(Q – Roc: I have a comment to make to Michel, you know that the Christmas holidays are starting soon and we will have a lot of time to mill around and to search, because well, several
between us are going to be on leave, so it's good that you came this evening to kick the anthill a little and to provoke us to look for more.)
MB: But for example, another subject that I am pleased to address this evening, which is very controversial, I made a written intervention a few days ago to talk again about the Europe 1 program where Max Valentin is interviewed. So, I was stunned to see the outcry saying yeah, it's not good, you're attacking Max Valentin, you're still attacking him.
I wanted to say something. I wanted to say something, I hope a lot of people will be able to hear it. Why do we allow ourselves to go through and dissect Michel Becker's vocals and why would it be unhealthy, dishonest, unwelcome to go through the few minutes of Max Valentin's vocals.
What I tried to do by saying you heard how he speaks, you heard his intonation, that is, I did what you do with me.
Everyone dissects me vocally. Everyone peels, everyone interprets, everyone tries to understand something that might be induced, a stutter, a hesitation, a hobby…. You know this famous “dada” which had nothing to do with Dabo, but too bad, letting those who believe it believe it. Why shouldn't we have the right to do that with the few minutes of Max Valentin's recording? Explain me ? Does anyone have an answer for this?
(Q - Roc: Well Michel, there are only one or two who criticized you on that, because…)
MB: there are more than that, but for all that, I say it anyway, because when people tell me you push us to examine the character of Max Valentin, we are in psychology, ... What is it? what are you doing with me? This is exactly what they do with me. So I say for the understanding of the game, here I provide an element, by saying listen carefully.
And listen carefully, what we had to hear is that the guy who is there at a given moment, who is not very comfortable in the interview for his own reasons and that 'we can imagine, he says anyway, at one point, I had to intervene on a surprise rally, he had been saying for years that he was a great specialist in surprise rallies, then where he is caught short, where he doesn't really control the interview, he says a surprise rally. My belief is that he only made one, eh.
But what did I want to emphasize, through that, I wanted to emphasize that, the way, as I have said 150 times, it's not a scoop, eh, but I was trying to support a little little trick, the demonstration, to say, we are dealing with someone who is literary and who built his hunt like the surprise rally on which he had to work, and drawing strong inspiration, probably from masquerade.
These are the 2 points of reference which are his, which were his, sorry, and I wanted to put that forward to you, to emphasize it to you so that you can, if necessary, take advantage of it.
But it is for, it is to emphasize that there are two standards, that is to say that we must remain much more, much more calm in the debates, which I myself do not I don't always manage to do this, but for all that we must remain calm, that is to say that I accept that I am being recorded, I accept that we go through everything, that we interpret, that we dissect, etc., whatever you want, you have to accept that the other way around, it can work too, eh.
And that everyone can find themselves recorded, there are still players here who listen, there are players who listen to the recordings and who cannot stand when they are recorded themselves.
Which is a bit paradoxical and which shows to what extent there are different treatments of information, different approaches depending on who is speaking and who is listening. And that can lead, perhaps by thinking about that, to a little more open-mindedness to say OK, there is information on both sides, there are things to understand and in particular to come back very briefly to the evolution of my words through the vocals, well it is linked to all that, to this evolution, to this learning of exchange, of what is happening among the Chouetteurs etc.
(Q - ??: Michel, you said it yourself, you can't please everyone and you shouldn't be offended by these people who are anchored anyway or crystallized in a past that no longer exists MB: But I don't take offense Roc, I don't take offense, I blow their minds, I blow their minds because they're going to listen to this recording if they're not there. so I'm having fun.
(Q – Roc: I understand you and I approve of you!)
MB: but I'm not offended at all, eh, I'll do it again, eh.
MB: But for example, another subject that I am pleased to address this evening, which is very controversial, I made a written intervention a few days ago to talk again about the Europe 1 program where Max Valentin is interviewed. So, I was stunned to see the outcry saying yeah, it's not good, you're attacking Max Valentin, you're still attacking him.
I wanted to say something. I wanted to say something, I hope a lot of people will be able to hear it. Why do we allow ourselves to go through and dissect Michel Becker's vocals and why would it be unhealthy, dishonest, unwelcome to go through the few minutes of Max Valentin's vocals.
What I tried to do by saying you heard how he speaks, you heard his intonation, that is, I did what you do with me.
Everyone dissects me vocally. Everyone peels, everyone interprets, everyone tries to understand something that might be induced, a stutter, a hesitation, a hobby…. You know this famous “dada” which had nothing to do with Dabo, but too bad, letting those who believe it believe it. Why shouldn't we have the right to do that with the few minutes of Max Valentin's recording? Explain me ? Does anyone have an answer for this?
(Q - Roc: Well Michel, there are only one or two who criticized you on that, because…)
MB: there are more than that, but for all that, I say it anyway, because when people tell me you push us to examine the character of Max Valentin, we are in psychology, ... What is it? what are you doing with me? This is exactly what they do with me. So I say for the understanding of the game, here I provide an element, by saying listen carefully.
And listen carefully, what we had to hear is that the guy who is there at a given moment, who is not very comfortable in the interview for his own reasons and that 'we can imagine, he says anyway, at one point, I had to intervene on a surprise rally, he had been saying for years that he was a great specialist in surprise rallies, then where he is caught short, where he doesn't really control the interview, he says a surprise rally. My belief is that he only made one, eh.
But what did I want to emphasize, through that, I wanted to emphasize that, the way, as I have said 150 times, it's not a scoop, eh, but I was trying to support a little little trick, the demonstration, to say, we are dealing with someone who is literary and who built his hunt like the surprise rally on which he had to work, and drawing strong inspiration, probably from masquerade.
These are the 2 points of reference which are his, which were his, sorry, and I wanted to put that forward to you, to emphasize it to you so that you can, if necessary, take advantage of it.
But it is for, it is to emphasize that there are two standards, that is to say that we must remain much more, much more calm in the debates, which I myself do not I don't always manage to do this, but for all that we must remain calm, that is to say that I accept that I am being recorded, I accept that we go through everything, that we interpret, that we dissect, etc., whatever you want, you have to accept that the other way around, it can work too, eh.
And that everyone can find themselves recorded, there are still players here who listen, there are players who listen to the recordings and who cannot stand when they are recorded themselves.
Which is a bit paradoxical and which shows to what extent there are different treatments of information, different approaches depending on who is speaking and who is listening. And that can lead, perhaps by thinking about that, to a little more open-mindedness to say OK, there is information on both sides, there are things to understand and in particular to come back very briefly to the evolution of my words through the vocals, well it is linked to all that, to this evolution, to this learning of exchange, of what is happening among the Chouetteurs etc.
(Q - ??: Michel, you said it yourself, you can't please everyone and you shouldn't be offended by these people who are anchored anyway or crystallized in a past that no longer exists MB: But I don't take offense Roc, I don't take offense, I blow their minds, I blow their minds because they're going to listen to this recording if they're not there. so I'm having fun.
(Q – Roc: I understand you and I approve of you!)
MB: but I'm not offended at all, eh, I'll do it again, eh.