Asger refused to telephone [us]: we made it clearly known to him, Saturday, that we wouldn’t like it if he maintained his refusal. Thus, you have taken responsibility (it is you who sabotaged the conference, because our demand wasn’t at all tyrannical).
Your moralizing and threatening telegram rather aggravated your case, given the current circumstances – that is to say, Asger’s methods, which in fact exclude mutual trust.
This telegram is in fact the ultimate, logical manifestation of an attitude that we refuse in the name of all our friends.
Rumney can choose, now that our letter has furnished him with the elements of appreciation that he lacked, between complicity with Asger’s methods and future relations with us.
Asger, on the other hand, must excuse himself for his methods and the tone he’s employed, and make his self-critique.
And if someone absolutely wants a split, do you believe that we would be very sad? We are specialists in splits. Re-read Potlatch.[G.-E.] Debord, [Piero] Simondo
 Text of telegram sent 4 February 1957 at 7:45 am: “One must know how to decide. Stop. After decision, we no longer discuss. Stop. Lacking your promised collaboration in the conferences of Monday 4 February, we discern an abuse of solidarity[,] avant-garde responsibility and mutual trust that renders impossible any future collaboration. We await you with film. Rumney, Jorn.”
 Translator: dated 3 February 1957.
(Published in Guy Debord Correspondance, Vol "0": Septembre 1951 - Juillet 1957: Complete des "lettres retrouvees" et d l'index general des noms cites by Librairie Artheme Fayard, October 2010. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! March 2011. Footnotes by the publisher, except where noted.)