In my earlier post asking about permission requested and refused, I did not name any names specifically because both parties are respected individuals in this forum. I had hoped that they would work things out between themselves and come to a mutually beneficial agreement.

Although both parties have confirmed to me that permission was asked for and refused, it seems that there is contention about what that permission extended to.

I meant no disrespect to either party in this disagreement. I think that they are both very creative and talented people.

- entity

Really, Thomas?

Then I believe the crux of the issue here is judging what "Prevaricator" is and what is not...

In the words of Marcus Aurelius (badly translated by me, in english) - "Of each and every thing you must ask yourself what that thing is, strictly in itself".

P.S: I know Arnon will come here to pinpoint me the EXACT translation from latin to english

Just to be clear, I was NOT talking about Jerome.

I made the assumption that entity was writing about the major figure in mentalism taking material from another mentalism icon and is including the material in a major book (3rd in the series). I won't say the names as the book has not come out yet.

I'm not aware of a situation between Jerome and Patrick, and I do NOT want what I wrote to fuel the fires of the rumor mill. I have respect for both of them and have known Jerome for the past few years and have come to trust his opinions and his ethics.

This whole situation as it unfolded here seems artifical and contrived, it is hard for me to grasp the way this thread has turned!

Repeat, what I wrote was NOT about Jerome.

Tony Iacoviello

If so, Tony, then this is byzantine.

Apparently entity was talking about Jerome Finley and Patrick Redford, whereas you were not! Your wires crossed - two mentalists, no less!

I appreciate your clarifying this at your earliest opportunity, to avoid further misunderstandings.

Thanks,
Arnon

Arnon:

I was referring to two other people as I said.

I've PMed you.

Tony

Oh, that's rich. Come on, ya big tease, stop beating around the bush.

Can't we all just get along, man?

Thank's Quinn.

Great advice.

Speaking of which...

Joshua... How did you dare to steal MY Duplicity which I have been performing since before I was born and my father was before me... ??????

Serves you right for pilfering all my chair routines that have been passed down through my family since... since... since the invention of the chair!

PS -- Nice catch.

You guys are great.

Tony, thank you for the clarification. I really appreciate it and was quite shocked for awhile

I'm sure this will all be resolved very, very soon.

-Jerome

I'm afraid that you are jumping to conclusions that don't apply here, Arnon.

When this thread began, and I posted early on I mentioned the subject of using unpublished material without permission. It's something I'm interested in getting thoughts about because I am a writer, and I make an effort not to use unpublished ideas of others. The original posts made in this thread were made BEFORE I was even aware of the Patrick/Jerome debate.

About two years ago, I began a correspondence with Patrick Redford and Ben Blau. As a part of that correspondence, they shared with me unpublished work they had done on the Prevaricator theme. When I heard that there was an issue, I thought that I might be able to act as an intermediary of some sort, as I have corresponded with both parties, and I believe that both parties see me as a fair person.

I wrote to Jerome, asking about buying his Thought Channel. He seemed evasive and asked me to wait. I now understand that he was considering re-thinking the launch of the publication.

Patrick explained to me that Jerome had asked for his and Ben's permission to use their ideas in his book and that they had said, "no". Apparently though, Jerome was still going to put out his publication, while giving Ben and Patrick credit. I'm still not clear on what was asked, if they were talking about the unpublished material, or what. Still, I thought that if they'd said "no" after being specifically asked, that should have been that.

I then wrote my post on this thread (without naming names) in an attempt to elicit more information, and to show support for Patrick and Ben, whose "no" was seemingly being ignored. In that post I made my "reference" remark, agreeing with the post before mine.

In your response to that post, Arnon, you listed a number of criteria for giving credit. Among those listed was, under Credits, a heading for Unpublished works that directly influence the current work. This caught my attention, as it went back to my original posts in this thread where I said that I thought that unpublished works of others shouldn't be used if known by the next writer. It had nothing to do (in my mind, at the time I was writing) with the Patrick/Jerome argument.

I wanted clarification, to be sure that I was understanding what you were saying, and what the legal position was, for my own reference, and so I wrote the next post to you, asking how you as an attorney and a creator of Mentalism felt about the issue of using unpublished material to build upon in a work of Mentalism or Magic, and what the legal position was. Again, this was not asked with respect to Jerome's situation. I wanted to know for myself, and to try to see how that might affect my stance as taken in my first post in this thread.

Along the way, Tony threw in a post saying that unpublished material shouldn't be used without permission. Apparently he was talking about another issue entirely, but I assumed he then was talking about my post earlier, and I agreed that the parties should "do the right thing", and so I wrote one word in agreement: "Amen".

No attempt was made to, as you put it: "Set you up". I consider you a friend and wouldn't do that to you or to anyone else. I'm very surprised you would even think that of me. At the time I wasn't even aware of your participation in Jerome's publication, which may be making you a little bit defensive in this situation. I think you've grossly over-reacted, as exemplified by your following comments:

"It seems abundantly clear to me that you have a hidden agenda which is no longer so hidden any more, and that you are not a neutral observer of any of the statements you made which were supposedly "hypothetical" but actually, and unfairly unbeknownst to me, were mere claims of one party against the other, and not established facts.

"It is only because I do have integrity and value the truth, that I replied to you fully and precisely as I did. Despite your having kept me in the dark with your question, my answer still stands as valid, and I am proud of it."

In fact, I have no hidden agenda, apart from trying to find out the facts. I probably agree that I'm not a completely neutral observer, in that I did have correspondence that gives me some inside information with regard to what Patrick and Ben had come up with two years ago.

My question to you with regard to your list of crediting criteria WAS hypothetical, whether you choose to believe it or not. I appreciated your answer and thanked you for it. My question was an honest one, did not have anything to do with the Patrick/Jerome contraversy, and was IN NO WAY meant to put you in the dark or anywhere other than in a position of someone with some knowledge about the subject (law) that I didn't have.

Some please, keep your finger wagging, and "shame-on-you's" to yourself, Arnon. In this case, they do not apply and are a product of your own over-reactions to a jumbled series of posts.

I apologized on the thread, saying that I held both parties in the argument in regard, and I wrote to Jerome asking him if he HAD asked Patrick and Ben for permission to use their work and had been told "No". Jerome answered that he had asked them for their "blessing" on his book, which they had refused to give.

He has offered to send me the publication in question so that I can honestly compare it to what Ben and Patrick shared with me two years ago. Jerome has been reasonable and understanding with me, and says he is sure that I will give my honest response, which I shall.

- entity

To be clear, I missed the word "unpublished" and was speaking of a situation reguarding published material that is on the market. And as entity said and many here are familiar with, a different situation involving 2 other people.


Tony

Yeah, I know what Tony is talking about. Don't you guys remember that AG thread from last year?

I think I spend too much time on the boards

Last February.

Thank you Elliott!

Tony

about forty years ago I began a correspondence with mr.redford:asapart of that correspondence I shared with him something that two years ago he shared with you.my unpublished work

ok my joke is no good but my point is anyone could claim they shared this or that with a friend twenty years ago and their friend as one expect will confirm that went exactly that way

Maybe you would lie about it. I wouldn't.

- entity

Join the club!!!

Too late - you already have....

NO ESCAPE

Donot take it wrong ive not any base say you lied:hypotetically thou no liar would admit hes lying.would be end of games

let the fun begin prevaricator inside prevaricator like russian dolls

[/quote]
I wrote to Jerome, asking about buying his Thought Channel. He seemed evasive and asked me to wait. I now understand that he was considering re-thinking the launch of the publication.
[/quote]

Entity,

I asked you to wait so I could watermark and protect the file and get an appropriate ad/banner here at the Café, not because I was reconsidering the launch.
-JF

Y'know how much grief can be avoided with two letters....?

P...

M...

Really!

Ia! Yoggy dance! Ia!