Do not forget that around 15 April  I count on receiving your participation in the editing of the next issue -- and also the documents on the labyrinth.
After many others, I have received a tract from the Dutch Informal Group (Bekendmaking, etc.) that seems to me to surpass the bounds of foolishness.
I believe that Armando, through his noisy membership in this pictural group that hasn't provided a work or even an idea that is slightly new, strays from the SI, more likably but just as clearly as Har [Oudejans] and Alberts.
Which proves that the formulation of a "Bureau of Research for U.U. [Unitary Urbanism]" was unfortunately premature. Or one recruited for it people who basically remained indifferent (which was the case with your Dutch friends); or it's still worse: individuals who take this activity seriously will totally escape from our control and botch the problems that we have shown them (by feigning, for example, to apply U.U. to religious architecture).
Finally, the SI, despite its faults, remains the only group platform where our preoccupations can remove them. Which also supposes the liquidation of this ridiculous "Spur Group" -- without waiting any no longer.
Do you hear echoes of our refusal concerning Sandberg?Cordially,
 Translator: Internationale Situationniste #4, June 1960.
 Translator: "Die Welt als Labyrinth," Internationale Situationniste #4, June 1960.
 Translator: Oudejans, Alberts and Armando were all excluded from the SI earlier in the month.
 Translation: on 7 March 1960, the SI told Willem Sandberg of the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam that it wouldn't be able to participate in an exhibition that had originally been proposed two years previously.
(Published in Guy Debord, Correspondance, Volume 1, 1957-1960. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! October 2005.)