(Q - roc: following Wiclaye's intervention, he presents his track which follows the riddles but it does not help to solve the riddles, it wraps up several riddles and this track is so linked to the texts of the riddles that it
becomes difficult not to see it, it is the trail of births and first steps in several fields, death of Roland song birth literature, Fibula birth use of Latin letters,.....is it coating, smoking, we answer him
no recurring theme, and MB said no false leads)
MB : when Wiclaye talks about the Smurfs, he spends his nights on discord and goes a little crazy, and then there aren't just idiots in Quebec. He can't answer directly, but Roc says no false leads, implying that what Roc presents does not contain false leads, and he's reasoning...nickel. MB is making connections with Bourges and Agen, either we start off on the right foot or not. The rock's reasoning is to say that what he exposes is an established fact, there is that, so you take that as a good lead but what proves that it is good? Let the presentation start from an assured, formal point which is certain to be correct.
(Q - rock: there is nothing to prove it, it's a lead)
MB : well there you go, he's not kicking the can, he's emphasizing the fact that all exchanges are based on a certain amount of conviction on the part of one or the other. The real problem is to know why we have this conviction and what it is based on, it is at this moment where he says we must return to the foundation of the game, to the starting point of the game, to say to ourselves well I consider that to be certain, but what are we relying on, can we cast doubt on it, all this to say that certainties must be put into perspective.
MB : when Wiclaye talks about the Smurfs, he spends his nights on discord and goes a little crazy, and then there aren't just idiots in Quebec. He can't answer directly, but Roc says no false leads, implying that what Roc presents does not contain false leads, and he's reasoning...nickel. MB is making connections with Bourges and Agen, either we start off on the right foot or not. The rock's reasoning is to say that what he exposes is an established fact, there is that, so you take that as a good lead but what proves that it is good? Let the presentation start from an assured, formal point which is certain to be correct.
(Q - rock: there is nothing to prove it, it's a lead)
MB : well there you go, he's not kicking the can, he's emphasizing the fact that all exchanges are based on a certain amount of conviction on the part of one or the other. The real problem is to know why we have this conviction and what it is based on, it is at this moment where he says we must return to the foundation of the game, to the starting point of the game, to say to ourselves well I consider that to be certain, but what are we relying on, can we cast doubt on it, all this to say that certainties must be put into perspective.