(Q - bioposis: I just wanted to come back to a term which is not Max but from you, you say that you think a compass is perhaps necessary, OK, on ??the other hand when we
asks the question if the Sentinels have a relationship with the "them", you say you think and that term appeals to me because you know the solutions so I don't understand the use of the term "think" so either
you answer, or you say I can't answer this question?)
MB : I will tell you where my trouble comes from, my trouble comes from the fact that since the time you have been looking more or less for each other, which cumulatively represents a considerable time, there is a whole logic, a symbolism, a system that has been put in place which speaks for you, and when I intervene I tell myself that I must try to take into account the vocabulary, the structures that you have built, adopted, which serve as a point of reference for you and I also try to position myself in relation to that. So it happens in the reasoning that I can discover, on the discord, in voice or in written exchanges, it happens that some rely on data neither false nor true, I would say parallel to what was envisaged by the author , and who manage to support a reasoning, which ultimately remain on the right path or even only lead to a coherent and valid result on the resolution of an enigma, but by going more or less through paths or circuitous elements.
Where I try to be extremely careful is that I realized that if I demolish with a bulldozer, because it is not completely consistent with what I read in the solutions, I also risk demolishing reasoning that is based on unexpected data; fortuitous,...and which nevertheless continue to hold up. So I don't want to completely destroy these things. and when I say I "think", that means that in the question you ask me, it evokes things where I say to myself, in what I understood, certain people rely on that and that not necessarily misleading, it could possibly lead them to the right solution so I try to remain a little cautious, a little evasive when necessary so as not to demolish something which nevertheless remains in the right direction.
(Q - bioposis: thank you for this answer, listening to which shows that you have perfectly understood the solutions)
MB : I understood them perfectly, as much as there are coincidences in my tables, I can attest to this with certainty, there are also coincidences in the reasoning of the players. Sometimes players rely on certain things, I tell myself I had to think about it and finally...
Let's take an example: I spoke again about the beak of my rooster, it is true that on one side it points towards Cherbourg and on the other towards Roncesvaux, so in some way a reasoning which is based on this does not induce inevitably the player is in error, but if I completely destroy his thing without taking into account this coincidence, I demolish his reasoning and this time I risk misleading him, he will say to himself it is neither Cherbourg nor Roncesvaux I have it all wrong.
(Q - ??: but it's very subjective to do that Michel because we, when we ask you a question, we base ourselves on something which is normally frozen in time and that the we call it the book of solutions and when we ask a question we imagine that you are answering strictly to the book of solutions and not in relation to something that could possibly arise and join the reasoning)
MB : I understand very well but I am able today to respond strictly in relation to the solutions that I know but you are not in a position to reason in relation to these solutions since you do not know them.
(Q - ??: of course but in this case, ultimately it would be better to say, I was very surprised when you said it, I found that This is the most interesting moment this evening, it's when you tell him that "them" are not linked to the Sentinels, I know if you realized that for some people it's a problem...)< /u>
MB : but wait I can't realize anything, I can be sure of everything on thousands of people and theories. I act like a sailor navigating in the fog, I have my fog horn and I scan to see if there is a boat or an iceberg coming towards me. I try not to make a mistake and when I feel that things are a bit of a double meaning, on the one hand not entirely false but not envisaged by Max, I try to remain cautious because if I am too categorical I'm going to demolish theories that are not necessarily false, that's what I just said.
(Q - ??: I understand completely but this is still an element which is in the last enigma, it is still something which is, a priori, very advanced in the game and I found it even surprising that you answered, to say "I think not" while to the person next to you who asks you if direction or arrow is not cities, you do not answer , alots that Max said it again and again, when he speaks of an arrow he speaks of a concrete arrow and not of the city of the arrow, there are discrepancies like that where you may not realize it, but I I found your answer surprising but so much the better)
MB : I will never have the knowledge that Max had of the riddles and solutions, I have total understanding of them, that's a certainty, afterward on the innuendoes, implications, puns, coincidences he was aware of them gradually, so I don't have the same virtuosity to respond to the questions asked of me.
My line of conduct is to remain honest, if I say I don't think it is because on the other hand I consider that some could rely on it.
(Q - ??: in summary it's rather yes or rather no?)
MB : [laughs] I can't answer, but I don't have the slightest regret for having said what I said, I do it based on what I understand, I know, and based on my respect that I have for players, I try not to say no when I'm not sure it's no and yes when I'm not sure it's yes. I sometimes say maybe, which is not dishonest. Try for a second to put yourself in my place.
MB : I will tell you where my trouble comes from, my trouble comes from the fact that since the time you have been looking more or less for each other, which cumulatively represents a considerable time, there is a whole logic, a symbolism, a system that has been put in place which speaks for you, and when I intervene I tell myself that I must try to take into account the vocabulary, the structures that you have built, adopted, which serve as a point of reference for you and I also try to position myself in relation to that. So it happens in the reasoning that I can discover, on the discord, in voice or in written exchanges, it happens that some rely on data neither false nor true, I would say parallel to what was envisaged by the author , and who manage to support a reasoning, which ultimately remain on the right path or even only lead to a coherent and valid result on the resolution of an enigma, but by going more or less through paths or circuitous elements.
Where I try to be extremely careful is that I realized that if I demolish with a bulldozer, because it is not completely consistent with what I read in the solutions, I also risk demolishing reasoning that is based on unexpected data; fortuitous,...and which nevertheless continue to hold up. So I don't want to completely destroy these things. and when I say I "think", that means that in the question you ask me, it evokes things where I say to myself, in what I understood, certain people rely on that and that not necessarily misleading, it could possibly lead them to the right solution so I try to remain a little cautious, a little evasive when necessary so as not to demolish something which nevertheless remains in the right direction.
(Q - bioposis: thank you for this answer, listening to which shows that you have perfectly understood the solutions)
MB : I understood them perfectly, as much as there are coincidences in my tables, I can attest to this with certainty, there are also coincidences in the reasoning of the players. Sometimes players rely on certain things, I tell myself I had to think about it and finally...
Let's take an example: I spoke again about the beak of my rooster, it is true that on one side it points towards Cherbourg and on the other towards Roncesvaux, so in some way a reasoning which is based on this does not induce inevitably the player is in error, but if I completely destroy his thing without taking into account this coincidence, I demolish his reasoning and this time I risk misleading him, he will say to himself it is neither Cherbourg nor Roncesvaux I have it all wrong.
(Q - ??: but it's very subjective to do that Michel because we, when we ask you a question, we base ourselves on something which is normally frozen in time and that the we call it the book of solutions and when we ask a question we imagine that you are answering strictly to the book of solutions and not in relation to something that could possibly arise and join the reasoning)
MB : I understand very well but I am able today to respond strictly in relation to the solutions that I know but you are not in a position to reason in relation to these solutions since you do not know them.
(Q - ??: of course but in this case, ultimately it would be better to say, I was very surprised when you said it, I found that This is the most interesting moment this evening, it's when you tell him that "them" are not linked to the Sentinels, I know if you realized that for some people it's a problem...)< /u>
MB : but wait I can't realize anything, I can be sure of everything on thousands of people and theories. I act like a sailor navigating in the fog, I have my fog horn and I scan to see if there is a boat or an iceberg coming towards me. I try not to make a mistake and when I feel that things are a bit of a double meaning, on the one hand not entirely false but not envisaged by Max, I try to remain cautious because if I am too categorical I'm going to demolish theories that are not necessarily false, that's what I just said.
(Q - ??: I understand completely but this is still an element which is in the last enigma, it is still something which is, a priori, very advanced in the game and I found it even surprising that you answered, to say "I think not" while to the person next to you who asks you if direction or arrow is not cities, you do not answer , alots that Max said it again and again, when he speaks of an arrow he speaks of a concrete arrow and not of the city of the arrow, there are discrepancies like that where you may not realize it, but I I found your answer surprising but so much the better)
MB : I will never have the knowledge that Max had of the riddles and solutions, I have total understanding of them, that's a certainty, afterward on the innuendoes, implications, puns, coincidences he was aware of them gradually, so I don't have the same virtuosity to respond to the questions asked of me.
My line of conduct is to remain honest, if I say I don't think it is because on the other hand I consider that some could rely on it.
(Q - ??: in summary it's rather yes or rather no?)
MB : [laughs] I can't answer, but I don't have the slightest regret for having said what I said, I do it based on what I understand, I know, and based on my respect that I have for players, I try not to say no when I'm not sure it's no and yes when I'm not sure it's yes. I sometimes say maybe, which is not dishonest. Try for a second to put yourself in my place.