(Q - ??: And then he says good night.)
MB: Oh yeah, then he breaks up, he goes to celebrate his birthday and get on with it. That's spitting Brybry!
This is reality, this is reality. Gringos is a different style. But both of them, ultimately, stage their words, their thoughts, with the intention, conscious or not, to influence, to capture the audience and obviously to influence it, but even more to capture it , I think.
(Q - Droopy: Brybry, he still brings together a substantial sum, madits, midis. It's not for nothing that I called him the archivist, but he is well in there eh, things can come up for you…)
MB: It's not a Droopy criticism, it's just a way of saying..., sometimes you have to be careful because there are some who are very good on the microphone.
(Q - Droopy: Yeah to set the mood and praise...)
MB: For example, at the moment, Brybry is drinking whey…
(Q - Brybry: that's true too.)
(Q - Droopy: Oh well, Michel, are you a soothsayer or what? Michel, he saw Brybry on his kitchen table with a glass of milk.)< br />
MB: No, but seriously, when we manage to understand that, when we listen to these news channels, to take the initial example, very good example. I mean, we inevitably, by their staging, there is an impact on our heart rate, on our mind. And we are, we are caught in spite of ourselves, unless we cut the sound. And for example, if we read the lips of journalists, we would not have at all the same perception of what they are saying, that is a good example of how..., to restore a little neutrality to the comments , so as not to get carried away.
Another absolutely brilliant example of someone who talks about anything and everything is Tompoucex. Well, he has a flow, an intonation, et cetera, and he makes everyone laugh, he annoys a lot of people, but he holds the stage. So at some point, some people say or write, well yeah yeah, Tompoucex is right. Tompoucex, he is looking for the 1 of 2, he has no idea where it is and long live the Eiffel Tower. But there are some who manage to say oh yeah yeah Tompoucex is right. Because he does it that way.
But yes, there are so many parameters that come into play in the way of understanding and as far as I am concerned, I know perfectly well that the opinions of each other, for example a Giulio Fumastella who I fired this evening because I find it very indigestible. These people have preconceptions, graft intentions onto my character that I obviously don't have, like settling scores with Max Valentin or God knows what and giving my words or trying to give my words a tone that they don't have, that is to say a tendentious bias and that influences the way in which everyone can pick up on what I say. When in fact, I try when I can, because there are times when I can't because it would spoil the game.
But when I can express myself in a normal way, we will say, the terms I use are always to be taken at face value. Finally, there is no..., as long as it is not a question of Pierrette's writing or things like that, where the terms have to be carefully examined and can be taken for a lot, at first degree, for the most part even.
But in my usual words, when…,
(Q - ??: Michel, with all due respect, it's not just first degree because you're a player, you have a way of playing on words too. my opinion eh, it's my humble opinion, you also throw things, little flicks of words, in the vocals which make you jump or not, because they saw it or they didn't see it, they have understood it or not, they make the players jump, you still have…, you're not just in the first place when you speak, eh. That's what I meant. …, you're a smartass, if I may put it that way.)
MB: So, I can’t say the opposite. Not that I'm a smart guy, but the fact that I play with words a bit. And when we..., it's always when it comes to flirting with sensitive points of the game, but the words themselves, for those that we must remember, are to be taken at face value.
MB: Oh yeah, then he breaks up, he goes to celebrate his birthday and get on with it. That's spitting Brybry!
This is reality, this is reality. Gringos is a different style. But both of them, ultimately, stage their words, their thoughts, with the intention, conscious or not, to influence, to capture the audience and obviously to influence it, but even more to capture it , I think.
(Q - Droopy: Brybry, he still brings together a substantial sum, madits, midis. It's not for nothing that I called him the archivist, but he is well in there eh, things can come up for you…)
MB: It's not a Droopy criticism, it's just a way of saying..., sometimes you have to be careful because there are some who are very good on the microphone.
(Q - Droopy: Yeah to set the mood and praise...)
MB: For example, at the moment, Brybry is drinking whey…
(Q - Brybry: that's true too.)
(Q - Droopy: Oh well, Michel, are you a soothsayer or what? Michel, he saw Brybry on his kitchen table with a glass of milk.)< br />
MB: No, but seriously, when we manage to understand that, when we listen to these news channels, to take the initial example, very good example. I mean, we inevitably, by their staging, there is an impact on our heart rate, on our mind. And we are, we are caught in spite of ourselves, unless we cut the sound. And for example, if we read the lips of journalists, we would not have at all the same perception of what they are saying, that is a good example of how..., to restore a little neutrality to the comments , so as not to get carried away.
Another absolutely brilliant example of someone who talks about anything and everything is Tompoucex. Well, he has a flow, an intonation, et cetera, and he makes everyone laugh, he annoys a lot of people, but he holds the stage. So at some point, some people say or write, well yeah yeah, Tompoucex is right. Tompoucex, he is looking for the 1 of 2, he has no idea where it is and long live the Eiffel Tower. But there are some who manage to say oh yeah yeah Tompoucex is right. Because he does it that way.
But yes, there are so many parameters that come into play in the way of understanding and as far as I am concerned, I know perfectly well that the opinions of each other, for example a Giulio Fumastella who I fired this evening because I find it very indigestible. These people have preconceptions, graft intentions onto my character that I obviously don't have, like settling scores with Max Valentin or God knows what and giving my words or trying to give my words a tone that they don't have, that is to say a tendentious bias and that influences the way in which everyone can pick up on what I say. When in fact, I try when I can, because there are times when I can't because it would spoil the game.
But when I can express myself in a normal way, we will say, the terms I use are always to be taken at face value. Finally, there is no..., as long as it is not a question of Pierrette's writing or things like that, where the terms have to be carefully examined and can be taken for a lot, at first degree, for the most part even.
But in my usual words, when…,
(Q - ??: Michel, with all due respect, it's not just first degree because you're a player, you have a way of playing on words too. my opinion eh, it's my humble opinion, you also throw things, little flicks of words, in the vocals which make you jump or not, because they saw it or they didn't see it, they have understood it or not, they make the players jump, you still have…, you're not just in the first place when you speak, eh. That's what I meant. …, you're a smartass, if I may put it that way.)
MB: So, I can’t say the opposite. Not that I'm a smart guy, but the fact that I play with words a bit. And when we..., it's always when it comes to flirting with sensitive points of the game, but the words themselves, for those that we must remember, are to be taken at face value.