Do you know that the expression the habit does not the monk is totally false. Certainly the habit does not competent, but he makes believe that if. Indeed many experiments have shown that people in costumes seem most beautiful, most attractive and most influential.

For example when individuals with a big car look to park while there is no place, people who go more often give their seats than with a normal car.

The man that we follow on the pedestrian crossing, as it seems sure of him

In his excellent book Influence and manipulation, Robert Cialdini speaks of an experiment that was conducted on passers-by in the street. For an hour, a man crossing a pedestrian crossing (when the light was red for pedestrians) with a holding of construction worker: person followed him. Then for an hour it was same with a costume of businessman: many people followed him because his suit gave them confidence. This experience dates from the 1980s, but we'll see that she is still topical…

Others invest fortunes in big cars to better sell because there are evidence of success. (It may be a point where I have to go in my opinion, because suddenly this explains why I am not a big commercial).

Do you know not only that clothes make the monk, but increasingly that people submit more if you have a costume

You do not believe? Yet in this video you will see that it is totally true. Indeed the examples are not lacking to say.

For example people often confuse the character of people and their uniforms which are distinct. It confuses the role of using it and its character because of her costume. We consider all as well, but what is really important, that is why?

We have to wear uniforms in the world of work, uniform that wrongly erase the personality of each to make employees interchangeable, replaceable and better control in order to detach the l client use X or Y and replace it with a colleague.

The costumes are as at the theatre and have several functions:

-they are carriers of character of a character, they participate of the Visual effect and the character. Such scruffy garment will translate a defeatist, or fanciful character for example. Another without a tie will bring confidence.

-They can participate in the action: travesties, exchanges of identity among the commercial store employees sport for example, but in his sports clothes, the man betrays its commercial origins in the eyes of the customer.

-they have a symbolic value: they determine the belonging to a social class (port of the tie or not, or to such type of role (the young first, well put on his 31, the old man dressed in the former, the commercial, the worker who is not even entitled to pockets, etc. they are therefore a mark of belonging to a group)

 

 

 

 

This video program, uniforms, and suits (it is also in this video the color code costumes), of ties, submission, domination, experiments in Psychology (related to the bias of judgement of appearances), pubs, firefighters, "Mouth-Man", a Gull that growls again and again, the beaches, almost relevant tech notes, etc.

To go further: they say that 20% of communication is done with words, what percentage is located the habit?

Horizon

Submission to the costume

Close-up on the Gull glasses which reflected an individual on all fours searching the ground.
Wide shot: Gull is wearing firefighter, two people, to his left and to his right, search the ground looking for something.
Gull gives indications of the hand showing parts of the ground.

• Gull: Here please, yes very well… like that.
• Technician: Gull, er… That is… What is this plan!
• Gull: I am experimenting!
• Technician: eh eh… You experienced what just because it's not clear…
• Gull: I extend the experience of Bushman.
• Technician: What? Mouth-man? I know not. I know well that they pushed the vice to create an "Ant man", but mouth-man…

Gull rail and growls.

• Gull: Bushman is a researcher in psychology and he is not even super hero according to the latest information on this subject. In 1984, he sets up an experiment to measure the influence of the authority on lambda individuals uniform. A first Chong stands in a parking area near a parking meter by pretending to seek the money in his pockets. A second shill, close to the first, stops passers-by telling them 'this person is parked near a parking meter and it has no currency. Give him a 5 cent coin".
• Technician: Gne? This is absurd!
• Gull: That's the idea! Several situations are tested: in the first, who directs the passer-by is dressed in beggar.
• Gull by begging: this person is parked near a parking meter and it has no currency. Give him a 5 cent coin
• Gull: Second situation, the second shill is dressed in a suit, type framework.
• Gull in a suit: this person is parked near a parking meter and it has no currency. Give him a 5 cent coin.
• Gull: Third situation, the second shill wears the uniform of a firefighter.
• Gull in firefighter: this person is parked near a parking meter and it has no currency. Give him a 5 cent coin.
• Technician: at the same time, a little care it red glasses and the whole shebang, it's terrorist hippie tokens, it is not frankly common to see firefighters who…

Gull growls.

• Technician: But what yet! [léger temps de réflexion] OK it's good I understood! Super mouth-man had no glasses. And not the hood. OK ok this is good. Continues. What is the outcome?
• Gull: 44% of apostrophes passers-by undergo scheduled when the second shill is dressed in beggar. They put some time before giving the parts.
  50% when the second shill is dressed in frame. There too, the time for reflection is long enough before giving parts.
  82% when the second shill is dressed as a firefighter. Those who give money do so quickly, almost automatically, without question. More donors are older, they are quick to obey.
• Technician: Wow! 82%! But why a firefighter in function would go fishing for the currency to pay a parking meter?
• Gull: This is where the experience is revealing: facing the uniform that embodies the authority, we stop to ask the question of the legitimacy of the orders made. We bow to the authority without further reflections. Even when the situation is absurd, that firefighter didn't give such an order and that there is not to obey.

Back on the beach. Two onlookers always excavate the soil.

• Gull: (speaking to onlookers) Ça ira, thank you for your help. Relax now, the temperature of the water is excellent.

Onlookers, in joy, leave the stage. We hear a sound of 'splash '.

• Technician: What is that you had asked them to do?
• Gull: Help me to find a piece of 5 lost cents under the pebbles.
• Technician: Do you want that I help you to look?
• Gull:..[grognement].

Generic

Sequence 2

Gull filed his disguise of firefighter on the Chair. He is putting his jacket. While talking, he tightens a tie.

• Technician: So if I understand correctly, it is still the garment that influence people, and not the… A[cri de panique]H!
• Gull: What is there?
• Technician: You wear a tie!
• Gull: Yes, I told myself that it was sticking with my words.
• Technician: huh? I thought we were going to talk about the fire…
• Gull:[petit rire] No not at all. It was only a placing in the mouth. It is quite understandable that the classic uniform of a soldier fire inspires confidence and respect…
• Technician: Yeah, the firefighters it's cool anyway.
• Gull: What interests us now, are these uniforms to which we do not believe but that influence according to the degree of authority that we give him.
• Technician: Yes, I have learned the lesson the last time: clothes make the monk.
• Gull: Exact! To borrow Pierre Bourdieu, "the body is in the social world, but the social world is in the body. What we wear, clothing and accessories, suggest a social connectedness, a character, a profession, responsibilities up to inspire confidence, or fear. The dress is constitutive of the figure of authority, in proportions that it repudiates.
• Technician: I see you coming! You can tell us that wearing a suit and tie is sufficient to make the head.
• Gull: indeed.
• Technician: Yeah but who cares, it not change our behavior, we are over it!
• Gull: Oh really? Then this deserves a little experiment, one of…
• Technician: f[le coupe]rom super mouth-man, hero of the psychology of the costumes!
• Gull: [grogne puis reprend]that of researchers in psychology, gold and Pascual.

[motion design]

• Gull: An individual must buy a croissant, but at the time of pay he realizes that he is missing 8 cents.
• Technician: ah, it's con!
• Gull: There are then two possibilities: either he asks nicely and with a broad smile in the following manner:
• Gul[en tenue normale]l: I'm confused, but lacks 8 cents. Could you make me grace please?
• Gull: Either the individual application the same thing, but without sweetness and politeness.
• Gull[en tenue normale]: Oh shit, I'm missing 8 cents. You whisked away me it anyway?
• Technician: wholesale experience is to know if it works better to be polite or be an asshole when you want something…
• Gull: Not that. The results in this condition "normal held" are no surprises. The bakers are generous with the polished, or 93 per cent acceptance, and when our individual proves boorish, the bakers do give 40%.
• Technician: Ok… And that of it, had to do an experiment to prove it?
• Gull: You not anxious technician. The experience was repeated in other conditions:
• Gul[pauvrement vêtu]l: I'm confused, but lacks 8 cents. Could you make me grace please?
• Gull[pauvrement vêtu]: Oh shit, I'm missing 8 cents. You whisked away me it anyway?
• Gull: No change on politeness: Baker agrees to 93%. However when the poorly dressed is rude, tolerance is much lower: only 20% of the bakers respond positively to the rude man.
• Technician: wholesale rudeness, it is better if it is normally fringué. For example, the "Bum" has no right…
• Gull:… "" No fixed abode "!
• Technician: Yeah, sorry, the 'homeless' has not the right to be rude unlike the normal guy. I've drawn?
• Gull: That's it, but I have not yet completed. Execute once the experience, but this time our individual will be very rewarding appearance, in costume, type framework.
• Gul[costard]l: I'm confused, but lacks 8 cents. Could you make me grace please?
• Gull[costard]: Oh shit, I'm missing 8 cents. You whisked away me it anyway?
• Technician: Ben there, I don't know why the rude type costumed out me through the nose holes more than others.
• Gull: (small laugh) when the individual in costume is rude, the bakers agree this time at height of… 75%. Is two times more than that of average appearance, and four times higher than the poorly dressed.
• Technician: It's yucky! The guy is the one who is supposed have the most money, so ask for rebates… and, and the SDF there, one can understand that it is difficult for him to have his eight cents… Shit, this is the reverse would make Baker!

[Retour en décor naturel]

• Gull: Politeness is often effective to break social divisions, so each self-respecting, irrespective of the holding. But the acceptance of the rudeness, disrespect, is reserved for privileged who have no more legitimacy than the simple wearing of a suit.
• Technician: It is absurd, why it would abide in four against them?
• Gull: If the bakers bend to the whims of the senior statutes, it is because their outfit made figure of authority. What was a rude application in the mouth of the individual to very modest appearance and one that the average appearance becomes an order in the mouth of the well dressed. The situation of the experience is the purchase of a Crescent in a bakery, but it works the same way in all other contexts.
• Technician: Wait, you say that the costume, type suit and tie, demonstrated authority, such as firefighter?
• Gull: When it comes to this type of injunction, Yes.
• Technician: Not because when they talk to me of authority costume, I think uniforms, such those of the military, police officers…
• Gull: But the suits is a technician uniform.
• Technician: A uniform?

[motion design]

• Gull: The full costume, the costume jacket or more colloquially the suit appears in the 19th, full industrial revolution in England. We can of course be traced back its origins later in the past, but it is there that most criteria, and especially its function, will be adopted. It's a male, usually of black color, black being a masculine color (white and clear being long reserved for women). The tie is a military legacy of the former regime, in the 1600s. A Croatian regiment created under Louis XIII was wearing a red scarf around suddenly, scarf that was taken up by the Court and was appointed, in deformation of the term 'Croatian', 'tie '. The tie will be the symbol of the high bourgeoisie in Europe, to the point where it will be controversial during the French revolution, which will not prevent this accessory to democratize further.

The music stops, back on Gull sitting on his chair. The man and woman of the early appear and gives him something before exiting.

• Technician: what is it?
• Gull: Coins of 5 cents…

The music starts again.

• Gull: Door by a certain category of the population, full will become a true civil uniform. Apart from major events, such as weddings for example, wear the tie today, is to incorporate in a professional setting. Tie reminds the wearer should respond and correspond to the requirements of its business or its function. It is not for nothing if employees come to hate this tie that strangles them symbolically. It sometimes becomes a real weight. When we feel bad to work, wearing the costume is a real torture, provided that the employees in uniform at the bottom of the scale, because like them, the suits is a mold. The suit requires a role, everything that constitutes (material, accessory, color) indicates a rank, and reminded holders that they are commanded. Ill wear the uniform in his company may be reason for sanction or reprimand, as in the army.

Although it allows some leeway in the choice of costume, you will notice that there is a real dress code of suit in the world of work must reflect specific criteria and which generally coincide with the collective unconscious.

[Plage]

• Technician: Collective unconscious? explain.
• Gull: Take for example the color of the suit jacket.

[Motion design]

• Gull: More this jacket will be dark, more it connotera the idea of importance or power. A few exceptions, you will always see heads of State wearing a black or Navy blue jacket, see dark grey. We find this color in positions of corporate responsibility, but you will notice that in the business world is grey which is privileged with sometimes a few fantasies like stripes which are tolerated. About the shirt, the colour white corresponds to power; in the world of business and finance, this will often be the clear blue shirt, except the big bosses who will improve the white.
• Technician: Works not your thing! I know that not all use these codes.
• Gull: of course. But when you want to match a certain image, these codes work perfectly, influencing our gaze.
• Technician: I'm not convinced…
• Gull: So let me prove it to you.

Appears several costumes: a Brown, grey, light blue black with a shirt, a black with a white shirt.

• Gull: Without thinking, and in responding me in good faith, if I told you that one of its costumes worn by a banker, you would say me that?
• Technician:… (Sigh) The gray suit, or the one with the blue shirt.
• Gull: And if I said that one of them is superior to the other three, it would be which in your opinion?
• Technician: OK, I agree, one is tempted to choose the black Navy Blue with the white shirt. But then Brown, it would be that?
• Gull: Who wears this kind of outfit today? You know the answer… lets talk about your imagination.
• Technician: I imagine a University, or an intellectual, a doctor may also… Is this?
• Gull: Well se[technicien dit « yes! »]en! Brown is the retro color by excellence, highly appreciated by intellectuals. Dark for the jacket, white shirt and sober tie. That's our power suit.
• Technician: And if it was the opposite, if our leaders dressed with bright colours?
• Gull: This was the case in the past technician. This has even been our vocabulary of power. In antiquity, for example, Athens or Rome, the exercise of the power is practiced dressed in white. White is the color of purity, of incorruption. Becoming a candidate to power, it is make White-footed, showed any defect. The white Latin saying candidus where the word candidate in french.
• Technician: Candidate mean white?
• Gull: Yes, be a candidate in the presidential elections for example, it will prove its purity. The White is very linked to the power.
• Gull in Toga: and for this I am candidate! Because I am pure!
• Technician: Yeah, finally I fail to see the political men dressed in white today…

Wedding music, appears Valls all dressed in white.

• Technician: Ah yeah anyway!
• Gull: in the 20th century, new expressions formed around the port of apparel, confirming again the white as a symbol of power: white collar, with reference to the worn shirt men in the business world. Conversely, in reference to the overalls, the working classes were named blue collar. And all these normative accidents who settled with the sandstone of the history form stereotypes that determine our present look.
• Technician: But I understand, how it can be influenced by all this? Whence it? I mean, why when you watches me photos I tend to say without knowing why: like him is a banker, he is a leader, he is an academic… Must be that it is influenced from somewhere, no? If we share all the same prejudices, whence?
• Gull: More one sees someone primed in some way, more our brain to conclude that this costume is the norm for such type of person. We build these stereotypes by habit, by induction. Popular culture increases those standards by broadcasting codes on a massive scale. Culture feeds on these social codes and feeds the stereotypes affecting us in turn.

Excerpts from films, series and video games scroll on the screen. Gull is on the couch trying to zap with a remote control.

• Gull: Essentially based on decades, note that the costume occupies a very important place. As soon as it comes to power, there are costume. The black suit in particular is redundant (Reservoir Dog, Blues Brothers). The costume envelope mysteries, secrets, it feeds from aura of our collective imagination. The business man is no longer a simple employee, he incarnates the guide, one who knows, that which is in confidence (Men In Black, half life, Matrix). There is only one step that he embodies sometimes visceral fear (Sliderman). If I asked you for example me imagine mysterious men who secretly conduct the world as in your crazy conspiracy theories, I am confident that you will représenterais them all in a black suit. No Brown, grey or white. No! Black!
• Technician: Gull, you are not up-to-date. The illuminati conspirators are reptilian aliens, they don't wear costumes! Everyone knows it!
• Gull: Grrrr… The costume becomes paradoxically the garment of action by excellence (excerpt from James Bond), the fearless Knight swapped his armor against a suit.
• Technician: Yeah, so watch eh! CA is a Tuxedo Mr I know everything must be precise anyway!
• Gull: Mille excuses. Add to all this an essential ingredient. The black suit is symbol of power, but an anonymous power. The suit being the civil uniform by excellence, it is a mat. It is no coincidence if the hacktivists as Anonymous have chosen the black suit as one of their symbols, thus embodying the anonymous people power in response to the anonymous power of the fashion. And not omit the socio-cultural indicator by excellence: advertising, main contributor of stereotypes of any kind. The suit becomes the type of modern man costume.

Advertising: Escape.

• Technician: What the Fuck! The type has all plated desiring a life simple, free from any pressure… He sees a car and presto, back to the taff!
• Gull: Back in the mould, Yes. And this translates by wearing the costume, shaven properly, correctly coiffed hair… The words say a lot: he chose his life, he was released from coercion, he simply lived according to his choice. Car recalled in the order. The little soldier re – dons his uniform, the suit, thus losing this area of freedom he had built. This advertising is put in parallel with some film of war: the soldier has left the uniform, he leads a life removed, when his commanding officer reminds us under the flag, to replace the uniform for doing his duty. [extrait de Rambo]
• Technician: Yeah, but then it is not the captain coming to pick it up. It's a fucking car!
• Gull: The submission takes many forms…

Back on the beach.

• Gull: The clothes we wear envelop us stories, more or less meaningful stories. When the collective imagination is so strongly permeated by the mythology of the dark suit, it becomes the symbol of power, elegance, authority legitimate. It is not for nothing that some security officers in stores a complete black and white dress, it reinforces their authority.
• Technician: Oh yeah?
• Gull: Viewing these two security officers (one is in classic red uniform, the other in a suit). Which you think most impressive?
• Technician: Yeah, it's safe…
• Gull: You, like me, like anyone, share the same representations affecting us, and therefore we value excessively one who wears this getup.
• Technician: And so, when our Baker acquiesce in aggressive demand for the man in suit, it is because she is imbued with all these stories!
• Gull: Yes, but not only. It should be added the awards and symbolic violence principles developed by the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Are characterised in terms of taste, of judgment, of fashion, on the basis of his social class, profession, thereby affirming its difference. Wear the costume is both a form of belonging, but also a difference affirmed and assumed against those who do not, a way to say: "I'm not in the same world. There are symbolic violence of the dominant on the dominated exercised by a series of symbols such as the door garment accessories. An employee in uniform against a man in costume will be symbolically dominated, crushed by the weight of the symbols, and it will more easily bend to its demands. As our Baker. And let us not forget that those who wear the costume must also distinguish between them. There's a hierarchy that asserts itself this time in the quality of the costume, or the port of an accessory that will serve as a meritocratic ornament.
• Technician: IE?
• Gull: Remember Jacques Séguéla defending Nicolas Sarkozy who used and abused this symbolic violence. When the reporter points finger ostentatious port of Rolex of the former president, Séguéla responds: 'it is a journalistic mistake. How can you blame a President to have a Rolex. Finally… everyone has a Rolex. If in 50 years, there is not a Rolex, it still missed his life! ' ' It is often shocked by the last sentence, however the foregoing is also revealing: "How can you blame a President to have a Rolex. "The man of power must legitimately wear accessories that symbolize power, the Rolex is reserved for the elite, essential accessory to be distinguished from the others to rise above them.
• Technician: Gull!
• Gull: Yes?
• Technician: I think you missed our life…
• Gull[Rire]:, damn!
• Technician: Yeah finally good, turning on the style of presidents or men of power, you see more and more without a tie…
• Gull: obviously! Moment the use of dress is becoming more democratic, it must distinguish itself compared to the other. Let's take an example.

Photos of several people in costume tie, with one of them in a simple shirt.

• Gull: Seems to be the highest hierarchically?
• Technician: Ben there is funny, it's in a shirt.
• Gull: absolutely, because it differs from the group. Invert!

Everyone is in a shirt except one which is in full suits.

• Gull: And in this example?
• Technician: Yeah, the guy in a suit comes out of the lot, for sure.
• Gull: There's also an interesting anecdote on this subject. At the G8 of camp David, he had been asked not to wear tie, to display a more accessible, relaxed appearance (and particular to avoid the cliche of the powerful in costume, which can accentuate a certain defiance, always according to the collective imagination).
• Technician: Yes I remember. François Hollande had arrived with the tie.

[Extrait]

• Gull: Obama asks him to remove it, because it is essential that leaders lend themselves to the same codes so that person leaves the lot and cannot be distinguished. The very principle of the G8 is to each participant on the same footing, at least in appearance.

[Retour sur la plage]

• Technician: Then you offer what? It leads us where all this?
• Gull: Good question! As a first step, it must be aware that all the details count, the clothes we wear to determine relations and human relations, distinguished individuals together in rows, standards, tastes; ranging up to exercise symbolic violence absurdly legitimising authorities of junk. Have conscience, it is already a start. Then we break these codes! Avoid as much as possible to wear the uniform, it is belittling or rewarding. Do we build a less stereotypical collective imagination. And for the most active of us break the dress codes in playful ways.
• Technician: IE?
• Gull: Let's take an example. In 2011, Improve every where had fun investing in group a department store, dressing as employees, i.e. beige pants and blue shirt. In doing so, they managed to highlight the importance of the distinction in the logics of sale. Who is seller? Who is customer? Which is dominant? Which is dominated? Who plays a role? Everything is delivered flat. They did there something very simple, quite nice I would say, and yet this store officials immediately called the police.
• Technician: The police? It is not a bit excessive! It is not as if they wore the logo and everything. Why customers might not wear a shirt or a blue t-shirt and beige pants?
• Gull: Because they break the function of the uniform, they break the distinctions, an employee in this type of store can look like customers, and vice versa. Dresses her fact the monk: culture jamming has understood in its uses and sometimes his criticism and it is in the heart even of social hacking. Have a look at the work of the Yes Men for example: a suits, a serious look, and here they are financial, journalist, representative of a large company… Without forgetting their genius of course!
• Technician: I love these types!

Back on the beach. A man poses on the Chair of Gull a watch, before exiting.

• Gull: Oh! They have found a Rolex!
• Technician: Gull, you're a monster!
• Gull: Perhaps, but at least I managed my life.
• Technician: Erk!
• Gull: It is perfectly legitimate that the employer wishes to its employees dress clean and decent, but it is absurd that this translates into uniformity of clothing and the inability to employees to choose outside the established canons. The garment is a second skin, skin that is under the other and which says long on what we are. However, whether the wearing of a uniform belittling or wearing a suit, the individual is disguised, transvestite, stripped of freedom to appear as he wishes. He is alienated by the suit symbols. Be well in his skin begins to choose her outfit apart from the stereotypical codes. There is an event in the United States, The Burning Man, an annual event which advocate complete freedom. It should be noted that the participants discover or rediscover freedom to dress as wish, without fear of prejudice, without influences of stereotypes, without judgments… Social codes for clothes are much more stringent than we think. We have certainly made progress if we take a look back, but there is still some way to go, and mentalities are not yet ready.

Change of scene: Gull is black and white, idling. At the bottom there is an epic music. During the monologue he removes his tie and approaching a cliff.

• Gull: in the meantime, we must keep in mind that we are determined by stereotypes, as insignificant as the dress details, fabrics, colors, accessories and other adornments participate in conditioning our reports, affix distinctions of tastes, gender, class… We believe clothe us fabric, but in reality we we clothing exclusively symbols and cement of a collective unconscious which is renewed according to morals. If there be no us possible to extract us from these packages, we can however be aware, take this into account, be able to take back. And perhaps one day will we have the courage to wear a costume to our size, a suit according to our own codes, vector of our own symbols.

Music stops.

• Technician: And become a hipster? [dit en se retenant de rire] or lady gaga! [éclate de rire]
• Gull: These looks are indeed signs of consciousness of the prison dress. But fashion and the 'against mode' is only a never-ending of temporary clothing prisons, they have that for usefulness to consume ever more, therefore dispose to an another little flattering and empty role: that of 'consumer '..[dit avec une grosse voix grave traînante].
• Technician: Yeah ok, it is still a prison that looks like freedom, except that here it is the portfolio which is operated. Brief… I cut you in your epic tracks, C'mon rebuke!

Grunt of Gull, the music returns.

• Gull: And perhaps one day we will have the courage to wear a costume to our size, a suit according to our own codes, vector of our own symbols.
• Technician: But you, Gull, your clothes they symbolize what?
• Gull: Shreds of my past. This costume reminds me where I went, this day I decided to abandon the tie.

Gull loose the tie which soars and falls into the water. The music is epic.
Plan close on Gull who watches the sea in the distance, black and white. Suddenly, the music stops, everything is color, you hear gulls. A woman (that of the start of the experiment) runs with Gull and gives him his tie wet before exiting.
Gull remains motionless, the dripping tie in the hands.

End

[partie non présente dans la vidéo]

Dramatic music of Enrico Morricone (the Professional). We again see advertising of the car with the dog which remains alone and means Gull who speaks:

Max was what is called a 'good' dog: docile without being obtrusive, he asked little to his master. A little love, sharing and a few menus meal. Nature did the rest, offering the two beings greatness of soul and serenity.
It was so beautiful, this communion with the elements!

But Max had seen the threat well before his master. Beyond forest, he had heard a muffled rumble, one of these sounds that only animal instinct can understand as danger.

The bark was yet clear: careful, we will all lose, all break!

But the master had seized nothing of the threat. Worse, the dull ROAR had stolen his soul, the tearing to this symbiosis with elements.
Cut the hair, belted body! The only vision of the car had transvestite his soul, had cut it of life itself. The master was corseted in disguise which augured no good, it was sold to a master whose Max sensed the macabre requirements: use intemperate, repetitive and nightmarish of Excel and Access, allowing them to obtain both jalousee car. But once the devilish acquired object, to be another. And other costumes. And a rolex. Two Rolex. Three cars. Yet another disguise… The vicious circle had no limits.
Was finished.
Max was alone.
Max was hungry.
Ever the master would return. Not even for a simple caress…