Yes / It appears that in September, 2011, Rome experienced much more than a dialogue on dialogic pedagogy but a gladiatorial clash of personalities and ideas. Heat, we are told, was generated (above, p.1) and in the dissipation of this heat on to the page, even the reader gets hot and flushed. We are told that arguments “fail” (above, p.16); that terms “are not clearly defined” (p.21), breakthroughs in classification (e.g. epistemological dialogical pedagogy) are tackled and dragged down to personal eccentricities “his so-called epistemological dialogical pedagogy” (p.22), politeness tries to get a grip periodically, “I agree. But maybe I agree with Kiyo only to a point” but shouting (e.g. capital letters/underlining terms – e.g. “NOT the exclusive practice” (p.26)) and assertions take over. Accusation fly - sometimes to the point of legal charges “I charge the Epistemological Pedagogical Dialogue II with...” (p.29).