Having obtained an obviously fragmentary knowledge of your debates of 27 January and 1 February  (two letters sent to Eduardo [Rothe]: from one Claudio [Pavan] on 29 January, and one from Claudio, Gianfranco [Sanguinetti], and Paolo [Salvadori] on 1 February), we would now like to give you our opinion on a single point that appears to us to order the others.
It is astonishing, given that the problem of Gianfranco still hasn't been settled, that the Italian section can envision any other organizational or personal problem as particularly urgent. This gives the impression of avoidance. We find it shocking that Gianfranco -- whose absence on several fundamental questions has lasted several months, and whose serious difficulties with survival, and even [difficulties] with certain simple aspects of correct conduct with respect to his comrades, have been certified by the SI as a whole -- has the imprudence to take part in the examination of the absence of a comrade or the difficulties that this comrade has encountered in his work.
To avoid the return of such thoughtlessness, we suggest that you examine the question. Would it not be good, for example, for Gianfranco to henceforth abstain from making pronouncements on problems that he himself hasn't surmounted (in any case, the time that remains is very short: four weeks, broadly speaking, after the decisions made in Paris)?
Do you see a better solution?
Amicably,For the French section,
(Published in Guy Debord, Correspondance, Volume 4, 1969-1972. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! June 2005.)