(Close Window)
Topic: Another $10 wasted
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Feb 20, 2013 03:21AM)
There's nothing like purchasing a "new method" that lets me play the "how many previous inventions of this can I think of off the top of my head" game. While I suppose if you've never read anything at all about billet technique or mentalism, the ideas in IDS 2.0 might seem new, but surely the idea of ripping a business card in half to "create" an impromptu dummy doesn't warrant re-publication of standard methodology.
Message: Posted by: NeilS (Feb 20, 2013 03:28AM)
Sounds like a 'rip' off in more ways than one!
Message: Posted by: David Numen (Feb 20, 2013 03:58AM)
Oh dear John my friend - you should really have known better!
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Feb 20, 2013 06:26AM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 04:21, JohnWells wrote:
There's nothing like purchasing a "new method" that lets me play the "how many previous inventions of this can I think of off the top of my head" game. While I suppose if you've never read anything at all about billet technique or mentalism, the ideas in IDS 2.0 might seem new, but surely the idea of ripping a business card in half to "create" an impromptu dummy doesn't warrant re-publication of standard methodology.
[/quote]


John:

For the sake of clearness, I publish IDS originally on my eBook/Book "Mysteries Anywhere". After that in a separate document , "IDS 2.0" , I revisit the effect giving the reader new ideas about working completely surrounded, for Q&A, etc.

If you consider my effect as original just because I take a paper and make 2 billets, you didn't get it at all.

Why did you think that it was a "new method" after all?
Do you feel deceived if you buy a new CT and find out that it´s basically the same that Annemann teach us in his "Mental Bargain" ?

IDS is a routine that allows the performer to have a secure and simple technique to know information. Obviously isn't a completely new approach, but I know that adds something new to existing techniques.



Can you please elaborate a little more your argument? What is the standard methodology that are you referring? Peeking at a billet secretly ?
If that´s your argument, sorry but you will feel the same with any new publication.

The description on my eBook is clear and at least, if other similar experience happens in the future, please contact me privately with your arguments and I will gladly will help you to feel that you money took value.


Creating similar approaches to Mentalism is something that happens.I state my credits and inspiration clearly but if you know that my work is similar to other one published, you can tell me and I can add further reference without a problem.
I don't want to rip-off anyone and I never will do it. For me this art and practice is serious and I give it the respect that deserves.

Best
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Feb 20, 2013 06:59AM)
1. If a routine does not add to the published record, I do not believe it should be published. That is, if neither the method, effect, nor presentation represents a marked improvement or innovation on previously published material, the routine is a waste of space, and purchasing it is a waste of money thaat could subsidize legitimate creativity. This work has nothing, not its methodology, efect, or presentation (limited though the latter may be) that goes beyond the source material. Everything here is in Switchcraft, Annemann, or Cassidy.

2. Properly speaking, there is no peek. In common parlance, a "peek" is the secret opening of a billet to glimpse the contents. This is properly called a "read". It's a switch and read, straight out of Switchcraft, Cassidy, or Annemann. While this is a technicality, it is, nonetheless, something some buyers might like to know beforehand. I they'reexpecting what the rest of the mentalism world call a peek, they will not find it in this manuscript.

3. Given my primary point, that nothing in this manuscript adds to the source material, it also fails to meet the standards set by the source material in that it is incomplete. Anyone with even the meagerest knowledge of billet work does not need this book. Anyone with no knowledge cannot use it because it doesn't teach even a rudimentary switch. Were it complete in this regard, the person with no knowledge of billet work might find something usefull, but as it is, the student is better served buying something with substance.

I would not call this a rip off as the people whose ideas he uses are crediited. Even with the poor writing, as much a function of fractured English as anything else, I would have no quibble with this were there a single original idea in it.
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Feb 20, 2013 07:11AM)
[quote]
1. If you consider my effect as original just because I take a paper and make 2 billets, you didn't get it at all.

2. Do you feel deceived if you buy a new CT and find out that it´s basically the same that Annemann teach us in his "Mental Bargain" ?

3. IDS is a routine that allows the performer to have a secure and simple technique to know information. Obviously isn't a completely new approach, but I know that adds something new to existing techniques.


4. Can you please elaborate a little more your argument? What is the standard methodology that are you referring? Peeking at a billet secretly ?
If that´s your argument, sorry but you will feel the same with any new publication.

5. The description on my eBook is clear and at least, if other similar experience happens in the future, please contact me privately with your arguments and I will gladly will help you to feel that you money took value.


6. Creating similar approaches to Mentalism is something that happens.I state my credits and inspiration clearly but if you know that my work is similar to other one published, you can tell me and I can add further reference without a problem.
I don't want to rip-off anyone and I never will do it. For me this art and practice is serious and I give it the respect that deserves.

[/quote]

1. Indeed I don't get what you are trying to say with this sentence.

2.Yes I would, if it is exactly what Anemann, and Ovette, and Koran have already published.

3. Give me a single example of an idea or technique not already represented in the public record, and I will concede the point.

4.The particular way of gatting the peek has been published by Annemann, Cassidy, Bresler (I keep going back to these three, but they are products most of us have). Show me what's new in your method.

5. If I wanted my money back, I might simply complain privately, but my issue is less about my annoyance at wasting money and more a severe displeasure at an all too common trend in publishing redundant material. I have a long standing rule of never saying anything privately that I will not say publicly.

6. I have stated that I woul not call your ebook a rip off, and I do not. Let me be clear, the ebook is not bad, but redundant. As part of a larger publication, I have no objection to it. As a single release at its price tag I find it offensive.
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Feb 20, 2013 07:11AM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 07:59, JohnWells wrote:
1. If a routine does not add to the published record, I do not believe it should be published. That is, if neither the method, effect, nor presentation represents a marked improvement or innovation on previously published material, the routine is a waste of space, and purchasing it is a waste of money thaat could subsidize legitimate creativity. This work has nothing, not its methodology, efect, or presentation (limited though the latter may be) that goes beyond the source material. Everything here is in Switchcraft, Annemann, or Cassidy.

2. Properly speaking, there is no peek. In common parlance, a "peek" is the secret opening of a billet to glimpse the contents. This is properly called a "read". It's a switch and read, straight out of Switchcraft, Cassidy, or Annemann. While this is a technicality, it is, nonetheless, something some buyers might like to know beforehand. I they'reexpecting what the rest of the mentalism world call a peek, they will not find it in this manuscript.

3. Given my primary point, that nothing in this manuscript adds to the source material, it also fails to meet the standards set by the source material in that it is incomplete. Anyone with even the meagerest knowledge of billet work does not need this book. Anyone with no knowledge cannot use it because it doesn't teach even a rudimentary switch. Were it complete in this regard, the person with no knowledge of billet work might find something usefull, but as it is, the student is better served buying something with substance.

I would not call this a rip off as the people whose ideas he uses are crediited. Even with the poor writing, as much a function of fractured English as anything else, I would have no quibble with this were there a single original idea in it.
[/quote]


Fair argument John. Sorry that you feel in this way. I will PM you.

I still don't agree that my IDS is just a mixture of old ideas. Even that can be a valid new product when something new is added, and I still think that the specific document that are you referring , "IDS 2.0" , has those new ideas that are valuable in my opinion.
You are right about that peek/read issue. IDS uses a read technique that thanks to the routining, the performer can do it easily.
This is new at all ? No, but it´s my take and I know that several knowledgeable performers have IDS in his toolkit.

For others: If you want a new approach to billet work, in IDS 2.0 you will NOT find it.
You will find on there a real world routine that I have from several years. Simple and workable.


Best
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Feb 20, 2013 07:14AM)
Again, I ask for a single concrete example of a specific idea (a method, effect, or presentational ploy) not already in the common published record. For the record, I use this exact routine all the time, but I learned it from the sources cited above.
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Feb 20, 2013 07:18AM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 08:14, JohnWells wrote:
Again, I ask for a single concrete example of a specific idea (a method, effect, or presentational ploy) not already in the common published record. For the record, I use this exact routine all the time, but I learned it from the sources cited above.
[/quote]

I will not reply this on a public space John, but on IDS 2.0 there are several approaches and ideas that I consider valuable and as a reader I can add to my repertoire.


Best
Message: Posted by: Smoking Camel (Feb 20, 2013 02:17PM)
Bruce Bernstein covers this sort of publishing extensively in his "reading between the lines" essay in "Unreal." I agree with John - as someone who can read between the lines - I to find the price tag on variations offensive and It angers me when I spend money on it only to realise after the fact that nothing new has really been added.

I bought an ebook from a different author a few weeks back that was basically a variation of a well known effect by Luke Jermay that didn't really add anything new to the already published effect andI was very recently about the buy the scantily clad drawing duplication until someone mentioned it was basically ODDS on steroids.

Im starting to think that it would be a good idea for people publishing new material to include the credits in their add copy so that those that are well read and can read between the lines can make a better judgement on whether or not to buy the product. I know for sure that I will no longer be making an ebook purchase unless the author is willing to disclose the credits before I purchase. If they wont hand them over then I'm not buying. If they do hand them over and I buy and I find they havent credited properly and the effect is not a real improvement then I'm asking for my cash back.

Including credits in add copy is maybe not something that authors would like to do because it may have a dent in sales.... but then again if you are selling a product and you are 100% focused on ensuring that you deliver value to your customers, why would you not want to do everything possible to ensure your customers are buying products that are a good fit for them?



Back on topic - Amira - I havent read this work so I cant comment specifically about whether or not this is something truly new - I am offering my opinion on the issues that this thread has bought up.... again.
Message: Posted by: innercirclewannabe (Feb 20, 2013 02:35PM)
"If they do hand them over and I buy and I find they havent credited properly and the effect is not a real improvement then I'm asking for my cash back".

Good luck with that!

I agree with you though. We have all been stung in the past, and no doubt, we will be again in the future!

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"!

I make it my business to NEVER buy again from an author or creator who I feel has ripped me off!
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Feb 20, 2013 02:46PM)
Part of my rancor over the issue comes from my background in academia. If it's been done before, you don't publish. Plain as that. I have no objection to paying for a variation, but it should go beyond the source material. The same effect by markedly similar means does not pass the "publish worthy" test in my book.
Message: Posted by: Smoking Camel (Feb 20, 2013 02:48PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 15:35, innercirclewannabe wrote:
"If they do hand them over and I buy and I find they havent credited properly and the effect is not a real improvement then I'm asking for my cash back".

Good luck with that!


[/quote]

Indeed - the author doesn't necessarily have to comply with my request... I'm just stating what I think is the best decision making criteria and way to manage purchases given the sheer volume of stuff coming onto the market. I may miss some real gems if the authors don't want to reveal credits but then again at least ive in some way mitigated the risk of being burnt.
Message: Posted by: Smoking Camel (Feb 20, 2013 02:49PM)
Edit
Message: Posted by: Smoking Camel (Feb 20, 2013 02:51PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 15:46, JohnWells wrote:
Part of my rancor over the issue comes from my background in academia. If it's been done before, you don't publish. Plain as that. I have no objection to paying for a variation, but it should go beyond the source material. The same effect by markedly similar means does not pass the "publish worthy" test in my book.
[/quote]

Indeed - do you think that if you had a proper list of credits and the add copy you could assertion whether or not what an effect passes the "publish worthy" test? (assuming the add copy was not misleading)
Message: Posted by: magicman29 (Feb 20, 2013 03:07PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 09:09, Vincent V. wrote:
Pablo, I really hate the way you try to sell us your **** on every single post.
[/quote]

Then what the hell are you doing here reading them so,
If you don't like them then #### off to another topic!

Kieran
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Feb 20, 2013 03:22PM)
Smoking CAmel, probably not, or the credits would need to be so detailed as to let me, more or less, reconstruct the method if I know the source material which is a bit of a non-starter in terms of sales. What would be helpful is the sort of thing suggested by Doug Dyment, that anally retentive wild man of such devilish creativity: that authors explain why their work is an improvement on existing methods/presentations. His own r2-d2 is an excellent example. The ad tells you, very clearly, the definciencies he was attempting to correct in other tears. That sort of paradigm would reduce the pointless publication of redundant materials, and, in curtailing much "salesman speak", permit more effective pre-purchase evaluation of material. To paraphrase Doug, don't just tell me it's good, tell me why.
Message: Posted by: Smoking Camel (Feb 20, 2013 03:52PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 16:22, JohnWells wrote:
Smoking CAmel, probably not, or the credits would need to be so detailed as to let me, more or less, reconstruct the method if I know the source material which is a bit of a non-starter in terms of sales. What would be helpful is the sort of thing suggested by Doug Dyment, that anally retentive wild man of such devilish creativity: that authors explain why their work is an improvement on existing methods/presentations. His own r2-d2 is an excellent example. The ad tells you, very clearly, the definciencies he was attempting to correct in other tears. That sort of paradigm would reduce the pointless publication of redundant materials, and, in curtailing much "salesman speak", permit more effective pre-purchase evaluation of material. To paraphrase Doug, don't just tell me it's good, tell me why.
[/quote]

Thanks for this. This sort of questioning is common in other types of purchases e.g when the new ipad comes out people look to see if its worth upgrading.... they will be asking why it's better. I don't see why we shouldn't be asking the same questions here: Who have you credited in this work? Why do you think this is an improvement on what they've already released?

To be fair to Amira - he did release an effect a while back called 2 thoughts - I was a bit hesitant to buy because it sounded like a variation of one of Looches/cassidys effects - he clearly explained where the departure was, what he had improved and added etc, I was satisfied with his answer and was happy with the purchase.
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Feb 20, 2013 04:02PM)
John:

The description of what is inside of my eBook is clear


"Lose the fear of billets with IDS 2.0

Originally published in "Mysteries Anywhere", IDS gives you the opportunity to work with billets (pieces of paper that contains information) in a simple, easy and impromptu way.

No preparation (Anywhere Mentalism)
Borrowed material
Any type of paper
Full billet p**k

In IDS 2.0 you will find not only the original routine, but also new techniques and routines using the same thinking from the original routine.
You will also get access to a streaming video in which you can gain visual aid. "



If you knew how to do already that, why did you get my eBook?


In the eBook I explain my routine and the buyer got what its said on the description. Its fair on my opinion and I am still holding my argument about that with this publication I contibute in a positive way.

I don't think that a list of credits can help in this. When we get a product we are getting a secret.
Recently j got one product and I learn something not completely new, but I feel good becausr it was a new use of an old technique.
I can understand a complaint if my eBook is a complete rip-off of other product. I know and you know that this isn't the case.

Just a case of different criterias, something in which I cant do much.
Your criteria of what could be publicated is different to mine and I understand your point.


Best
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Feb 20, 2013 04:08PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 16:52, Smoking Camel wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 16:22, JohnWells wrote:
Smoking CAmel, probably not, or the credits would need to be so detailed as to let me, more or less, reconstruct the method if I know the source material which is a bit of a non-starter in terms of sales. What would be helpful is the sort of thing suggested by Doug Dyment, that anally retentive wild man of such devilish creativity: that authors explain why their work is an improvement on existing methods/presentations. His own r2-d2 is an excellent example. The ad tells you, very clearly, the definciencies he was attempting to correct in other tears. That sort of paradigm would reduce the pointless publication of redundant materials, and, in curtailing much "salesman speak", permit more effective pre-purchase evaluation of material. To paraphrase Doug, don't just tell me it's good, tell me why.
[/quote]

Thanks for this. This sort of questioning is common in other types of purchases e.g when the new ipad comes out people look to see if its worth upgrading.... they will be asking why it's better. I don't see why we shouldn't be asking the same questions here: Who have you credited in this work? Why do you think this is an improvement on what they've already released?

To be fair to Amira - he did release an effect a while back called 2 thoughts - I was a bit hesitant to buy because it sounded like a variation of one of Looches/cassidys effects - he clearly explained where the departure was, what he had improved and added etc, I was satisfied with his answer and was happy with the purchase.
[/quote]


2 Thoughts is an excellent example on this. This routine can be seen (in a simplistic way) just as an old classic technique with a little finesse.
Well, this little finesse , in my own criteria, is enough to think that I can offer it as a valid release.


The same happens in here, IDS is a billet routine that is similar to other previous works ( and I state my credits and further references clearly) , so in my opinion I did correctly.


Best
Message: Posted by: ElliottB (Feb 20, 2013 04:30PM)
Is this thread talking about “The Instant Dummy Billet” from “Secrets of the Masters Volume 1? As noted in my credits, the idea wasn’t mine – I got it from Annemann’s “Attention Mentalists” and Fogel’s “Beyond the Veil.” That said, I was really excited to rediscover the idea and more than happy to share the discovery with my mailing list, as it solved a problem many have with Switchwork.
Message: Posted by: ElliottB (Feb 20, 2013 05:02PM)
On 2013-02-20 12:40, Amirá wrote:
[quote]

I remember to read Swithcraft after Elliot's commentary about my routine and the "Pussilanimous Read", and I decide to publish my own because I think that have advantages that the previous one doesn't have.


[/quote]

Commentary?

I am sure that I must have said something somewhere, but, unfortunately, aside from my preceding post, I don’t remember the details or specifics. Could you please clarify?

I am only posting here because I saw my name came up and I am trying to figure out what this is all about.
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Feb 20, 2013 05:05PM)
[quote]
1. The description of what is inside of my eBook is clear

2.If you knew how to do already that, why did you get my eBook?

3.In the eBook I explain my routine and the buyer got what its said on the description. Its fair on my opinion and I am still holding my argument about that with this publication I contibute in a positive way.

4.Just a case of different criterias, something in which I cant do much.
Your criteria of what could be publicated is different to mine and I understand your point.

[/quote]

1. That has never been in dispute. The matter of "peek" versus "read" is a technicality.

2. I know how to do lots of things, but there may always be a new wrinkle to learn. In this case, not so. I can catalogue the publication history of every step of every method in the text, most of it off the top of my head. If I have not a single "good idea" moment in reading a text several times, then I tend to dislike it. I had several "good idea" moments with IDS, all followed by "I remember where so and so published that". There was, as the officer said, "nothing to see here".

3. I'd consiider it a neutral contribution. If you taught a switch, it would at least be useful. But you don't...

4. I don't expect you to agree, though I think my criteria better reflect the general consensus among mentalists who write for the community. For my own part, I could not, in good ethical conscience, publish this as a stand alone product.

At this point, there is nothing more for me to say.
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Feb 20, 2013 05:13PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 18:02, ElliottB wrote:
On 2013-02-20 12:40, Amirá wrote:
[quote]

I remember to read Swithcraft after Elliot's commentary about my routine and the "Pussilanimous Read", and I decide to publish my own because I think that have advantages that the previous one doesn't have.


[/quote]

Commentary?

I am sure that I must have said something somewhere, but, unfortunately, aside from my preceding post, I don’t remember the details or specifics. Could you please clarify?

I am only posting here because I saw my name came up and I am trying to figure out what this is all about.
[/quote]

Elliot:

John claims that my IDS effect doesn't add any new to billet work and for that reason it´s a "waste of money" because is just a reharsh of your work and others.
I add that my routine has difference with the "Pussilanimous Read" that you publish in your great eBook. First of all as you know I came up with this independently and after you read my eBook several years ago you told me that it was similar to your published routine. Fair, I place proper reference (no credits due the fact I didn't knew the routine before my publication).

If you don't have a copy of your eBook ( the original eBook in which my routine appears) let me know and I will send you other copy.

I state that in my opinion has advantages because my routine fits in the criteria of "Anywhere Mentalism", in which I don't need previous preparation to do it.


Best
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Feb 20, 2013 05:21PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 18:05, JohnWells wrote:
[quote]
1. The description of what is inside of my eBook is clear

2.If you knew how to do already that, why did you get my eBook?

3.In the eBook I explain my routine and the buyer got what its said on the description. Its fair on my opinion and I am still holding my argument about that with this publication I contibute in a positive way.

4.Just a case of different criterias, something in which I cant do much.
Your criteria of what could be publicated is different to mine and I understand your point.

[/quote]

1. That has never been in dispute. The matter of "peek" versus "read" is a technicality.

2. I know how to do lots of things, but there may always be a new wrinkle to learn. In this case, not so. I can catalogue the publication history of every step of every method in the text, most of it off the top of my head. If I have not a single "good idea" moment in reading a text several times, then I tend to dislike it. I had several "good idea" moments with IDS, all followed by "I remember where so and so published that". There was, as the officer said, "nothing to see here".

3. I'd consiider it a neutral contribution. If you taught a switch, it would at least be useful. But you don't...

4. I don't expect you to agree, though I think my criteria better reflect the general consensus among mentalists who write for the community. For my own part, I could not, in good ethical conscience, publish this as a stand alone product.

At this point, there is nothing more for me to say.
[/quote]

Just with the idea of not adding more authors to this discussion, I will not name other person but in the past several others publish their own takes on classic mentalism work without a discussion about being "not worthy". IDS is billet work, nothing new there. The routine, the structure, sure , can be similar to other works, but especifically in my eBook IDS 2.0, there isn't just the original routine, rather several more uses and ideas.
I will just say that in my standards if something new is added, is valuable and worthy to release.
In my perspective , my routine IDS, and especifically my eBook IDS 2.0, has properties that I don't know that were published.

In my opinion , my routine has a new wrinkle, in your opinion, don't. Fair

If you think that it was a waste of money, it´s fair, it´s your opinion.
But whats the intention of your first post? No solid argument. It almost looks like that in recent posts you were other person.


There is a specific "pellet variation" that John told me that it was previously published. I am still waiting for a solid argument about that.


Best
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Feb 20, 2013 05:31PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 17:30, ElliottB wrote:
Is this thread talking about “The Instant Dummy Billet” from “Secrets of the Masters Volume 1? As noted in my credits, the idea wasn’t mine – I got it from Annemann’s “Attention Mentalists” and Fogel’s “Beyond the Veil.” That said, I was really excited to rediscover the idea and more than happy to share the discovery with my mailing list, as it solved a problem many have with Switchwork.
[/quote]

ASIDE: Switchcraft has got to be one of the best value for $ around ;) - buy once and watch the thing grow and grow and grow! After a few years I might have to buy a separate hard drive for the eventual supplement!!!!

ASIDE: Unreal ROCKS :) - and poor Bruce has been ripped off so many times I'm glad he wrote that Essay and republished the work... its gold stuff

BACK ON TOPIC: Don't own IDS so can't comment - but I will say just like shopping for food, cars or anything else - caveat emptor and do your research ahead... one of the most interesting ploys for getting $ is similar to the $1 per song iTunes model and in app purchases that seem small but add up quick - I have had many patients (including apple employees) buy buy buy as each small item seemed cheap... versus if they bought a larger item which contained full albums, volumes, etc. they would have paid less... I kind of like buying LIBER MENTIS style stuff myself... bulk is good as usually there are a few gems in the lot that make it all worth while IMHO!!!

Caveat Emptor - especially if its Patricia Conley who has a tattoo of that on her arm!
Message: Posted by: David Thiel (Feb 20, 2013 05:39PM)
I only read this thread a few minutes ago but I have to say that it's refreshing to see two guys dealing with this issue with respect. I don't have the manuscript in question -- but I've worked with Pablo on several projects -- and I am very glad to see he's not being attacked here because in every dealing with me, he has always conducted himself with the highest degree of integrity.

David
Message: Posted by: ElliottB (Feb 20, 2013 06:06PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 18:13, Amirá wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 18:02, ElliottB wrote:
On 2013-02-20 12:40, Amirá wrote:
[quote]

I remember to read Swithcraft after Elliot's commentary about my routine and the "Pussilanimous Read", and I decide to publish my own because I think that have advantages that the previous one doesn't have.


[/quote]

Commentary?

I am sure that I must have said something somewhere, but, unfortunately, aside from my preceding post, I don’t remember the details or specifics. Could you please clarify?

I am only posting here because I saw my name came up and I am trying to figure out what this is all about.
[/quote]

Elliot:


I add that my routine has difference with the "Pussilanimous Read" that you publish in your great eBook. First of all as you know I came up with this independently and after you read my eBook several years ago you told me that it was similar to your published routine. Fair, I place proper reference (no credits due the fact I didn't knew the routine before my publication).


Best
[/quote]
Thank you, Pablo. I could not find it on my computer. But I got this computer recently and the file may be on the old laptop. You mentioned that you referenced my work in your manuscript. I definitely appreciate that. The material in Switchcraft has appeared in more than a few recent works with no credit at all. So I’ll definitely take a reference when I can get one. It shows you have integrity.

(I am assuming that a reference is kind of like a credit.)

Thanks again,

Elliott
Message: Posted by: ElliottB (Feb 20, 2013 06:09PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 15:17, Smoking Camel wrote:
Bruce Bernstein covers this sort of publishing extensively in his "reading between the lines" essay in "Unreal."
[/quote]

LOL. The author of that essay referred me to it on two occasions when I sought permission to print a nice tip and a nice variation in a Switchcraft supplement. At least I thought they were nice :)

Needless to say, those two items will (unfortunately) not be appearing in Switchcraft supplements anytime ever.
Message: Posted by: ElliottB (Feb 20, 2013 06:18PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 18:31, Dr Spektor wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 17:30, ElliottB wrote:
Is this thread talking about “The Instant Dummy Billet” from “Secrets of the Masters Volume 1? As noted in my credits, the idea wasn’t mine – I got it from Annemann’s “Attention Mentalists” and Fogel’s “Beyond the Veil.” That said, I was really excited to rediscover the idea and more than happy to share the discovery with my mailing list, as it solved a problem many have with Switchwork.
[/quote]

ASIDE: Switchcraft has got to be one of the best value for $ around ;) - buy once and watch the thing grow and grow and grow! After a few years I might have to buy a separate hard drive for the eventual supplement!!!!

[/quote]

It is in the process of growing again. I am writing two supplements simultaneously; one for Switchcraft and one for Mind Blasters USA.

Sorry for hijacking this thread. My excuse is that my e-book and I were mentioned a few times.
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Feb 20, 2013 06:26PM)
Hope that this discussion maintains this tone of respect and solid arguments.


I will leave for a moment, I have a gig, I will comeback tomorrow.


Best
Message: Posted by: John C (Feb 20, 2013 06:59PM)
I may purchase an item from an "unknown" once. That's enough to know what they are up to. If I like it I go for more. If not I stay away.

J
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Feb 20, 2013 09:45PM)
[quote]
There is a specific "pellet variation" that John told me that it was previously published. I am still waiting for a solid argument about that.

[/quote]

I've listed a dozen sources for him to check, though anyone with familiarity with the pellet switch can confirm my assertion.
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Feb 20, 2013 09:49PM)
Let me clarify, once again, that I dfo not dispute the value of the techniques in this manuscript or their independent origination by Pablo. I dispute whether the contents of the manuscript reflect an adequate improvement over available published work to warrant re-publication. That, to me, is the only issue. Are negligible variations adequate warrant for publishing material?
Message: Posted by: Paul Shirley (Feb 20, 2013 11:12PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-20 22:49, JohnWells wrote:
Are negligible variations adequate warrant for publishing material?
[/quote]

Hey John :)

In short, no. I understand your perspective entirely. However, I shall play Devils Advocate for a moment.

Despite some variations having already been in print, unless you are a true historian, or lucky enough to have stumbled upon the same idea in an old book somewhere, how is Pablo to know that it has been previously published. The answer could be: A little more time researching, and asking some of our more knowledgable comrades wether or not the idea has been published, and if so... where. This would allow the creator of a "new" presentation a chance of crediting correctly, and/or working harder on their presentation, to ensure enough difference, and added value has been made.

The down side to this... as some of us know is.. despite having some very knowledgeable friends.... you just can't get all the answers, all the time. Despite an effort to do so.

A second point to consider, is that a collection of ideas... that may have been published over the years in various books, are now ALL in one place. Kind of like a 'best of' C.D :)
Some of the GEMS that are in PRISM, for example. But... I am glad that Max put his spin on them... and released the collection... as there is no way on earth I would have found the original routines, without scouring for years through old tomes.

Lastly, I feel that even the slightest change to a script, blocking, of handling can make the world of difference to an existing idea. Equivoque for example.. relies on very cleverly thought out scripting, and timing.. And despite reading many variations on the same method... I am always on the search for that one small difference that enhances my performance.

Again... I do understand your frustrations. It seems that every one and their dog is relentlessly releasing PDF's .. within a week of having an idea... without proof reading... or even checking to see if the idea has already been done. Gets on my nerves too. . . but, hopefully some of my 'Devils Advocacy' :) .... may soften your opinion somewhat.

Cheers fellas.
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Feb 21, 2013 12:17AM)
Paul, I considered the Devil's position before my initial post. The sausage argument is the strongest (the blending of varied ingredients), but I would posit that all the ingredients, and something very like the completed sausage may be found in Switchcraft. I do think a proper vetting would have solved some problems (the source material are things with which Pablo has an acknowledged familiarity), and, as I've said, in the context of a larger work containing substantive original material, I would have no problem at all. My objection is that excised from a larger context, even with the additions, this manuscript does not represent an improvement, elaboration, innovation, or elucidation of its source material (whether independently developed or not) that warrants its publication.

I would add that those minor points that make so large a difference are less common in the field of billet work, which is principally manipulative. Certainly your equivoque example is valid. Even an identical method with a tweak of presentation can warrant existence (a minor quirk on the cener tear I found in Magick comes to mind), but I find none of that here. The method and presentation are rudimentary. Again, if it taught a basic switch to use (there is a pellet switch, but why would you crumple up a blank piece of paper to uncrumple it a moment later to write on...) I would have less of a complaint as the neophyte would have all the information necessary to use the product.
I have given Pablo an open invitation to demonstrate my error by showing me an original idea in the manuscript. He has asserted there are meaningful variations, and I am asking for clarification as to what those are.
Message: Posted by: NYNick (Feb 21, 2013 09:24AM)
The idea to compare Amira and Max made me near die!!
Love how Amria turns every answer into more advert. He could be very successful salesguy if he sold good stuff everyone needs like soap.
Message: Posted by: Paul Shirley (Feb 21, 2013 09:46AM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-21 10:24, NYNick wrote:
The idea to compare Amira and Max made me near die!!
Love how Amria turns every answer into more advert. He could be very successful salesguy if he sold good stuff everyone needs like soap.
[/quote]

Well, Im glad you survived your near death experience, as there was no comparison made (between Max, and Pablo as creators) by me. I was simply using PRISM as an example of a book that is full of routines, most of which have origins in other books by different authors. And... it just happened to be the book I had sat next to me at the Café, while making my post :)
Message: Posted by: Paul Shirley (Feb 21, 2013 09:46AM)
John,

All very valid points, sir.
Message: Posted by: Simon (Ted) Edwards (Feb 21, 2013 10:56AM)
Hi Paul,
Is PRISM not a compendium of the Color Series booklets? I don't honestly know how many, if any, of the effects in each booklet were republished elsewhere. I certainly think that all were devised by Max and not other authors though.
T.
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Feb 21, 2013 10:58AM)
NYNick, thanks for your comments. Gladly that you didn't die.

John, you still didn't give me solid arguments about your allegation of not release new ideas.
I will reply again in here after , privately, you send me further information.


Paul, you are the man in several reasons, you know why.



Best
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 21, 2013 11:55AM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-21 11:56, Simon (Ted) Edwards wrote:
Hi Paul,
Is PRISM not a compendium of the Color Series booklets? I don't honestly know how many, if any, of the effects in each booklet were republished elsewhere. I certainly think that all were devised by Max and not other authors though.
T.
[/quote]

Yes, it is a compendium of the Color Series. Max Maven lifted all of the material in Prism from Phil Goldstein. :eek:
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Feb 21, 2013 12:09PM)
Not only that, but Max now claims he wrote all that material himself! Phil is not credited anywhere! Outrageous...
Message: Posted by: Simon (Ted) Edwards (Feb 21, 2013 12:11PM)
Hah! How shameless!
T.
Message: Posted by: Paul Shirley (Feb 21, 2013 06:19PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-21 11:56, Simon (Ted) Edwards wrote:
Hi Paul,
Is PRISM not a compendium of the Color Series booklets? I don't honestly know how many, if any, of the effects in each booklet were republished elsewhere. I certainly think that all were devised by Max and not other authors though.
T.
[/quote]

G'day Simon.

There are a number of effects where Max attributes the original method, and/or idea that he has taken from somewhere else, and turned in to a new piece. All I'm saying is... Had Max not taken these ideas, put his own twist on them, and the published the Clolor Series/Prism, I would probably never had heard of them.... (Which would be a shame) as the original, potentially out of print books in which they came from .... would be hard to find.
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Feb 21, 2013 09:51PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-21 11:58, Amirá wrote:
John, you still didn't give me solid arguments about your allegation of not release new ideas.
I will reply again in here after , privately, you send me further information.

[/quote]

I've detailed the reasions for contention here, and privately given you a list of nearly a dozen sources to check out, which you should have done before publishing IDS anyway. There are no arguments necessary. Either your publication is significantly like other available material or it isn't. I assert that it is, and invite anyone with a familiarity with IDS and Switchcraft and other sources to confirm or deny my assessment.

I have invited you, both publicly and privately, to point out specifically one improvement on a previously existing idea in IDS. You have asserted they are there, but are either unwilling or unable to say on page X, this change is better than idea x from a source credited in the routine. If you can provide one such example, my argument is refuted. You have not done so, and your reluctance is...suggestive.

While you have called attention to the pellet switch, the method is identical to several others in print, of which I pointed you to many sources. Again, anyone with a familiarity with pellet switching can confirm or correct my assessment. I have been careful to detail reasons for my position, careful to make clear that there is not a motive of personal attack in my review (indeed, argued against those that have), and attempted to accord you the same respect that you have shown me.

At this point, there is nothing more for me to say, indeed, this is repitition. Either demonstrate my error with facts, and anyone else is invited to do the same, or consider the matter a draw. I do not expect or intend for you to agree with my position, though given adequate warrant, I am entirely willing to reassess my opinion. I've made this clear to you privately, and if and when I receive your evidence, I will publicly recant my position. What more can you ask of me?
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Feb 21, 2013 10:30PM)
[quote]
On 2013-02-21 22:51, JohnWells wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-02-21 11:58, Amirá wrote:
John, you still didn't give me solid arguments about your allegation of not release new ideas.
I will reply again in here after , privately, you send me further information.

[/quote]

I've detailed the reasions for contention here, and privately given you a list of nearly a dozen sources to check out, which you should have done before publishing IDS anyway. There are no arguments necessary. Either your publication is significantly like other available material or it isn't. I assert that it is, and invite anyone with a familiarity with IDS and Switchcraft and other sources to confirm or deny my assessment.

I have invited you, both publicly and privately, to point out specifically one improvement on a previously existing idea in IDS. You have asserted they are there, but are either unwilling or unable to say on page X, this change is better than idea x from a source credited in the routine. If you can provide one such example, my argument is refuted. You have not done so, and your reluctance is...suggestive.

While you have called attention to the pellet switch, the method is identical to several others in print, of which I pointed you to many sources. Again, anyone with a familiarity with pellet switching can confirm or correct my assessment. I have been careful to detail reasons for my position, careful to make clear that there is not a motive of personal attack in my review (indeed, argued against those that have), and attempted to accord you the same respect that you have shown me.

At this point, there is nothing more for me to say, indeed, this is repitition. Either demonstrate my error with facts, and anyone else is invited to do the same, or consider the matter a draw. I do not expect or intend for you to agree with my position, though given adequate warrant, I am entirely willing to reassess my opinion. I've made this clear to you privately, and if and when I receive your evidence, I will publicly recant my position. What more can you ask of me?
[/quote]

Well, I want that your argument goes beyond repetition and tell me exactly, in privately first of all, the exact publications which you think that my routine come from.
Again you are asking for new ideas on my routine and I am still holding the fact that has that benefit. Just today I perform my routine and I realize that the idea to give the billet in which I wrote my revelation to the participant, as far as I know, is an improvement and something of value.

It´s a simple idea ? Yes , almost just like a little realization. But adds something like all the things that we discuss privately.

Please let me know your reference and don't just tell me "check Switchcraft, Annemann and Cassidy". Surely those and other were references on IDS for further learning. I state clearly my direct inspiration on creating my piece.

If a serious third party wants to read my IDS, and especifically the eBook in question , "IDS 2.0", please PM me and we can get a different opinion about this.

I don't really want to change your mind John, you can think and feel whatever you want about my work, but I don't want to leave the impression that my work in general follows the path that you suggest.

Best
Message: Posted by: Vincent V. (Feb 21, 2013 11:07PM)
Honestly Pablo I don't like your material at all, it's bad, really bad.
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Feb 21, 2013 11:40PM)
That minor improvement is alreadyy in print in Switchcraft. Just because you came up with it does not give you a right to publish it if you failed to get it into print first.

I've given you references as complete as those in your book. I am not taking the time to do the due dilligence that was your responsibility prior to releasing the material, though if you insist I will do so, with the proviso that my analysis be posted publicly on this forum.
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Feb 22, 2013 06:29AM)
IMHO if you do that post the analysis in inner thoughts with a link to it here as it likely will involve details better described there?

Vv - IMHO feedback needs to be specific based on clearly observable facts to link to the discussion - blanket vitriolic statements do not help anyone learn anything but rather increase hostility and defensive reactions

One more IMHO - a new thread on what John is speaking about - likely worthy of a sticky status - as when reviewing etc an item - an almost academic / lineage / etc best practice principles could be discussed and created - ie I got new clue regarding ids but I know there are plenty of works across the boards that are rip offs and uncredited quickly releases dearly designed o make a fast buck.... And perhaps they should be labelled.

I just wrote a blog entry for a healthcare community of practice on what I call the cut-and-paste world -where plagerism is now almost an unconscious phenomena as our society mistakes freedom of ideas with freedom to take anything out there

Iiiii
Mmmmm
Hahhhhhaaa
Ooooooooooooo


(Example -see this fellows request...what are the basic criteria to truly to a review and answer)

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=501266&forum=159&0
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Feb 22, 2013 06:58AM)
John: You still didn't give me what I really ask for via PM to valid your argument.

I will reply again to you once I got that.
You tell me that the idea of giving back the billet isn't new. I am not refering to the one in which you need a new "element", rather using just the drawing itself ( a little bit cryptic here , for those who had my routine).

Yes, the structure of IDS is similar to other billet work? So what!
The swi*ch isn't new at all ( Al Baker one without TT) So what!

I used a finesse made popular by Mr. Cassidy , didn't give him credits?

Elliot told me that it was similar to a routine from Switchcraft... And place his publication as reference for further study due the fact I didn't read that specific routine before.

My criteria is this: Adds something new? ( even just my version of a previous work) : Is valid, and even with your argument, I still consider my routine as such.


Even with IDS 2.0 I gave a link to a video streaming in which I perform the routine and explain several thougths and strategies that were not covered on the written explanation.



My english is a little broken? Yes , an I do my best to ask for proofread by english speakers before publishing my work, but I don't believe that a publication of mine lacks value.
Maybe IDS uses ideas from previous works with simple details that make something new. Well , I take that.



Best
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Feb 22, 2013 10:28AM)
In other words, you admit there's nothing new in it, more or less, but because you thought of it by yourself it's ok to publish it. Most of us do not follow that practice. If we did, I would, under your logic, be within my rights to sell my own versions of the techniques known as Acidus Globus and Obsidian Oblique, both of which I developed independently of Millard Longman and Alain Bellon. But that would be unethical, as is, I believe, your stance.

Because I believe in putting my money where my mouth is, I make the following offer: Pablo offered me a free ebook by way of conciliation, and I suggested that he instead give a free copy of IDS 2.o to a neutral, knowledgable party to confirm or correct my contention. Since he has failed to respond to that suggestion, I will reimburse one person who purchases IDS 2.0 from lybrary.com the $9 if they will agree to post an unbiased examination of our mutual claims. Obviously, I expect any would be arbitrators to be well versed mentalists, so I invite you to pm me if you would like to accept my offer.
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Feb 22, 2013 11:57AM)
Where did I say that there is nothing new John?

I cant find that information on my reply. I believe that there is new ideas on IDS.
Maybe not a full new technique , but a routine full with little finesses that can create mindreading in good hands.


Best
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Feb 22, 2013 05:51PM)
What is Is the Was of What Shall Be
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Feb 22, 2013 07:50PM)
This is going to be my last post, unless someone wishes to mpass judgment on my position. The issue is this:

1. I assert. That is, I do not argue, moving from point to point to reach a conclusion, rather I state that anyone with familiarity with the standard techniques of billet work (in particular the contents of Switchcraft, the works of Annemann and Bob CAssidy), upon reading IDS 2.0 will not find anything that is an improvement or innovation on previously published material, that in neither the effect, method, or presentation, has Amira offered anything unique to his handling.

2. Because the custom in the business is to give credit to the one who got it in print first, and not publish your "original version" unles it is a significant improvement on that already in print, on the basis of my initial assessment, I assert also that Pablo amira should not have offered IDS 2.0 as a stand alone product, and that doing so may be construed as a breach of accepted ethics. (Though the latter point I will not press.)

3. To test my theory, I will reimburse one new purchaser of IDS with the requisite knowledge detailed in point 1. the cost of IDS 2.0 if they will publicly offer a neutral evaluation of my position. Those who would like to tae advantage of this offer may contact me via pm.
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Feb 23, 2013 03:16PM)
This is a Kobiyashi Maru situation
Message: Posted by: Davit Sicseek (Feb 23, 2013 06:50PM)
John Wells gone done put the smack-down down.

BOSH.
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Feb 23, 2013 07:43PM)
And Amira falls KO. KAPOOM


Best