MB: It would be terrible, it would be terrible.
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: Either they keep their convictions, then they stick to messages that are sincerely for me…)
MB: We cannot take away their beliefs, it is not possible.
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: Oh well yes, from the moment…)
MB: Oh well no. They are absolutely incapable of changing the minds of the Daboists.
(Q - Xavier D'Homan: From the moment the person who has the solutions still tries to tell them you were wrong, they will follow suit even if we are disappointed. Me, I am a convinced Daboist, Michel If tomorrow you invalidate the nave, that is to say, you say the nave, it is not Dabo, even if I am disappointed, at least we are starting again on a basis. says okay, we made a mistake, even if it hurts, we'll start again, but the problem is that the interpretation of the messages is not clear. -to say that we speculate, we are told perhaps, then the non-Daboists say “Ah, but you saw, Michel invalidated Dabo”, and then the Daboists will say “perhaps not, perhaps not So, we still remain, once again, sure of the interpretation Either, you give us a clear message by telling us “That's all, now, I'm going to help the Daboists and the non-Daboists. because if tomorrow, I say, it is not on Dabo's side, you will not undermine hunting since on one side or the other automatically people will go elsewhere. But here, we're on something that's going to take another 15 years and we're still going to have the interpretations, we're still going to have this kind of thing during the little squabbles, the arguments, that's just it. This is to avoid being disappointed. That is to say, if tomorrow we are told that it is not Dabo, well too bad, it is not Dabo, even if we have looked for 30 years. But I won't stop hunting if it's not Dabo. That is to say, I'm not going to say to myself, oh well no, it's not Dabo, I'm going to stop. No. If I am convinced that it is around Dabo, I will not stop the hunt, if tomorrow I am told that it is not Dabo, I will look elsewhere.)
MB: You're hot there, Xavier, huh.
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: Ah, but no, I’m not hot Michel.)
MB: Oh yes yes, you’re boiling hot there.
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: Excuse me Michel because the problem is…)
MB: No, but that’s not a criticism at all. No, no, I feel you are very involved in... Ah yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a devouring passion.
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: Ah that)! But the problem is that you have to understand that it is an all-consuming passion. But we're not... I'm not someone... For example, it's personal, I'm not above it. That is to say, I'm not saying... I can admit that I was wrong for 30 years, without problem, Michel. That is to say that tomorrow, I could admit, I could be ridiculed, no problem. But at least...)
MB: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, Xavier, we are far from that. No, no, no, what I mean is that I know your reasoning well and you forget that one thing is my position. You speak as if I have free rein. You speak as if I had free rein, as if I could validate, invalidate, respond, tock, tock, tock, in relation to an operation, let's call it that, which has been taking place for more than 30 years now.
It's so complex. The problem, the real problem is there. It's impossible for an organizer today, that's my case, I'm arriving for 2 years, 2 and a half years, ok, I'm entering history after almost 30 years, and I talking about when I started, it is not possible for me to act as if we were starting from scratch. I am obliged to integrate everything that has happened, the convictions of some, the convictions of others, in particular this extraordinary squabble between the Daboists and the anti-Daboists, which moreover dates back to a remote era and which today today could not happen because if the debate started today, I don't think we would have anti-Daboists, we would have non-Daboists.
The anti-Daboists testify to a bias, a proselytizing desire to convince others that they are wrong. That goes back to 30 years ago. And I don't have the tools to interrupt this squabble, to stop it, to erase it. So, there are always, and there will surely still be for a while, daboists and anti-daboists, it's a bit in the DNA of hunting today.
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: Either they keep their convictions, then they stick to messages that are sincerely for me…)
MB: We cannot take away their beliefs, it is not possible.
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: Oh well yes, from the moment…)
MB: Oh well no. They are absolutely incapable of changing the minds of the Daboists.
(Q - Xavier D'Homan: From the moment the person who has the solutions still tries to tell them you were wrong, they will follow suit even if we are disappointed. Me, I am a convinced Daboist, Michel If tomorrow you invalidate the nave, that is to say, you say the nave, it is not Dabo, even if I am disappointed, at least we are starting again on a basis. says okay, we made a mistake, even if it hurts, we'll start again, but the problem is that the interpretation of the messages is not clear. -to say that we speculate, we are told perhaps, then the non-Daboists say “Ah, but you saw, Michel invalidated Dabo”, and then the Daboists will say “perhaps not, perhaps not So, we still remain, once again, sure of the interpretation Either, you give us a clear message by telling us “That's all, now, I'm going to help the Daboists and the non-Daboists. because if tomorrow, I say, it is not on Dabo's side, you will not undermine hunting since on one side or the other automatically people will go elsewhere. But here, we're on something that's going to take another 15 years and we're still going to have the interpretations, we're still going to have this kind of thing during the little squabbles, the arguments, that's just it. This is to avoid being disappointed. That is to say, if tomorrow we are told that it is not Dabo, well too bad, it is not Dabo, even if we have looked for 30 years. But I won't stop hunting if it's not Dabo. That is to say, I'm not going to say to myself, oh well no, it's not Dabo, I'm going to stop. No. If I am convinced that it is around Dabo, I will not stop the hunt, if tomorrow I am told that it is not Dabo, I will look elsewhere.)
MB: You're hot there, Xavier, huh.
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: Ah, but no, I’m not hot Michel.)
MB: Oh yes yes, you’re boiling hot there.
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: Excuse me Michel because the problem is…)
MB: No, but that’s not a criticism at all. No, no, I feel you are very involved in... Ah yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a devouring passion.
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: Ah that)! But the problem is that you have to understand that it is an all-consuming passion. But we're not... I'm not someone... For example, it's personal, I'm not above it. That is to say, I'm not saying... I can admit that I was wrong for 30 years, without problem, Michel. That is to say that tomorrow, I could admit, I could be ridiculed, no problem. But at least...)
MB: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, Xavier, we are far from that. No, no, no, what I mean is that I know your reasoning well and you forget that one thing is my position. You speak as if I have free rein. You speak as if I had free rein, as if I could validate, invalidate, respond, tock, tock, tock, in relation to an operation, let's call it that, which has been taking place for more than 30 years now.
It's so complex. The problem, the real problem is there. It's impossible for an organizer today, that's my case, I'm arriving for 2 years, 2 and a half years, ok, I'm entering history after almost 30 years, and I talking about when I started, it is not possible for me to act as if we were starting from scratch. I am obliged to integrate everything that has happened, the convictions of some, the convictions of others, in particular this extraordinary squabble between the Daboists and the anti-Daboists, which moreover dates back to a remote era and which today today could not happen because if the debate started today, I don't think we would have anti-Daboists, we would have non-Daboists.
The anti-Daboists testify to a bias, a proselytizing desire to convince others that they are wrong. That goes back to 30 years ago. And I don't have the tools to interrupt this squabble, to stop it, to erase it. So, there are always, and there will surely still be for a while, daboists and anti-daboists, it's a bit in the DNA of hunting today.