(Q - Exalastro: and yeah, it's that and knowing what to do with it. But it's that side…)
MB: it's the trick, it's this thing which, there you go...besides, in parentheses, if we talk about the trick, let's continue on this path a little, it seems interesting to me, if we talk about the trick and we put it in parallel with its author, was Max Valentin a genius, was he a normal guy? Was he a basic guy…
(Q - Exalastro: you already answered that, we can guess that it's going to be basic and that at the end, when we have the book of solutions, we're going to say...)
MB: I mainly said that it was normal. In any case, I never described him as being a genius, so it's the same, the level of complexity of the trick, it is necessary, if you want, I have already mentioned it, but I believe that it It's interesting to come back to it. I think you have to put yourself in the shoes of a profiler when he analyzes the profile of a suspect, or when he analyzes or tries to define what the profile of the culprit is, without knowing him or he analyzes a suspect by saying, could this be the culprit, this profiler will already base himself on knowledge, we will say completely established, relatively precise elements. It is not the majority of the arguments on which he will base himself, but afterwards he will work on intuition and then he will work on understanding the relationship between the character and the circumstances in which the facts occurred.
The character is a communicator. The circumstances in which the facts occurred were the creation of a product intended to be sold to a sponsor.
So we are dealing with someone who sells by mail, who writes texts which are intended to tempt readers. You stay completely in the thing, what?
MB: it's the trick, it's this thing which, there you go...besides, in parentheses, if we talk about the trick, let's continue on this path a little, it seems interesting to me, if we talk about the trick and we put it in parallel with its author, was Max Valentin a genius, was he a normal guy? Was he a basic guy…
(Q - Exalastro: you already answered that, we can guess that it's going to be basic and that at the end, when we have the book of solutions, we're going to say...)
MB: I mainly said that it was normal. In any case, I never described him as being a genius, so it's the same, the level of complexity of the trick, it is necessary, if you want, I have already mentioned it, but I believe that it It's interesting to come back to it. I think you have to put yourself in the shoes of a profiler when he analyzes the profile of a suspect, or when he analyzes or tries to define what the profile of the culprit is, without knowing him or he analyzes a suspect by saying, could this be the culprit, this profiler will already base himself on knowledge, we will say completely established, relatively precise elements. It is not the majority of the arguments on which he will base himself, but afterwards he will work on intuition and then he will work on understanding the relationship between the character and the circumstances in which the facts occurred.
The character is a communicator. The circumstances in which the facts occurred were the creation of a product intended to be sold to a sponsor.
So we are dealing with someone who sells by mail, who writes texts which are intended to tempt readers. You stay completely in the thing, what?