(Q – immortal tofu: Max Valentin was talking about SE, the 12th enigma, you tell us that the 11th is the last, can we say 2 times the 11th and the 2nd part the
12th?)
MB : You are a consensual person, that’s good! In your consensus approach, would you feel more comfortable if I said yes?
(Q – immortal tofu: uh yes clearly yes)
MB : so if I told you after the 11th there is still something else that we could call the 11th you would be more at ease
(Q – immortal tofu: the fact of solving things in 11th grade, that we are not finished and that there is a 2nd part, that would reassure me)
MB : And what do you do if I tell you no? Would you be able to put your reasoning together differently? Does it block your reasoning? Understand my question! How?
(Q – immortal tofu: telling myself that what I consider to be the first part is not finished and that it must be used for a possible sequel, that’s it…) < /u>
MB : isn’t there another formula? another way to recalibrate your reasoning? Are you sure?
(Q - immortal tofu: compared to the 2 parts? I can't see but I can think about it)
MB : you're talking to me about 11 and 12 in fact
(Q - immortal tofu: absolutely, I'm trying to understand why you and Max Valentin said 2 different things)
MB : Because Max Valentin told salads.
(Q - immortal tofu: can't there be a reason for subjectivity?)
MB : no it’s not subjectivity
(Q - ??: when we unfold the 11 it is the 12 which is being carried out)
MB : what if it was 10 and 11 would it change your life? You see clearly that you did not listen to my question. You don't think about what I tell you, you think about what you think. I tell you, can you recalibrate your reasoning differently?
(Q- immortal tofu: by saying that the 11 is the 10, suddenly the 10 becomes the 9, etc, etc,)
MB : What are you telling me? You talk to me about 11 and 12 and I talk to you about 10 and 11, what's the problem, I talk to you about the penultimate and the last enigma while you tell me about the last enigma and a hypothetical additional enigma, there is no additional enigma. I assure you that there is no 12th enigma, there is none. We are in the concept, you know Max Valentin worked like a scaffolding, the higher you go, the more anchor points and stiffeners are needed. Max Valentin worked like that, he started the questions and answers and added, added, well yes it's practical he built a whole scaffolding and added so many elements that you don't know where to look.
I am to tell you there are 11 enigmas, not 12 and with the 11 we have everything we need.
This shows you that you have a lot of trouble coming back to your ideas, 5 minutes ago you knew there were 12 puzzles
(Q- immortal tofu: Not at all, at all,….)
MB : You are a consensual person, that’s good! In your consensus approach, would you feel more comfortable if I said yes?
(Q – immortal tofu: uh yes clearly yes)
MB : so if I told you after the 11th there is still something else that we could call the 11th you would be more at ease
(Q – immortal tofu: the fact of solving things in 11th grade, that we are not finished and that there is a 2nd part, that would reassure me)
MB : And what do you do if I tell you no? Would you be able to put your reasoning together differently? Does it block your reasoning? Understand my question! How?
(Q – immortal tofu: telling myself that what I consider to be the first part is not finished and that it must be used for a possible sequel, that’s it…) < /u>
MB : isn’t there another formula? another way to recalibrate your reasoning? Are you sure?
(Q - immortal tofu: compared to the 2 parts? I can't see but I can think about it)
MB : you're talking to me about 11 and 12 in fact
(Q - immortal tofu: absolutely, I'm trying to understand why you and Max Valentin said 2 different things)
MB : Because Max Valentin told salads.
(Q - immortal tofu: can't there be a reason for subjectivity?)
MB : no it’s not subjectivity
(Q - ??: when we unfold the 11 it is the 12 which is being carried out)
MB : what if it was 10 and 11 would it change your life? You see clearly that you did not listen to my question. You don't think about what I tell you, you think about what you think. I tell you, can you recalibrate your reasoning differently?
(Q- immortal tofu: by saying that the 11 is the 10, suddenly the 10 becomes the 9, etc, etc,)
MB : What are you telling me? You talk to me about 11 and 12 and I talk to you about 10 and 11, what's the problem, I talk to you about the penultimate and the last enigma while you tell me about the last enigma and a hypothetical additional enigma, there is no additional enigma. I assure you that there is no 12th enigma, there is none. We are in the concept, you know Max Valentin worked like a scaffolding, the higher you go, the more anchor points and stiffeners are needed. Max Valentin worked like that, he started the questions and answers and added, added, well yes it's practical he built a whole scaffolding and added so many elements that you don't know where to look.
I am to tell you there are 11 enigmas, not 12 and with the 11 we have everything we need.
This shows you that you have a lot of trouble coming back to your ideas, 5 minutes ago you knew there were 12 puzzles
(Q- immortal tofu: Not at all, at all,….)