(Q - Isidore: concerning the pseudo keys between the enigmas you told us that the enigmas generally take us to places and that from place to place we advance, not all of them - there are certain enigmas we
starts from a place found before, if we do not have this place we have no little chance of finding the place to which this enigma will take us since we do not have the starting point therefore this point
starting point creates a link with the previous puzzle or another before)
(Q - nlc: why do you need your location to find the solution to the enigma I don't understand?)
(Q - Isidore: to solve the enigma no, but for example when it has measurements of so much, if you don't know your starting point, you can hardly know where you are going)< /i>
(Q - nlc: there are no measurements that start from the location of the previous enigma, everything is linked to the current enigma)
(Q - Isidore: the enigma actually starts from a point, example in 650 it has to be there)
(Q - nlc: who tells you that this is not one of the two which requires an element of the previous enigma and that the key to passage is not precisely that)
(Q - Isidore: I was asking Michel the question)
MB : Isidore, you are incorrigible, do you know it or are you pretending? You are right to be uncomfortable because the way to approach the current situation is the following, either we say to ourselves that Father Becker is messing up, he hasn't understood everything, he is telling us things but he is going to go wrong, there are 2 ways to take things:
- either you Isidore or others you accept that I intervene and you say OK he does the job he is serious, he tries to understand he discusses with us, he spends a lot of time, in which case we try to progress
- either you continue to say, to think, without seeming to do so and it's even more vicious than if you seemed to, that maybe I haven't understood everything, if you're in this state of mind, if when I say there are no passage keys apart from 2 enigmas, as I have just explained where it is necessary to use an element of the previous one for the decryption of the next one , apart from these 2, either you walk in the thing, we work together, or you continue to have your feet on the brake, in which case it is hopeless because every time you have a doubt, you will hold on to your foot on the brake and tell yourself, well, maybe he doesn't really know what he's saying, that maybe he didn't quite understand, so if we're at that point, well, listen, it's okay inevitably get stuck at some point. I mean that at some point you have to accept that this game exists, in which a character intervened who played a role that I personally find fascinating and fascinating but toxic, but that's the story it's not no longer there, he acted, I was going to say he cracked down but that's a little wink because he didn't just crack down, there was genius in what he did too, he left his mark so from there we agree to take the thing back all together and say OK there is a real exchange and we try to move forward or we gradually erase, that is to say I say something we continue by saying yes but he says that but finally he says the same thing with other words and then hop, after a while we are back to the starting point.
(Q - nlc: don't worry, there are plenty of people listening, Isidore does what he wants, stick to these ideas..)
MB : Isidore is as interesting as the others I don't want to leave him on the sidelines, I like him Isidore, he serves as an example to us as a refractory and scholar of the mad, obviously I encourage him to let go of something he's been clinging to for a long time, don't you blame me Isidore?
(Q - nlc: why do you need your location to find the solution to the enigma I don't understand?)
(Q - Isidore: to solve the enigma no, but for example when it has measurements of so much, if you don't know your starting point, you can hardly know where you are going)< /i>
(Q - nlc: there are no measurements that start from the location of the previous enigma, everything is linked to the current enigma)
(Q - Isidore: the enigma actually starts from a point, example in 650 it has to be there)
(Q - nlc: who tells you that this is not one of the two which requires an element of the previous enigma and that the key to passage is not precisely that)
(Q - Isidore: I was asking Michel the question)
MB : Isidore, you are incorrigible, do you know it or are you pretending? You are right to be uncomfortable because the way to approach the current situation is the following, either we say to ourselves that Father Becker is messing up, he hasn't understood everything, he is telling us things but he is going to go wrong, there are 2 ways to take things:
- either you Isidore or others you accept that I intervene and you say OK he does the job he is serious, he tries to understand he discusses with us, he spends a lot of time, in which case we try to progress
- either you continue to say, to think, without seeming to do so and it's even more vicious than if you seemed to, that maybe I haven't understood everything, if you're in this state of mind, if when I say there are no passage keys apart from 2 enigmas, as I have just explained where it is necessary to use an element of the previous one for the decryption of the next one , apart from these 2, either you walk in the thing, we work together, or you continue to have your feet on the brake, in which case it is hopeless because every time you have a doubt, you will hold on to your foot on the brake and tell yourself, well, maybe he doesn't really know what he's saying, that maybe he didn't quite understand, so if we're at that point, well, listen, it's okay inevitably get stuck at some point. I mean that at some point you have to accept that this game exists, in which a character intervened who played a role that I personally find fascinating and fascinating but toxic, but that's the story it's not no longer there, he acted, I was going to say he cracked down but that's a little wink because he didn't just crack down, there was genius in what he did too, he left his mark so from there we agree to take the thing back all together and say OK there is a real exchange and we try to move forward or we gradually erase, that is to say I say something we continue by saying yes but he says that but finally he says the same thing with other words and then hop, after a while we are back to the starting point.
(Q - nlc: don't worry, there are plenty of people listening, Isidore does what he wants, stick to these ideas..)
MB : Isidore is as interesting as the others I don't want to leave him on the sidelines, I like him Isidore, he serves as an example to us as a refractory and scholar of the mad, obviously I encourage him to let go of something he's been clinging to for a long time, don't you blame me Isidore?