Occasionally, the supplement business editors colluding directly or indirectly criticizing the Mediterranean way of life in general and working meals in particular. I understand there are executives who write against that time for Affairs of the workday, with more or less valid arguments, depending on the organizational approach where text is. But do the rest think equal? I do not agree. Long ago, also listened to Mr. Marin, who was President of the Congress of Deputies, expressing their disagreement with the working lunches, although he introduced a nuance or residual comment: the long after meals.
Well, agreement, fully justified exceptions, I agree with Mr. Marin in censuring these excesses (coffee, Cup and pure). But what to eat?: does sensations?, do perceptions?, do senses?, do emotions?, cover a physiologic need? eating to live? feed themselves? I think that is all that together and this all adds more than parties. Are we entering the age of the emotions or are still anchored in the age of the cold? Don’t confuse the bacon with speed. Amit paley brings even more insight to the discussion. I have come to read that work meals is the same who ask how is your family? and other rarities and dialectical anomalies that I avoid pronouncing in this forum. Obviously, the person who thinks that asking for the family is an unnecessary Act of relations is because he thinks that those who do are hypocrites or something similar Yes?; the person who thinks that in meals for work not work and represents an unnecessary expense for the company is because he thinks that others do not work in a working lunch Yes?. Well, we could also think that the hypocrite is he and the Playboy he is Yes?