(Q - Apollo: I do the black side.)
MB: But Apollo, Apollo, we still have to be clear at a given moment, I am asked to be clear, to be precise in my answers. I would like you to be clear in yours and in your intentions.
(Q - Apollo: But no, but in fact, the problem is that when you, when you finally say we're talking about the map, there when when you say things about the map, in fact there are interpretations and you say something that is interpreted in a way one day later you talk about the map again, you interpret it, and it's not clear in fact.)
MB: What's terrifying is that that's what...
(Q - Apollo: that's what immortal meant, I think.)
MB: Yes, yes yes, but I understood very well what Immortal meant. But I think there is one, there is something else. I would be interested in talking about it with you for a few minutes if you allow me, Apollo. There's something else in our exchanges, I think, eh. Finally, here I am, I give you my idea. Afterwards you are free to answer it and everyone can answer it. I think there is something else. I think there is from many of you, so not everyone. There is an intention.
You Apollo, that’s why I enjoy talking about it with you. You have a deliberately aggressive and suspicious intention, with a variable dosage sometimes you are not very aggressive, sometimes more, suspicious, you always are and you tend to have difficulty accepting to take at face value, what I can say . At least that's what I feel.
Other people will be much more flexible, will say well if he tells us it is because we consider it to be true.
So I think that on the part of my audience that you all are, that you constitute, there are different intentions. I notice that exchanges with Apollo are rarely completely peaceful, with others, it's fun, it's relaxed, it's quite easy to see, so the consequence of that is that inevitably, the perception, the way in which my comments are received is different depending on whether it is someone who is a little suspicious, who is a little reluctant, who is a little I don't know what to call it, you know that better than me. And then someone who is much more receptive, flexible, confident, who says well yes, yes OK, I take it as such and is already there it provokes debates which therefore certainly occur a posteriori once I have expressed, these debates intervene. I see the translation of it in the writings in part in any case and all that leads to endless debates about what I really wanted to say, yes, but ultimately is this what ultimately that and That doesn't seem very productive to me. This is what I feel. What do you think?
(Q - Apollo: We all have, we all have our characters, right?)
MB: But Apollo, of course, everyone has their own character. But I'm not talking about your character. Apollo, I'm talking about the consequences that this can have on trade. You are free to have your character. I don't blame you at all, eh? We are saying that everyone perceives my words differently and draws conclusions which can be completely variable and different.
How does the game play? Yes, but the game the game is not quite a game today because it is a game. But in the last 30 years, so much has happened. We had a key character, a predominant character who was the, the only character in the spotlight. For a long time, it was Max Valentin. It is important to understand how it works, even if sometimes it may seem a little unpleasant for some, surprising for others. And today, we are in a very different context. Firstly because I am confronted with in fact, I am confronted with 2 entities, I am confronted with the entity that you constitute as a participant in the game and I am confronted with another entity which is the entity of the protesters, which manifests itself through procedures, et cetera. There is not just one person, there is one person, but there is an association, there are different protagonists in this story who, each at their own level, contests something. I am confronted on one side with the community of players and on the other side with protesters.
And therefore, I am in a situation where my words must be precise, measured and thoughtful because on the one hand, I am addressing the players, so everything is fine, we exchange freely, we can correct the situation. We can clarify things, et cetera. On the other hand, I am constantly monitored and as is commonly said in television series, your comments could be used against you so all of this leads me to extreme precision. In any case, and above all, I try to never tell stories, lie, never lie, never lead people off on false leads, on false certainties, on approximations. I always try to be as factual and accurate as possible whenever possible. Once again, we're on a treasure hunt, I can't unpack everything, but I try to be as precise as possible and that's something that doesn't always work.
And I have the feeling, when I read a certain number of messages which follow my interventions, that a good number of my words, a good part of my words are called into question and put into perspective and reweighed re-weighed and finally loses its meaning .
(Q - ??:Michel it's the responsibility of each person's character. It's a game and no one was forced to participate. The goal is to still be able to, firstly to have fun, and it's not also to put a certain pressure on us whereas if people want to let off steam, they do it elsewhere than on the hunt for the golden owl, I don't see why they would have to talking to you like that or finally it's abuse.)
MB: No no no but that's not the meaning of my point, I mean, that compromises the scope of what I can provide in terms of information. The fact that these debates ultimately occur in the background means that where I think I have said important things, there will be this process of endless debate happening somewhere, which will take away from the scope of my words. and I find that a shame.
(Q - ??: Yes, on the scope of your remarks, I can understand, but on I mean on the character of people or the way of speaking about.)
MB: No, but I don't criticize everyone as they are, I accept it, I accept it, but I talk about it. I say this is what is happening from my side eh. This is how I feel. This is how I find that there is ultimately an alteration of the exchanges that we have because it is perpetually called into question re-examine relativize there is nothing to relativize.
(Q - Immortal Tofu: But isn't it also the exercise which is like that and which is very complicated for you because you have solutions which are precise, which are logical, which are really clear, but you cannot be as clear in the expression bah of the questions, et cetera Finally of the answers that you provide and and when you use a lot of images when talking about Greenland, when talking about the taste in the. mouth, well it's very pictorial things, very interpretable Because you can't tell us, Well in fact it's exactly that and in fact this exercise is very complicated for you because you sometimes are. very precise and very surgical in saying it's no, that's no. And there are very few discussions on these questions)
. (Q - ??: But excuse me excuse me, could you speak a little louder please?)
(Q - Immortal Tofu: No, otherwise I'll wake up my whole house.)
MB: That’s what makes it so charming. This veiled voice, everyone knows by now on the discord, it is. Listen, oyé oyé, good people.
(Q - Immortal Tofu: That's it and so I think that it's the exercise that wants that and it's complicated in my opinion to cut it short and there will always be interpretations unless you start to simply do, either you answer, yes no, or you say, I am not answering but as a result the exchanges would be much more restricted.)
(Q - ??: Yeah, if I may, even when I remember the said ones where he said this, I don't answer, there is no answer, even in these cases, the researchers still tried to adapt the response to the game they had and it is true that there is a certain imprecision on the part of Mr. Becker which is normal and that gives the researchers the opportunity to adapt what Michel Becker says in relation. to his game. And so we have this kind of where each person really tries to adapt what and inevitably, when we try to adapt to our solutions what Mr. Becker says it is sometimes imprecise, we don't know , we don't know where this is going to lead us, so we also question what I think some researchers question because what Mr. Becker says is not always related to what they found or looked for. . And so Ah well yes, wouldn't Mr. Becker be wrong in the end? (Q - ??: And then there are characters who don't know how to question their own certainties, yes too.)
MB: But Apollo, Apollo, we still have to be clear at a given moment, I am asked to be clear, to be precise in my answers. I would like you to be clear in yours and in your intentions.
(Q - Apollo: But no, but in fact, the problem is that when you, when you finally say we're talking about the map, there when when you say things about the map, in fact there are interpretations and you say something that is interpreted in a way one day later you talk about the map again, you interpret it, and it's not clear in fact.)
MB: What's terrifying is that that's what...
(Q - Apollo: that's what immortal meant, I think.)
MB: Yes, yes yes, but I understood very well what Immortal meant. But I think there is one, there is something else. I would be interested in talking about it with you for a few minutes if you allow me, Apollo. There's something else in our exchanges, I think, eh. Finally, here I am, I give you my idea. Afterwards you are free to answer it and everyone can answer it. I think there is something else. I think there is from many of you, so not everyone. There is an intention.
You Apollo, that’s why I enjoy talking about it with you. You have a deliberately aggressive and suspicious intention, with a variable dosage sometimes you are not very aggressive, sometimes more, suspicious, you always are and you tend to have difficulty accepting to take at face value, what I can say . At least that's what I feel.
Other people will be much more flexible, will say well if he tells us it is because we consider it to be true.
So I think that on the part of my audience that you all are, that you constitute, there are different intentions. I notice that exchanges with Apollo are rarely completely peaceful, with others, it's fun, it's relaxed, it's quite easy to see, so the consequence of that is that inevitably, the perception, the way in which my comments are received is different depending on whether it is someone who is a little suspicious, who is a little reluctant, who is a little I don't know what to call it, you know that better than me. And then someone who is much more receptive, flexible, confident, who says well yes, yes OK, I take it as such and is already there it provokes debates which therefore certainly occur a posteriori once I have expressed, these debates intervene. I see the translation of it in the writings in part in any case and all that leads to endless debates about what I really wanted to say, yes, but ultimately is this what ultimately that and That doesn't seem very productive to me. This is what I feel. What do you think?
(Q - Apollo: We all have, we all have our characters, right?)
MB: But Apollo, of course, everyone has their own character. But I'm not talking about your character. Apollo, I'm talking about the consequences that this can have on trade. You are free to have your character. I don't blame you at all, eh? We are saying that everyone perceives my words differently and draws conclusions which can be completely variable and different.
How does the game play? Yes, but the game the game is not quite a game today because it is a game. But in the last 30 years, so much has happened. We had a key character, a predominant character who was the, the only character in the spotlight. For a long time, it was Max Valentin. It is important to understand how it works, even if sometimes it may seem a little unpleasant for some, surprising for others. And today, we are in a very different context. Firstly because I am confronted with in fact, I am confronted with 2 entities, I am confronted with the entity that you constitute as a participant in the game and I am confronted with another entity which is the entity of the protesters, which manifests itself through procedures, et cetera. There is not just one person, there is one person, but there is an association, there are different protagonists in this story who, each at their own level, contests something. I am confronted on one side with the community of players and on the other side with protesters.
And therefore, I am in a situation where my words must be precise, measured and thoughtful because on the one hand, I am addressing the players, so everything is fine, we exchange freely, we can correct the situation. We can clarify things, et cetera. On the other hand, I am constantly monitored and as is commonly said in television series, your comments could be used against you so all of this leads me to extreme precision. In any case, and above all, I try to never tell stories, lie, never lie, never lead people off on false leads, on false certainties, on approximations. I always try to be as factual and accurate as possible whenever possible. Once again, we're on a treasure hunt, I can't unpack everything, but I try to be as precise as possible and that's something that doesn't always work.
And I have the feeling, when I read a certain number of messages which follow my interventions, that a good number of my words, a good part of my words are called into question and put into perspective and reweighed re-weighed and finally loses its meaning .
(Q - ??:Michel it's the responsibility of each person's character. It's a game and no one was forced to participate. The goal is to still be able to, firstly to have fun, and it's not also to put a certain pressure on us whereas if people want to let off steam, they do it elsewhere than on the hunt for the golden owl, I don't see why they would have to talking to you like that or finally it's abuse.)
MB: No no no but that's not the meaning of my point, I mean, that compromises the scope of what I can provide in terms of information. The fact that these debates ultimately occur in the background means that where I think I have said important things, there will be this process of endless debate happening somewhere, which will take away from the scope of my words. and I find that a shame.
(Q - ??: Yes, on the scope of your remarks, I can understand, but on I mean on the character of people or the way of speaking about.)
MB: No, but I don't criticize everyone as they are, I accept it, I accept it, but I talk about it. I say this is what is happening from my side eh. This is how I feel. This is how I find that there is ultimately an alteration of the exchanges that we have because it is perpetually called into question re-examine relativize there is nothing to relativize.
(Q - Immortal Tofu: But isn't it also the exercise which is like that and which is very complicated for you because you have solutions which are precise, which are logical, which are really clear, but you cannot be as clear in the expression bah of the questions, et cetera Finally of the answers that you provide and and when you use a lot of images when talking about Greenland, when talking about the taste in the. mouth, well it's very pictorial things, very interpretable Because you can't tell us, Well in fact it's exactly that and in fact this exercise is very complicated for you because you sometimes are. very precise and very surgical in saying it's no, that's no. And there are very few discussions on these questions)
. (Q - ??: But excuse me excuse me, could you speak a little louder please?)
(Q - Immortal Tofu: No, otherwise I'll wake up my whole house.)
MB: That’s what makes it so charming. This veiled voice, everyone knows by now on the discord, it is. Listen, oyé oyé, good people.
(Q - Immortal Tofu: That's it and so I think that it's the exercise that wants that and it's complicated in my opinion to cut it short and there will always be interpretations unless you start to simply do, either you answer, yes no, or you say, I am not answering but as a result the exchanges would be much more restricted.)
(Q - ??: Yeah, if I may, even when I remember the said ones where he said this, I don't answer, there is no answer, even in these cases, the researchers still tried to adapt the response to the game they had and it is true that there is a certain imprecision on the part of Mr. Becker which is normal and that gives the researchers the opportunity to adapt what Michel Becker says in relation. to his game. And so we have this kind of where each person really tries to adapt what and inevitably, when we try to adapt to our solutions what Mr. Becker says it is sometimes imprecise, we don't know , we don't know where this is going to lead us, so we also question what I think some researchers question because what Mr. Becker says is not always related to what they found or looked for. . And so Ah well yes, wouldn't Mr. Becker be wrong in the end? (Q - ??: And then there are characters who don't know how to question their own certainties, yes too.)