(Q - Nabil: We're going to simplify, we're going to lighten the question, can I keep my horizons open, can I stay open to other perspectives?)
MB: The debate, for me, I insist and I continue to insist on that. I've given so many elements that at a given moment, I can't…, otherwise we stop the game, I tell you where it is, then we don't talk about it anymore. For me, the approach today is to lead you, the vast majority of you, all of you, if it were possible, to another mode of reasoning.
You need to get out of the affect. First of all, you have to stop telling yourself that someone else is going to find it tomorrow because maybe that's the case, but in any case, you won't be able to avoid it and maybe that's not the case. not the case at all. So we don't care. This is not an argument that makes sense.
So, we need to stop being emotional on the subject. You have to reason coldly, say to yourself, I am arriving somewhere, whether it is in Bornes Saint-Martin, whether it is in Fontainebleau, whether it is in Vézelay, whether it is wherever you want, you are arriving somewhere. There are 450, 460 different points of departure that have been proposed to me, you arrive somewhere, you remain completely cold, completely neutral, you think carefully about everything that was given as an element, this is not part of the hunting, the owl is not in such and such a place, the owl cannot be here, the owl is more than 100 kilometers from the coast, whatever, etc., is not less than 100 kilometers from the coast, in short, we must not forget everything that was given as a specific element at this level.
Then afterward, once you have a place that is compatible with all that, you reason coldly, cold case method, you shouldn't get excited about something by saying to yourself "Yeah, that's it, there are coincidences ".
Coincidences, honestly, I see them in the majority of the solutions sent to me, once again, out of 460 at least, different locations, different postal codes, so, within a postal code, there are several different locations, you roughly see the thing... I'm talking about postal codes, so a postal code covers municipalities and within a municipality, there are lots of different places. So, that means that there is no possibility of relying on huge coincidences. We can only rely on factual elements. If you arrive somewhere, between this somewhere, the book, what could have been said, there are indeed concomitances, correspondences, coincidences, and everything you want, but which are supported, which are factual, at that moment you say to yourself: there is something to dig into. But if you arrive and you say to yourself “Ha… that’s in the shape of an owl, that thing, that’s probably there, etc.”, then you’re relying on nothing. You're playing on the wind there. That's what I'm trying to do.
So, Nabil, wherever you are, follow through with your reasoning, but let go of your passion. Have no affect in the story. Be cold, analytical and you say, here I am, I arrive at such and such a deduction, make your deductions. I absolutely did not put up any barriers, I put a few prohibitions, in the hope of preserving a little of the sites which are nevertheless plowed. I think that there are courses in Fontainebleau which are real traps, which must be more golf courses than jogging courses, at the moment..., well, there, there It’s not just Dabo. And so...
MB: The debate, for me, I insist and I continue to insist on that. I've given so many elements that at a given moment, I can't…, otherwise we stop the game, I tell you where it is, then we don't talk about it anymore. For me, the approach today is to lead you, the vast majority of you, all of you, if it were possible, to another mode of reasoning.
You need to get out of the affect. First of all, you have to stop telling yourself that someone else is going to find it tomorrow because maybe that's the case, but in any case, you won't be able to avoid it and maybe that's not the case. not the case at all. So we don't care. This is not an argument that makes sense.
So, we need to stop being emotional on the subject. You have to reason coldly, say to yourself, I am arriving somewhere, whether it is in Bornes Saint-Martin, whether it is in Fontainebleau, whether it is in Vézelay, whether it is wherever you want, you are arriving somewhere. There are 450, 460 different points of departure that have been proposed to me, you arrive somewhere, you remain completely cold, completely neutral, you think carefully about everything that was given as an element, this is not part of the hunting, the owl is not in such and such a place, the owl cannot be here, the owl is more than 100 kilometers from the coast, whatever, etc., is not less than 100 kilometers from the coast, in short, we must not forget everything that was given as a specific element at this level.
Then afterward, once you have a place that is compatible with all that, you reason coldly, cold case method, you shouldn't get excited about something by saying to yourself "Yeah, that's it, there are coincidences ".
Coincidences, honestly, I see them in the majority of the solutions sent to me, once again, out of 460 at least, different locations, different postal codes, so, within a postal code, there are several different locations, you roughly see the thing... I'm talking about postal codes, so a postal code covers municipalities and within a municipality, there are lots of different places. So, that means that there is no possibility of relying on huge coincidences. We can only rely on factual elements. If you arrive somewhere, between this somewhere, the book, what could have been said, there are indeed concomitances, correspondences, coincidences, and everything you want, but which are supported, which are factual, at that moment you say to yourself: there is something to dig into. But if you arrive and you say to yourself “Ha… that’s in the shape of an owl, that thing, that’s probably there, etc.”, then you’re relying on nothing. You're playing on the wind there. That's what I'm trying to do.
So, Nabil, wherever you are, follow through with your reasoning, but let go of your passion. Have no affect in the story. Be cold, analytical and you say, here I am, I arrive at such and such a deduction, make your deductions. I absolutely did not put up any barriers, I put a few prohibitions, in the hope of preserving a little of the sites which are nevertheless plowed. I think that there are courses in Fontainebleau which are real traps, which must be more golf courses than jogging courses, at the moment..., well, there, there It’s not just Dabo. And so...