(Q - ??: just say it's not Sarah otherwise for 3 weeks she'll tell you it's me who found it.)
(Q - Sarah Vargas: I'll stop you, I'll stop you.)
MB: I love Sarah, I love Sarah. She was very kind. Good evening Sarah, she was very nice to me, she kissed me at Lingot d'Art and if she asks me to say it's her, well I would say it's her, but I know Sarah, she won't ask me.
(Q -Sarah Vargas Yes, that's exactly it. On the other hand, you have questions Michel, so can I listen to you?)
MB: Yes, I have questions. I have questions which are linked to how I am going to express that, which are linked to the perception at the level, at the group level, I am not talking at the level of the community of players because the community of owls doesn't mean anything. There are people who are connected, not connected, involved, less involved, but at the level of the people who are there and with whom I exchange or who listen to me frequently, I will be interested to know why between what happens when I am there and when we exchange and what happens outside my presence, what I can roughly reconstruct in the writings when I go through them. I would be interested to know why there is such a difference.
Why, when we are in direct contact, it seems that we understand each other and that everything is going well and why when I am no longer there, there is a distance that is reinstated, that is reestablished and we say yeah but in the end , why do we put things into perspective so much when I'm not there and why does everything seem so clear when I'm there?
It's a real question that I ask myself, which implies that there may be on the part of the people who exchange with me on this discord a part of doubt, a part of skepticism I don't know what we can call that which is completely legitimate, eh! It's allowed for everyone. I'm not offended either but I would like to understand exactly between the density of our exchanges and then what seems to be the, this kind of collusion that there is between us, ultimately, between the organizer on the one hand and then the participants with whom he exchanges on the other. And then this distance which reestablishes itself immediately behind practically when I am no longer there, I would like to understand why this mechanism occurs.
(Q - Tonton Nono: There are, there are divisive elements, for example when you talk about simplicity, there are groups who will take simplicity to its extreme and others will say no, it can't be that simple. A hunt for a million and so on. There are divisive elements like that, there are plenty of them. a little.)
(Q - Immortal Tofu: Good evening Michel, yes, well it's immortal tofu the pirate. In fact I think that what often happens is that you say something Michel, sometimes it's very clear at the moment but it is very clear in a different way for each individual and when we talk about it afterwards, I think that there is a desire for everyone to see either black or white, so sometimes it's biases in relation to his game because our game is rather black so we want to understand it in a rather black way And then sometimes, we want to understand it, rather in a white way because that suits us. and maybe your idea was rather to say well no, it's gray, in fact, it's neither black nor white and in fact, at the moment everyone seems to have understood. when we discuss it afterwards, well we realize that we haven't understood everything and that in fact this little sentence, I'm taking an example of my own because I'm having a discussion with a friend about it.
On the 2nd card, I said to myself yeah, well Michel says that the 2nd card but when you take Michel's words on the 2nd card, ultimately, maybe it's still necessary, but not completely, and cetera et cetera. And my friend tells me well no in fact for me it is really clear, there is no need for a 2nd card and then finally, when you came back to it and came back to it, then I say well in fact there I am OK now I understood, for me it was necessarily biases in relation to my game but but after a while I did well rephrase it as you rephrased it later. well I did well yes, there it's clear, there are no other interpretations, I have to face the facts and I think that's the problem is that when we are in direct contact, we think we have understood. And when we talk to each other, we realize that we each really have different things. )
MB: I understand, it’s an explanation that is completely convincing.
(Q - Sarah Vargas: I'll stop you, I'll stop you.)
MB: I love Sarah, I love Sarah. She was very kind. Good evening Sarah, she was very nice to me, she kissed me at Lingot d'Art and if she asks me to say it's her, well I would say it's her, but I know Sarah, she won't ask me.
(Q -Sarah Vargas Yes, that's exactly it. On the other hand, you have questions Michel, so can I listen to you?)
MB: Yes, I have questions. I have questions which are linked to how I am going to express that, which are linked to the perception at the level, at the group level, I am not talking at the level of the community of players because the community of owls doesn't mean anything. There are people who are connected, not connected, involved, less involved, but at the level of the people who are there and with whom I exchange or who listen to me frequently, I will be interested to know why between what happens when I am there and when we exchange and what happens outside my presence, what I can roughly reconstruct in the writings when I go through them. I would be interested to know why there is such a difference.
Why, when we are in direct contact, it seems that we understand each other and that everything is going well and why when I am no longer there, there is a distance that is reinstated, that is reestablished and we say yeah but in the end , why do we put things into perspective so much when I'm not there and why does everything seem so clear when I'm there?
It's a real question that I ask myself, which implies that there may be on the part of the people who exchange with me on this discord a part of doubt, a part of skepticism I don't know what we can call that which is completely legitimate, eh! It's allowed for everyone. I'm not offended either but I would like to understand exactly between the density of our exchanges and then what seems to be the, this kind of collusion that there is between us, ultimately, between the organizer on the one hand and then the participants with whom he exchanges on the other. And then this distance which reestablishes itself immediately behind practically when I am no longer there, I would like to understand why this mechanism occurs.
(Q - Tonton Nono: There are, there are divisive elements, for example when you talk about simplicity, there are groups who will take simplicity to its extreme and others will say no, it can't be that simple. A hunt for a million and so on. There are divisive elements like that, there are plenty of them. a little.)
(Q - Immortal Tofu: Good evening Michel, yes, well it's immortal tofu the pirate. In fact I think that what often happens is that you say something Michel, sometimes it's very clear at the moment but it is very clear in a different way for each individual and when we talk about it afterwards, I think that there is a desire for everyone to see either black or white, so sometimes it's biases in relation to his game because our game is rather black so we want to understand it in a rather black way And then sometimes, we want to understand it, rather in a white way because that suits us. and maybe your idea was rather to say well no, it's gray, in fact, it's neither black nor white and in fact, at the moment everyone seems to have understood. when we discuss it afterwards, well we realize that we haven't understood everything and that in fact this little sentence, I'm taking an example of my own because I'm having a discussion with a friend about it.
On the 2nd card, I said to myself yeah, well Michel says that the 2nd card but when you take Michel's words on the 2nd card, ultimately, maybe it's still necessary, but not completely, and cetera et cetera. And my friend tells me well no in fact for me it is really clear, there is no need for a 2nd card and then finally, when you came back to it and came back to it, then I say well in fact there I am OK now I understood, for me it was necessarily biases in relation to my game but but after a while I did well rephrase it as you rephrased it later. well I did well yes, there it's clear, there are no other interpretations, I have to face the facts and I think that's the problem is that when we are in direct contact, we think we have understood. And when we talk to each other, we realize that we each really have different things. )
MB: I understand, it’s an explanation that is completely convincing.