(Q - Xavier D'Homan: Yes, but then you consider that what you said previously, that is to say..., I am not looking for a conviction, I am not looking for
not to finish…)
MB: What did I say before?)
(Q - Xavier D'Homan: Previously, it started with, you gave a direct response from Léon, that is to say that you put in Latin “Non habemus papam”, not of pope That is to say that in the head of a Daboist, automatically, automatically, that is to say not even a Daboist, that is to say those who use the nave, that's it. Dabo. That means no pope, therefore no nave, so the debate revolves around that.)
MB: That's a sweeping deduction. If I operate like you operate, Xavier, I'll ruin the game in 5 minutes. But do you realize to what extent your reasoning is cut into a rough shape? But anyway, no, no, no, Xavier, forgive me. I say there is no pope, there is no pope. I didn't say, there is no rock, there is no chapel, there is no Léon, there is not everything you want. I say, there is no pope. When you talk to me about a pope, you talk to me about a pope. I was not asked if there was a chapel, if there were religious buildings. We've already talked about this. I already answered. It's good. But I am told, is there a Pope in the hunt? There is no Pope in the hunt. Full stop.
(Q - Manuella: That's it, it's already starting to get annoying there.)
MB: I'm not angry, I'm as passionate as the players. And so, from time to time, I get carried away, but I don't lose my temper.
(Q - Manuella: In any case, hello Michel, it's nice to hear you.)
MB: Hello, it’s mutual. It doesn't make me happy to hear it, but I understand that it could possibly bring you a little something. No, but to be serious, sincerely, you absolutely must not work with a sickle like you do. I don't have the power. I consider that I have duties towards the players above all else. And I try not to abuse the power, this time, that the role of organizer of the game gives me. Because I know that at least one person before me has abused it, I know the consequences, and I don't want to repeat that, certainly not. I don't want to do the same thing again, reproduce the same pattern.
(Q - Xavier: Finally, Michel, I would like to make it clear that I do not work with a sickle, that is to say that it is not me who interprets. That is to say -to say, I, on the contrary, said to myself, be careful, Michel said something, that, for example, he is talking about a pope, but that does not mean that he is talking about the rest around. Be careful. , it's not me who says, he said that, he talks about the pope, he perhaps invalidates a pope, the fact of being interested in religion, that's it. , yes, there is no nave, no Dabo, there is no Fontainebleau, he didn't say that. So, I don't cut it, personally, on the contrary, I try. to get the essence of what you say…)
.
MB: Yes, no, but I agree Xavier, but there is still a nuance between making deductions from a certain number of my writings or my comments, and generating, because we push the debate or too far the ball, generate controversies. Controversies are questions, they are questions about questioning. Like, yeah, but you're asking this question, but are you sure that by asking this question, you're not going to this…, This is what's happening a lot on the Discord right now. And I find that at some point it becomes a little perverse. And you, Xavier, are one of the people who have, this is my point of view, this is only my opinion, but I think you won't mind, who have, in my opinion, a great intelligence, a very good way of asking questions and, after a while, the questions are so pleasant to ask that after a while, you end up in controversy. You yourself are controversial about the first questions you ask. You come back to it, you add more and we don't take it out anymore. We are not in a state affair, we are in something which is relatively accessible, I would even say very accessible to most people, and therefore, we must not get into endless controversies.
(Q - Xavier: No but it's good to put things straight, at least we know...)
MB: No, but I'm trying to tell you, you know, it's not criticism, it's commentary. I would be in a bad position to criticize anyone on this Discord, given that I myself, in my comments, have evolved, etc. Everyone has the right to do it and everyone does it to the best of their ability, it is visible and that is why we are progressing. But I'm not criticizing at all. I try to stay in the explanatory comment to be able to share my feelings with you.
And it's true that it happens to me, it's rare, it's very rare, but I sometimes listen to you in Loucedé. And in those moments, I hear things that sometimes make me howl with laughter. Honestly, sometimes I burst out laughing. And sometimes I say to myself, ah, why are they pushing the ball so far? These are the two poles, in fact, of my reactions. It's a shock, I burst out laughing. Suddenly, I say to myself, but why are they pushing the debate so far? Why don't they stop at normal, quote, normal questions? We ask ourselves the question. OK, we ask ourselves the question. Well yes, but you ask the question, but if however, then when the ifs multiply, ah, then it becomes less comfortable and often it involves many in piles of suppositions, of calculations. That's what I was trying to define.
MB: What did I say before?)
(Q - Xavier D'Homan: Previously, it started with, you gave a direct response from Léon, that is to say that you put in Latin “Non habemus papam”, not of pope That is to say that in the head of a Daboist, automatically, automatically, that is to say not even a Daboist, that is to say those who use the nave, that's it. Dabo. That means no pope, therefore no nave, so the debate revolves around that.)
MB: That's a sweeping deduction. If I operate like you operate, Xavier, I'll ruin the game in 5 minutes. But do you realize to what extent your reasoning is cut into a rough shape? But anyway, no, no, no, Xavier, forgive me. I say there is no pope, there is no pope. I didn't say, there is no rock, there is no chapel, there is no Léon, there is not everything you want. I say, there is no pope. When you talk to me about a pope, you talk to me about a pope. I was not asked if there was a chapel, if there were religious buildings. We've already talked about this. I already answered. It's good. But I am told, is there a Pope in the hunt? There is no Pope in the hunt. Full stop.
(Q - Manuella: That's it, it's already starting to get annoying there.)
MB: I'm not angry, I'm as passionate as the players. And so, from time to time, I get carried away, but I don't lose my temper.
(Q - Manuella: In any case, hello Michel, it's nice to hear you.)
MB: Hello, it’s mutual. It doesn't make me happy to hear it, but I understand that it could possibly bring you a little something. No, but to be serious, sincerely, you absolutely must not work with a sickle like you do. I don't have the power. I consider that I have duties towards the players above all else. And I try not to abuse the power, this time, that the role of organizer of the game gives me. Because I know that at least one person before me has abused it, I know the consequences, and I don't want to repeat that, certainly not. I don't want to do the same thing again, reproduce the same pattern.
(Q - Xavier: Finally, Michel, I would like to make it clear that I do not work with a sickle, that is to say that it is not me who interprets. That is to say -to say, I, on the contrary, said to myself, be careful, Michel said something, that, for example, he is talking about a pope, but that does not mean that he is talking about the rest around. Be careful. , it's not me who says, he said that, he talks about the pope, he perhaps invalidates a pope, the fact of being interested in religion, that's it. , yes, there is no nave, no Dabo, there is no Fontainebleau, he didn't say that. So, I don't cut it, personally, on the contrary, I try. to get the essence of what you say…)
.
MB: Yes, no, but I agree Xavier, but there is still a nuance between making deductions from a certain number of my writings or my comments, and generating, because we push the debate or too far the ball, generate controversies. Controversies are questions, they are questions about questioning. Like, yeah, but you're asking this question, but are you sure that by asking this question, you're not going to this…, This is what's happening a lot on the Discord right now. And I find that at some point it becomes a little perverse. And you, Xavier, are one of the people who have, this is my point of view, this is only my opinion, but I think you won't mind, who have, in my opinion, a great intelligence, a very good way of asking questions and, after a while, the questions are so pleasant to ask that after a while, you end up in controversy. You yourself are controversial about the first questions you ask. You come back to it, you add more and we don't take it out anymore. We are not in a state affair, we are in something which is relatively accessible, I would even say very accessible to most people, and therefore, we must not get into endless controversies.
(Q - Xavier: No but it's good to put things straight, at least we know...)
MB: No, but I'm trying to tell you, you know, it's not criticism, it's commentary. I would be in a bad position to criticize anyone on this Discord, given that I myself, in my comments, have evolved, etc. Everyone has the right to do it and everyone does it to the best of their ability, it is visible and that is why we are progressing. But I'm not criticizing at all. I try to stay in the explanatory comment to be able to share my feelings with you.
And it's true that it happens to me, it's rare, it's very rare, but I sometimes listen to you in Loucedé. And in those moments, I hear things that sometimes make me howl with laughter. Honestly, sometimes I burst out laughing. And sometimes I say to myself, ah, why are they pushing the ball so far? These are the two poles, in fact, of my reactions. It's a shock, I burst out laughing. Suddenly, I say to myself, but why are they pushing the debate so far? Why don't they stop at normal, quote, normal questions? We ask ourselves the question. OK, we ask ourselves the question. Well yes, but you ask the question, but if however, then when the ifs multiply, ah, then it becomes less comfortable and often it involves many in piles of suppositions, of calculations. That's what I was trying to define.