17. You are sitting in an empty bar (in a town you’ve never before visited), drinking Bacardi with a soft-spoken acquaintance you barely know. After an hour, a third individual walks into the tavern and sits by himself, and you ask your acquaintance who the new man is. “Be careful of that guy,” you are told. “He is a man with a past.” A few minutes later, a fourth person enters the bar; he also sits alone. You ask your acquaintance who this new individual is. “Be careful of that guy, too,” he says. “He is a man with no past.”
Which of these two people do you trust less?
Is both an allowable answer? I mean seriously. I don't even trust the "causal acquaintance" that's telling me of the past-ful and past-less men. And besides, what does "he's a man without a past" even mean? Of course he has a past, unless he's been frozen in ice up until he walked into the bar...but even then he has a past but he just doesn't know what it is. I don't think there's really a right answer here. A man with no past could be a loner looking for a freind, or could be some psychotic serial killer who's also a loner. OR. The man with a past could have a nice happy past, and have a generally even kealed disposition, or he could have a horrid past of abuse, neglect & terror and could be some psychotic serial killer. If I had to chose, I'd trust the guy with no past less...because at least the guy with a past would have something to talk about.