This is the third time I'm writing this review. First one was my fault, second effing GR's. Eff you! Eff you! But I'm a quite persistent and try as you might, you won't get rid of my review as easily, effing GR! It's just made me more determined to get on with it.NOT INFORMATIVE, NOT A REVIEW. READ ON AT YOUR OWN RISK.The jury finds Socrates guilty.Me thinks the reason for that was not "corrupting the young, and by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel" or his horrible misogyny, but for his arrogance or for forcing everybody to listen to him for hours on end in his raspy, old-man voice. Honestly, no matter, how enamoring the subject, if the medium is so improper, you will get bored.Or perhaps even for his habit of likening men, and the people judging him were mere men, to horses.Indeed, when mares and colts proved insufficient, he moved onto comparing demigods, who were revered, to mules.Like, dude.  Socrates fancies and poses himself as the entirety of the courtroom- the jury, the accused/defendant, the accuser and the audience. Moreover, he goes on to tell them in not these precise terms that they all are stoo-pid and eeg-norant. What an ass you are, mister. Truly.Of course, I liked him, or at least appreciated him to a certain level, in the same manner that I appreciate the character of Yagami Light. But besides all that, I was quite fascinated by this work and admit that it's a piece of philosophical and literary writing(oration?) of monumental significance. So I had all those wonder eyes that take over the real me whenever I read something intellectual and it was about to end and I was enamored but then this dude goes and I think that they were a dishonor to the state, and that any stranger coming in would say of them that the most eminent men of Athens, to whom the Athenians themselves give honor and command, are no better than women.Fuck!Did he have to? Especially considering that he was one of the first public 'ruminators' on gender equality. Of course, all those expectations were based on hearsay but damn. Certainly, I didn't expect him to be some sort of ancient, Greek suffragette movement instigator and definitely, those were the times and thinking of then but that's no excuse.I almost rated it one-star but forced myself to think. Will you let some bad stuff overshadow this fabulous experience? Or will you judge it on the quality of matter, instead of the quality of orator? I don't know which one is right, but as you see, the latter one won out.