J ack.

your continued interest (in this thread) inspires me to " ... expose to make them better"

(I personally thought you would drop it by now)

I won't do it it in this venue, but in the mainstream.

My personal ethical concern is addressed to those who promote and publish cold-reading material that takes advantage of sincere or vulnerable 'fellow humans' ( I myself am sometimes in that position, that of being a 'fellow human' myself... there is NO such thing as a 'muggle')

I don't have so much time for such a crusade ( I have a real life) but it coincides with my day-job.


I do have a conscience and am arrogant enough not to refuse a consistent challenge.


Two birds and all that ya know...

I'm done with this thread, the rest plays out elsewhere, outside this venue.




My best to you in your presentation of ENTERTAINMENT.

Tim

Wow. So let me get this straight … because Lee disagrees with you, he:

1.) Does not 'get it'
2.) Has 'not learned anything' during his life
3.) Is 'an idiot'

And to think I accused you of coming off as arrogant.

--d.

Lee,

Is a clever fellow.
I like him but often in a forum such as this the true intent of ones words can be misunderstood.

I also do not like being implied to be stupid or being told to apply myself to find a different method.
This shouts clearly to me that the writer sees magic as being good if ya can fool the spectator.

Yes reread Lees post he does infer and state such things with his words.

I also agree with some of what Lee wrote but I see no reason to comment on those things for it will only get me edited or deleted.

If Lee really thought my post was a personal attack I will apologize to him.

J ack

If exposing the exposers would have done any good, don't you think that Geller would have tried it by now?

- entity

Geller might be better off if he would.
Just standing ones ground and pushing when pushed goes a long way.

I have had several skeptics change their opinion of my type of performance when I did not crumble at their offered opinion.

Instead I pushed back.

As I have said one can learn a lot from Geller.

J ack

From accounts, he seems to have done pretty well for himself.

- entity

I knew that could be taken that way.

But I think you got my point for you even placed the doing well in past tense.

I also agree he is better off than I am.

But who knows what this year will bring.

J ack

Sorry Reese,

There are those who set aside the basic notion of cause and effect and regress to believe in magic as something that happens, something they take as evidence of a truly outside influence as opposed to the result of a knowable cause. They get to live in a world with "magic" as an outside influence. Let's call them muggles. It seems a kind reminder to us that no matter how much they cajole and wheedle, they really do need to hold onto their beliefs (be it Santa or whatever) and enjoy the magic we offer while regressed. It's a vacation. Let's give them that recognition for being on vacation. IMHO Ms. Rowling's word seems appropriate.

Be nice

J

I like the word 'audience' better.

'Muggles' seems slightly insulting.

I know it's just semantics. Words and how we use them are important to me though.

It's easier for me to have a sense of connection with someone I name an 'audience member'

than someone I'm calling a 'muggle'.

Best to you, Tim

Tim, folks

As I see it, the term only serves us in our private discussions to remind us about how differently our audiences percieve things and think about them.

I have never nor would I ever expect to refer to audience members as muggles.
The term has nothing to do with that frame of reference we enter when we are performing.

It pertains only to the distinction between those who get to enjoy a world where magic happens and our world where we are those who make magic, full well understanding that the perception of magic is the illusion we offer for the entertainment of others.

:)

That makes total sense.

Thanks for the illumination.

That really bugs me.

When I first started magic and did my simple tricks, I did explain a trick a few times. For me, I enjoy a good performance as well. So even when I find out how a trick is done, I'm still impressed with a good performance, the skill, technique, etc. When I explained a trick to laypeople, I did it because:
1) to stop their whining
2) because I thought for some reason that they would enjoy the performance as well

The result was always that their sense of wonder sank and they became disinterested. This cured me of ever wanting to explain another trick, no matter how much they whine or guess. I know that my explanation will just ruin their sense of wonder, so I refuse to do it.

Vance, when they ask they may be trying to undo the effect of what they saw. Depending on your character you can use that moment to say things like "It's not so much knowing as doing. And sure I could teach you... it took me about five years and I bet we could get you up to speed in just a couple" or similar.

Strange how mentalists differ from magicians.

Magicians will simper and ask for the autograph of the weasles that I mentioned in the first post.

Mentalists are choosing not to have anything to do with those who hurt their craft.

It is good to see that mentalists are choosing to draw a line.

J ack

H.O.A-X

J ack,

Are those to can and do keep secrets welcome to hang with the mentalists?

I am sorry Jonathan I did not intend to sound so exclusionary.

It is just the group I have the most exposure to.

I am sure they would welcome you but be warned they are an argumentative lot.

Best Wishes,

J ack

Okay, let's start with Harry Houdini, who strangely enough was not listed in Jim's original post, but maybe there was a reason for this aside from weakening Jim's argument, or at least I would hope so. Houdini debunked(another word for exposed) mediums to keep them from taking advantage of others. He also exposed other magicians, to help himself. And sometimes he had good reason to like when they would start performing his illusions, he would create a new method, perform it for a bit then he would expose the old method, destroying the careers of many 'would-be Houdinis'.

Now, what I'm still trying to understand is, how someone thinks Penn&Teller are hurting their 'public-persona' by exposing 'tricks'. It's funny how people can form strong opinions about something they haven't tried to understand. P&T tell the audience upfront that they perform tricks, infact they go on to say that they do not want anyone thinking what they do is 'real magic'. Now, from my own personal experience, telling people that there is no real magic, sometimes they think you're lying to them, as if you do not want people knowing you are real-magic-incarnate. Hence, the brilliant thing P&T do is they expose the trick. This leaves no possible out for the audience. Exposure is so much apart of their 'public-persona'. You can not do something 'in character' that goes against your character. As someone on this thread once said, " Hey wake up. Snap out of it! It is time to think", "[don't] let them think for you".
Okay, about "painting a picture and placing it in a public urinal". Wouldn't it be more like --- painting a picture and showing everyone the brushes and paints you used to paint it?
Now, I'm not for or against exposing secrets. But I am well aware that 'Secrets' have great power over anyone who does not know them -- and the few that do are forever chained to them so long as they are 'secrets'.

And for those of you not paying attention, old Jim/Jack Callahan has been '1-ahead' since he started this thread. You should thank yourselves for helping him find his answers. As for myself, 'submit reply' is thanks enough.


Sean Merrick


P.S,
Hey Jim,
I peaked at your website( http://www.jimclass.com). I was really interested in getting paid for helping you with your shows after I'm worm food. I am currently willing to help you for a 2 year time period, during which, I am willing to help you once a week. You can e-mail me at merricksforge@yahoo.com for my physical mailing address. I look forward to working with you.
Keep it Strange

James Randi debunks con artists that claim paranormal powers. Especially when they use it to con and get money from unsuspecting common joes. He has nothing against magicians and mentalists. Most mentalists like most magicians are very skilled and had worked very hard to earn their success. But they hardly claim to have paranormal powers.

I guess it may sound demeaning to some when Randi calls it "simple tricks". Maybe he is not expressing himself very well. I guess he tries to make a difference about "paranormal powers" and "simple tricks" that anybody could learn, given enough time and preparation. But by no means he intends to say that the "tricks" are "simple" and easy to perform.

I like him exposing frauds and fakes. If Uri Geller had claimed all along he was a mentalist and a magician instead of having "divine" powers, his story would have been different.

There´s no comparison between Randi and other exposers of magic like Valentino and Angel.

Well, Randi's getting ready to join their ranks.