(Q - ??: I would like to ask you a question about the map, that is to say that since the time you have had the map and at least the solutions, have you already drawn the
features on the map since time?)
MB: I promise things that I don't do, it's unbearable. Artists are boring for that, no it's terrible. So have I done the lines? I played one part, I'm not going to make it to the end [laughs]
(Q - ??: It's still something important, the golden owl, so, have you checked the features to find out if it falls right on the spot? area and to know if at least we arrive at something conclusive to find the sentries, etc. Is it a simple question?)
MB: It is indisputable that we arrive at something convincing. The question is whether it's very precise or not quite very precise, do we agree?
(Q: ??: No, we disagree!)
MB: So I didn’t really understand. What is the question then?
(Q: ??: With the data you have, the solutions you have, have you checked on the map? Does it match?)< /u>
MB: but the lines… There is no dispute about the lines on the map.
(Q - ??: But how can you know that because you didn't shoot them?)
MB: Oh, don't take me for a choirboy. I have a lot of elements in the solutions, everything is said in the solutions.
(Q - ??: Yes, elements of agreement, but the map is important for all players...!)
MB: Listen to me, you all know that for years, some people have been doing procedures that are based on claims that it's not accurate, it's a scam, it's this, it's that, nothing no longer goes…
No, but you listen to me anyway because it will answer your question.
This means that there is a kind of fashion that has set in where I should prove everything and the rest while ultimately there is nothing to doubt. I assure you that you can trust it.
After the debates we had on the lines, for me, that was not at all the point of drawing the lines.
It was that some people told me on the scans of the card, there is an inaccuracy, an error or I don't know what since it was made in... it was apparently scanned in 2 pieces which were connected. And the idea was to know if the reprint of this map was faithful enough to be able to draw the lines on it. I understood it like that.
(Q - ??: Very good, I listened to you Michel. Now. I have a 989 card that I ordered on the Internet, etc. If I trace my lines, I confirm certain things , in relation to Max Valentin, in relation to… You say it’s a filibuster…)
MB: The filibuster, if you want, it's good to talk about it too. The buccaneer you're referring to didn't exist when the game started. The filibuster is not Régis Hauser. When I started with Régis Hauser, everything was clear, we talked about it enough, etc. There was no notion of vagueness and none of most of the notions that emerged later in the Madits.
So what you are talking about, his features on this card, it is the basis of the game, it is part of the very basis of the game, it is part of the origin of the game. It is something that he had designed from the start and that's beautiful, we can build on it.
Where it goes or it goes in all directions is from the moment…
(Q - ??: But that's where the problem lies, Michel. So frankly, I have confidence in what you do, what you say, etc., but the problem is The fact is that if we haven't drawn the lines on the real map, the 989, to rely on it, we can't assure everyone that it's right. It's just physical. in a vocal, I have a 1m50 rule, I have a big table, I'm going to draw the lines and it's been a hell of a while I'm not upset, at some point, it would be good for you to tell us. the Chouetteurs: Yes, listen, so I took the card, I put it down, I drew, and we don't even have this information, it's a little. bit of a shame.)
MB: No, but I still come back to what I told you, I understand. But you are asking me for details on the origin of the game, on the elements which are at the origin of the game. (Michel is cut off)
If I may, that's something, if I may, it's something that annoys me a little because you're calling into question the very basics of the game. These basics no longer need to be called into question.
[Michel is cut off]
[Everyone speaks at the same time]
MB: I promise things that I don't do, it's unbearable. Artists are boring for that, no it's terrible. So have I done the lines? I played one part, I'm not going to make it to the end [laughs]
(Q - ??: It's still something important, the golden owl, so, have you checked the features to find out if it falls right on the spot? area and to know if at least we arrive at something conclusive to find the sentries, etc. Is it a simple question?)
MB: It is indisputable that we arrive at something convincing. The question is whether it's very precise or not quite very precise, do we agree?
(Q: ??: No, we disagree!)
MB: So I didn’t really understand. What is the question then?
(Q: ??: With the data you have, the solutions you have, have you checked on the map? Does it match?)< /u>
MB: but the lines… There is no dispute about the lines on the map.
(Q - ??: But how can you know that because you didn't shoot them?)
MB: Oh, don't take me for a choirboy. I have a lot of elements in the solutions, everything is said in the solutions.
(Q - ??: Yes, elements of agreement, but the map is important for all players...!)
MB: Listen to me, you all know that for years, some people have been doing procedures that are based on claims that it's not accurate, it's a scam, it's this, it's that, nothing no longer goes…
No, but you listen to me anyway because it will answer your question.
This means that there is a kind of fashion that has set in where I should prove everything and the rest while ultimately there is nothing to doubt. I assure you that you can trust it.
After the debates we had on the lines, for me, that was not at all the point of drawing the lines.
It was that some people told me on the scans of the card, there is an inaccuracy, an error or I don't know what since it was made in... it was apparently scanned in 2 pieces which were connected. And the idea was to know if the reprint of this map was faithful enough to be able to draw the lines on it. I understood it like that.
(Q - ??: Very good, I listened to you Michel. Now. I have a 989 card that I ordered on the Internet, etc. If I trace my lines, I confirm certain things , in relation to Max Valentin, in relation to… You say it’s a filibuster…)
MB: The filibuster, if you want, it's good to talk about it too. The buccaneer you're referring to didn't exist when the game started. The filibuster is not Régis Hauser. When I started with Régis Hauser, everything was clear, we talked about it enough, etc. There was no notion of vagueness and none of most of the notions that emerged later in the Madits.
So what you are talking about, his features on this card, it is the basis of the game, it is part of the very basis of the game, it is part of the origin of the game. It is something that he had designed from the start and that's beautiful, we can build on it.
Where it goes or it goes in all directions is from the moment…
(Q - ??: But that's where the problem lies, Michel. So frankly, I have confidence in what you do, what you say, etc., but the problem is The fact is that if we haven't drawn the lines on the real map, the 989, to rely on it, we can't assure everyone that it's right. It's just physical. in a vocal, I have a 1m50 rule, I have a big table, I'm going to draw the lines and it's been a hell of a while I'm not upset, at some point, it would be good for you to tell us. the Chouetteurs: Yes, listen, so I took the card, I put it down, I drew, and we don't even have this information, it's a little. bit of a shame.)
MB: No, but I still come back to what I told you, I understand. But you are asking me for details on the origin of the game, on the elements which are at the origin of the game. (Michel is cut off)
If I may, that's something, if I may, it's something that annoys me a little because you're calling into question the very basics of the game. These basics no longer need to be called into question.
[Michel is cut off]
[Everyone speaks at the same time]