(Q - orestes: the game has been going on for a long time now, everything suggested that it would be soon, that we would manage to find it, but on the other hand we could have said to ourselves that because it lasts it has
even more likely to last. We could say that either the puzzles are too complex to be solved, or perhaps there is an error in the statements or in the solutions. He has the solutions on diskettes and he.
had already asked him if he had taken the trouble to solve the puzzles by putting the solutions aside, by making the traces as he was asked, but he did not have the time.
resumed the hunt, to be the organizer, to publish a book soon after having read the solutions, to have checked everything in order to reduce the degree of existence of this possible error and make you someone
competent, isn't not doing so putting the cart before the horse?)
MB : there are 2 arbitrary assertions in what Orestes has just said, the 1st is that we were on the verge of finding it before he intervened, what he can say is that Had he not intervened the owl would never have been found, never, it is impossible since in addition the buried countermark was not what was expected so the hunt was not likely to end. The 2nd thing is that you start from the principle that there is an error, he has not seen an error, he has solutions which work very well even or he is less comfortable it is when we talk to him about the lines on the map because in fact he didn't do it but as for how the puzzles work, not only do they work well but have some people solved them? There is no mistake he can say. It's diabolical what happened when Max Valentin talks about an error he mentioned, we have to stop.
(Q: orestes: I was talking about the fact that when a person rereads their copy they can miss an error and it is sometimes by redoing the work yourself that we realize that 'actually we had missed something)
MB : he still worked on the subject for several months before launching, so he took the time to check that it held up. I can reassure you.
MB : there are 2 arbitrary assertions in what Orestes has just said, the 1st is that we were on the verge of finding it before he intervened, what he can say is that Had he not intervened the owl would never have been found, never, it is impossible since in addition the buried countermark was not what was expected so the hunt was not likely to end. The 2nd thing is that you start from the principle that there is an error, he has not seen an error, he has solutions which work very well even or he is less comfortable it is when we talk to him about the lines on the map because in fact he didn't do it but as for how the puzzles work, not only do they work well but have some people solved them? There is no mistake he can say. It's diabolical what happened when Max Valentin talks about an error he mentioned, we have to stop.
(Q: orestes: I was talking about the fact that when a person rereads their copy they can miss an error and it is sometimes by redoing the work yourself that we realize that 'actually we had missed something)
MB : he still worked on the subject for several months before launching, so he took the time to check that it held up. I can reassure you.