??

How correct is it that you barge some one without letting the person complete what he / she was saying? You dont let the person complete and neither do you let the person give explanation.
Scene:
Person A accusses Person B of being lethargic. This accusation has been going on for too long. Person B tries to explain on number of occasion, but A is NEVER in a mood to listen to explanations. Therefore A always is under own assumptions. At the same time, A is very much at fault. If you want B to do a certain task, then why is it that you have to tell B about it only at the 11th hour. Can B NEVER be intimated about the task well in hand? When this is a task that is decided before hand? How can B be called as lethargic? Remember B also has other tasks in hand that also need to be completed. There are times when these tasks need more attention. A only is of the opinion that the task assigned is the most important task. Why should all the tasks that A assigns are important?

Person C is always in the background and has been a witness to most of such accusations. One fine day C finally decides that A needs to be told that B is not at fault. So the accusations better stop. C with the kind permission of A, starts telling A that B is not at fault. A does not even listen to the complete sentence and starts barging C. Now the whole issue is side lined and A hurls all that is possible at C.

Was C interfering? Remember it was with the permission of A that C did start speaking. Is C at fault? That C was trying to protect B from A? Is it wrong to side the person who is right and stand up against who is inflicting wrath for no reason on some one who is absolutely innocent?

Does C not have a standing as a person? How fair is it that A hurls all the nonsense possible at C, without letting C complete?