of talking and hoped to engage in serious discussions and, why not, disputes with shrewd and aware interlocutors. We wanted to avoid these skirmishes only because we were certain that this would distract attention from the real objective: the reunification of the Associations. For this reason we decided not to respond even to the most irritating offenses and insults.
We trusted in the common sense of our colleagues in business.
Unfortunately these last two weeks, intense for the AIISF, committed to serving the interests of the category it represents, have been punctuated by defamatory letters mystified as the work of an active ISF. Obviously, these letters were anonymous, but not even so anonymous, because defamation, not separated from self-celebration, is the other characteristic that has always distinguished the aforementioned "exes". You know, anonymity allows you to say what you want without having to answer to anyone; Allows you to switch from the subject of the discussion to the person of the discussant; It allows you to prove yourself right and do it as many times as you want, a bit like fraudulent surveys where everyone can answer an infinite number of times, you just need to find a new pseudonym each time. And it goes without saying that those who legitimize anonymous for various reasons e
