The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Ebooks, PDF's or Downloads » » In Plain Sight (by Mick Ayres & Jim Callahan) (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
Jon Hackett
View Profile
Special user
UK
735 Posts

Profile of Jon Hackett
The text in the add certainly should not be changed.

The effect is entirely accurate, what the audience sees is what happens, not what the magician sees.

If your not sure, (its certainly because you havent, and don't have the ability to perform it) perform the effect! And ask the spectators what they thought happened, and did they enjoy themselves?

Jon Hackett
It is not the brains that matter most, but that which guides them -- the character, the heart, generous qualities and progressive ideas. Doystoyevsky
Nathan Pain
View Profile
Inner circle
iowa
2817 Posts

Profile of Nathan Pain
To correct everyone...by the choices the spectator makes, she most certainly does stop at a place of her choosing...think about it. I wish I could say more...if only Mick had a private forum.

Nathan
...
Mystification
View Profile
Special user
567 Posts

Profile of Mystification
I like the effect, but I also agree with Craig. The description is a little misleading. At least I was misled. I still like the effect.
Cody S. Fisher
View Profile
V.I.P.
Austin, Texas
1170 Posts

Profile of Cody S. Fisher
Greetings friends,

I have been following this thread primarily due to my interest in Mr. Ayres latest creation. Like everyone else here, I am always curious to see what other’s think…people are interesting to me!

I love it when I see threads that involve the words “holy grail”. There is no such thing as a "holy grail" for any effect, presentation, or method. The “holy grail” would be real magic! Like each of us as individuals...our magic always has room for improvement. Just as the concept of "one card reversed" (non-gaffed ID) or "any card at any number", the “open prediction” is nothing more than a 1 in 52 chance. Given Curry's criteria (borrow deck, shuffled, never touched, free dealing by volunteer, free stopping by volunteer, etc.) the only real solution is a 1 in 52 chance. Since magic is not real we have to create the desired effect using presentation and method. Magic is nothing more than an “impossible feeling” that was created through an open presentation and a concealed method.

Why am I writing all this? I do not know Mr. Ayres so I have no financial interest...I am taking the time to write because I was so impressed with the "thought" that went into this. He has taken a simple "move" and through the carefully scripted presentation properly justified it so it accurately fits Curry's criteria...it is simply brilliant. The ad is not misleading in any way.

Even if you never perform this, I would certainly recommend this for reading...it may change the way you 'think' about how to “justify” or “motivate” the method through clever scripting and presentation.

Will this fool magicians...probably not! Will this fool a lay audience...I would say yes! But more importantly...the presentation will get them interested in the effect. Have you ever performed for a group that was not interested in your trick? You could have real powers and still not impress them! The reverse is also true…I have seen an audience spell bound and completely absorbed in an effect where the method was nothing more than a DL…just something to think about…

I hope this helps...just my thoughts...

Take care my friends,
Cody S. Fisher
To Sign Up For My Members Only FREE Monthly Videos Visit: www.CodyFisher.com/store

Cody's Comedy Confabulation / Silk-2-Egg / Killer Prediction / Tossed Out Deck / Comedy Book Test / Las Vegas Aces / Three Ropes & 1000 Laughs
scarnecky
View Profile
Veteran user
Utah
330 Posts

Profile of scarnecky
Cody~

Perfectly said..


Greatest Thanks

Scar
Mick Ayres
View Profile
Special user
Hilton Head Island
990 Posts

Profile of Mick Ayres
Quote:
On 2008-11-10 06:42, fvdbeek wrote:
Quote:
effect-descriptions are traditionally based on the audience's interpretation of events

That's a cheap escape. Laypeople don't buy effects nor do they read the adds that promote them. There are a lot of things we traditionally were doing but nowadays aren't doing anymore.

Quote:
True, the guest does not stop exactly "at a place of her own choosing" (though she certainly will believe it is).

So I guess you change the text in the ad?

Frans


Greetings Frans,

I don't regard anything I've written in my response as a 'cheap escape'. Rather, I feel I am stating the obvious. Effects are offered to the conjuring market via descriptions of what the audience sees. No one involved in marketing their creation gives a blow-by-blow, detailed description of the methodology. This is to prevent reverse-engineering, plain and simple.

'In Plain Sight' is a theatrical presentation of Curry's Open Prediction challenge that consistently delivers enthusiastic, lingering applause (and even a few standing ovations) from my audiences. The purchaser doesn't get a simple outline of the basic method. Instead, the purchaser receives a thorough description of the presentation along with the full scripting, blocking and choreography details involved in pulling this off. I have a reputation for being exceedingly detailed and professional in my publications. 'In Plain Sight' is no different.

I have no intention of changing the IPS ad or anything within the manuscript.

I do regret that you might be missing the bigger picture about IPS.

Best,
Mick Ayres
THE FIVE OBLIGATIONS OF CONJURING: Study. Practice. Script. Rehearse. Perform. Drop one and you're done.
Magicsquared
View Profile
Inner circle
1242 Posts

Profile of Magicsquared
I'm afraid my opinion is going to be unpopular as well.

I feel there were things to like and dislike about this ebook. The actual method of the effect is one thing I didn't like at all. The matter in which the spectator decides which card she is going to stop at is convoluted and unintuitive. Yes, I realize it's a classic technique, but I don't believe it works well with the Open Prediction. The beauty of the open prediction plot is that everything seems so fair and above-board. The technique used in this effect is neither; it's a little cozy and quirky. And while I think Mr. Ayres does a decent job of attempting to justify it, I believe an audience still registers it as being not quite above-board.

My second issue is with the structure of the trick. There is no justification for doing it twice in a row. And, in fact, I think it weakens the effect to do it twice. If this is supposed to be something difficult and special, why are we rattling it off twice in a row? If you're going to do a prediction twice, I believe a much more intriguing structure would be to do a standard prediction first (a "closed" prediction, in your hands, etc.), and THEN introduce Paul Curry and the idea of an open prediction, and all the rules, and so on, and only then do the open prediction (just once).

The structure as it stands now is like Evel Knieval jumping 50 buses on a motorcycle and then saying, "I'm going to jump 50 buses on this motorcycle again." That's not a very interesting story to tell. However if he jumped 30 buses first, took a lap around the grandstand, grabbed the mic and said, "Thank you. You know, originally, I wanted to jump 50 buses but we couldn't get insurance for such a stunt, my family wouldn't agree to it, and the engineers and mechanics we consulted said it would be physically impossible for a motorcycle to jump that distance. Those are all valid reasons not to attempt such a jump. But my dream was to jump 50 buses and I need to at least TRY to share my dream with you here tonight. Bring 'em in!" And in come rumbling 20 more buses, honking their horns and sputtering diesel fuel. Now that second bus jump is a grand finale instead of an afterthought.

My third issue was the script itself. I found it underwhelming. I love the idea of pulling back the curtain to let the audience in on the history of what they're seeing. Getting a peak "behind the scenes" is always fascinating. It's the reason you'll watch a Behind the Music of a band you don't even like. However I didn't find the script that compelling. It was serviceable and definitely better thought out than most magic scripts you read, but I don't think it really captured how interesting this story is. I was surprised to see he didn't introduce the phrase "open prediction" to the audience, which was a concept that fascinated me the first time I heard it. It's only fair to say that I put food on my table by writing so perhaps I'm overly-critical.

I should say that there were a lot of little touches in the manuscript that I liked. I wish I could go on about them as much as I've gone on about what I perceive as weaknesses in the effect, but to do so would give them away.

I don't know that those little touches were worth $20 for me, but I certainly don't feel ripped off in any way and will support Mr. Ayres work in the future.
Chris K
View Profile
Inner circle
2260 Posts

Profile of Chris K
Wow, some really great discussion, even if it got a little too personal for my liking. I'd like to share some of my PERSONAL thoughts. If you agree, great. If you disagree, double great, as long as we all think about it. In the interest of saving time, I really like takeachance's post earlier. Aside from the fact that I come from a card magic background, I could have written something very similiar. My post will be long so that post is your escape hatch, take it now...

Craig Crossman brings up a valid point. He wasn't happy because he thought he was buying a method versus what I'll call a presentation. This is going to affect what he feels is the value of the release, which is completely valid. I'll offer a slightly different take.

First off, I said it straight away that I figured out "50%" of the method of the effect before I even sent my money in. What I felt I was buying was pretty simple: an approach to the Open Prediction problem. Probably like many of you, I have used some variation of 51 Faces North for this kind of effect. Many have said that they think it is one of the best approaches to the problem ever. However, in my personal opinion (more on this later), it has less to offer than variations on Mick's and Jim's work. However, let me clarify something before I progress any further.

I had no illusions of learning some new fancy "force" or a card or psychological subtlety to make a spectator stop dealing at a specific card. That is simply a pipe dream for 100% effects (maybe 95% but not 100%, I'll grant you that). Instead, I had the inherent understanding that it was a presentational approach and, furthermore, I figured it would be congruent with almost any force or psychological stopping technique out there. It was perhaps my experience with both of the creators of the effect that made it clear, but it was clear as day. I never felt mislead, nor did I feel that I was ripped off in any possible way even though 50% (METHOD-WISE ONLY) was exactly what I thought it was.

After a little less than a week performing this effect, my opinion is the same: brilliant. Now, and this will probably just confuse people, I don't use the force and/or psychological controls, nor do I use the story/presentation given in the ebook. However, I use the "general" approach, the list (people know what I am talking about), and combine them with the knowledge and other tools I have.

I've tweaked the presentation I give (I only mention the Ghostbusters movie when I need to explain parapsychology now) but I still really enjoy the inherent ideas. For a bit, I toyed with sharing some the the little tidbits I have added that seem to make it work for me but they rely on drawing from many different sources and, as such, would represent an exposure problem.

I will simply say this:

Thos who have many of Mick's or Jim's/Jack's other works should now have all the tools they need to do an open prediction effect OVER THE PHONE. Jim/Jack's work in Leap of Faith should be enough to get off the ground and Mick's work in Predictabilities ("Reality Phone Experience") should spell it out. There is some amount of additional misdirection and/or participant control needed than in either of those effects but really not that much.

In the end, I knew 50% of what I was going to get and am still happy with this purchase. Craig Crossman brings a very valid point of view, and one I won't argue with except to say that he and I were looking for different things and I happened to be right in what to expect. I can't say that is a compliment to me for figuring it out or an inherent problem with the ad text. I can only say, for me, this was exactly what it was billed as, is now a staple of any "impromptu" set I would do with any type of cards (maybe not esp since it is not as impressive, but still maybe there too).

Final point: I am torn with the idea of repeating the effect. I've done it and I am not sure how much of an improvement it really is in many situations. I referenced Leap of Faith from Jim/Jack already, so let me go ahead and quote something from that manuscript:

Quote:
Do it once it’s a miracle. Do it twice it’s a trick


I tend to agree. If I am going to repeat it, I might slightly miss the first time, using it as a "calibration", if you will. However, in the end, it's an irrelevant distinction. Whether you follow the script to the letter (ALWAYS a bad idea) or not, it is simply two ways to get to the same point, with added subtleties to ALLOW you to do it again, if you wish.

I think it's great. I see others' viewpoints but I can't resolve them in terms of the complaints except to say that their were, ONLY IN MY OPINION, unrealistic expectations.

I recommend it highly. Is it "real" magic? Of course not. I said so in my first review. Does it look like real magic? To absolutely everybody I have performed it for, bar none. I've been a proof is in the pudding guy and the one thing I see missing from criticisms so far is actual audience reaction that it fails to match the goals set in the open prediction "criteria". To me, a lack of negative evidence hurts the arguments for negative reviews but, again, I am a scientist at heart and I would never expect somebody to perform something they don't have faith in, so I also recognize that some people will have negative views of this and never try it. Fair enough.

Sorry for being so long winded but this is a topic that goes beyond the open prediction, beyond any card at any number (another holy grail effect), and even beyond holy grail effects in general. It has to do with understanding what an effect is versus trick versus presentation.

One last example of something that is relatively simple and perhaps even "too simple" yet is an amazing piece of theater:

Lior Manor's Mobile Opener

Nuff said.

Lem
magicmerlz
View Profile
Loyal user
217 Posts

Profile of magicmerlz
I bought this (also own two of Micks Act Series E-Books) and really like it, and HAVE to emphasise that Mick is 100% spot on when he says that the presentation of this effect is the key. An example below of what I mean.

I purchased (a while ago now) Harry lorayne's Classic Collection: Volume 1 and, I am ashamed to say, bypassed a lot of the effects in the book, as 'not for me' based on their written descriptions. However I recently purchased The Harry Lorayne DVD's on which he teaches and demo's a lot of the effects from the book. Well I was an instant convert - when seen how these effects SHOULD be performed I instantly went back to the book and am currently re-reading EVERY effect from the book with renewed enthusiasm. The performance's won me over.

My point is that, this may not appeal to everyone, just as sponge ball magic and book tests don't appeal to me, but in my opinion (if presented correctly) this can be a seriously strong piece of magic. The great patter/story is an added bonus as I personally hate the cr**py patter that seems to plague card effects.

Bottom line = different folks...different strokes...but I like it a lot.
rowdymagi5
View Profile
Inner circle
Virginia
3031 Posts

Profile of rowdymagi5
Too bad "Leap of Faith" is no longer available.
Mick Ayres
View Profile
Special user
Hilton Head Island
990 Posts

Profile of Mick Ayres
I want to thank everyone who is taking their time to share their honest opinion about 'In Plain Sight'. Lem's wonderful observations about 'missing slightly' the first time...and about doing this as an Open Prediction presentation over the telephone...is constructive criticism at its best.

Warm regards,
Mick
THE FIVE OBLIGATIONS OF CONJURING: Study. Practice. Script. Rehearse. Perform. Drop one and you're done.
El Mystico
View Profile
Special user
551 Posts

Profile of El Mystico
I've got to chime in here on Craig's side. It seems to me he was being criticised for what to me seems like a valid point.
This trick may be great - I don't know, I've not bought it. I'm not critcising the trick.
But to call it a solution to the Curry Open Prediction is making a very specific set of claims for it. Curry wrote "the spectator, as instructed, would hold the pack face down and deal the cards into a face up pile. At any point of his choosing, he would deal one card face down..."
Many magicians, including Curry, have spent many hours trying to devise solutions to Curry's strict description. As Mick says, Curry himself failed to come up with an adequate solution; "I have admittedly ignored some of the conditions of the original," Curry said of his solution.
So - if Mick views Curry's attempt to produce The Curry Open Prediction effect as a failure, then he must view his own as a failure too, because it too does not meet Curry's description. Mick too has ignored some of the conditions.

Again, I'm not criticising Mick's trick. It may get teriffic reactions. I'm not criticising Mick's instructions. I'm not criticising Mick's scripting.

But - it isn't a solution to the Curry Open Prediction.
goldeneye007
View Profile
Inner circle
London
1487 Posts

Profile of goldeneye007
Well... just my 2 cents too...

I bought this and must say I'm quite disappointed. Some very good points were made by other people who also were disappointed, so I won't go over this again...

It is an idea for a presentation, but I don't find it effective at all. $5 - $10 would have been a fairer price...

Moreover, and that's my main reason for posting, I tried it twice on two different audiences. When I read the pdf I was disappointed and never thought it would work that good, so I figured out I might as well try it and see... and guess what: each time a spectator told me: "but... ok... so we stopped at [this] card... but we did not really choose when to stop..." (I put [this] into brackets because what he said exposes the method... which most magicians know in fact...), so I made my way through by saying that the card was random, even though it was [this] one... and it went ok, but I felt that they felt qomething was wrong...

I told myself "man... what went wrong?", maybe I made a mistake in my presentation, but when it happened again after I really paid attention to what I did (and I've been doing mentalism for quite a long time now, so I know what I'm doing... I hope!... Smile ), I really thought it wasn't a good idea after all.

It's an idea for a presentation, ok... but the technique used here is really in fact only a technique and should imho only be used as such. When I use it otherwise (and I do sometimes use it), it's really for something else, so people do not really pay attention to it and they buy it, but here everything relies on this method (you practically tell everybody to carefully watch what you're doing!) and your presentation. And imo the presentation is not strong enough to conceil what's happening.

I already here people saying: "that's because YOU are presenting this in an inapropriate manner!"... Well... I think I followed - and each time - the patter given in the pdf quite thoroughly, so I don't think it's because of this.

Maybe it suits some people and that's great for them. I only find this too expensive for what it is. In fact it should have been published as a bonus effect in another pdf...
Ben BV
Chris K
View Profile
Inner circle
2260 Posts

Profile of Chris K
Thanks for sharing, Goldeneye, I think we all appreciate it.

Quick question for you, did the effect fail with both [methods]?

I ask because, technically speaking, the second method given by Mick in the ebook should have eliminated any possible "we did not really choose where to stop" issue with the audience.

I would never say that anybody else is presenting in an inappropriate manner, esp. the first method, as a personal approach is really required. I would say that the second method, technical deficiencies (flashing, for example) would seem to be on the short list of why problems arise. Again, I am NOT saying that is what happened, but the [method] itself is pretty darned good to standing up to heavy analysis, both during and after.

That's all I'll say because I am more interested in hearing more about your side as I have already made my thoughts on this clear. I think, regardless of final analysis of this effect, this discussion can be really informative itself.

Lem
goldeneye007
View Profile
Inner circle
London
1487 Posts

Profile of goldeneye007
No Lem, you're right! I didn't make it clear in my post, but the spectators made the remark I referred to after the first method of course. But, for some reason, even when I proceeded with the second method (which I do not find very natural by the way - c'mon! who would do that? technically speaking it's a nice solution, in the hands of the spectator, but it's not very natural - and which still does not meet the Open Prediction requirements as stated in the ad or as Curry settled them), I still felt suspicion in the air, most probably because spectators felt that the Curry procedure was not really beeing followed. Without tipping too much about the second method - nor the first - the procedure of IPS is not THAT fair. At least it's not as fair as: 1/ magician/mentalist makes a prediction 2/ spectator deals cards face up 3/ he puts a car aside 4/ he turns the single tabled card over : it's the prediction...

Ok, the second method is a little clever because the spectator nearly does everything, but I don't see how adding the story about Paul Curry and his "Open Prediction" problem turns these techniques (the second method is also a technique which is not THAT new) into an incredible routine sold as the solution to Curry's "Open Prediction" problem, especially if you do not follow Curry's rules...

Ben
Ben BV
Chris K
View Profile
Inner circle
2260 Posts

Profile of Chris K
Totally fair, Ben, mucho thanks for responding. I think this is a good topic and would like to discuss it a bit more if you are up for it. Maybe by PM or something so we don't derail this.
Jim-Callahan
View Profile
V.I.P.
5018 Posts

Profile of Jim-Callahan
I was going to stay out of this but just wanted to add a bit of fact.
Possibly an observation will be added at a later time but I do think this will do for now.

On the page were this product is sold it states as follows.

DRAMAS & PRESENTATIONS

The manuscripts offered on this page fully explain singular dramas that function as powerful showpiece presentations in your act.

Here is a link for those interested. http://www.mickayreswares.com./dramas__presentations

I do understand that all things are not for all people.

For instance I never do card tricks.

Anyway I just thought the above from Mick’s site needed to be posted.

Thanks,

Jim

H.O.A-X
“I can make Satan’s devils dance like fine gentlemen across the stage of reality”.
Mick Ayres
View Profile
Special user
Hilton Head Island
990 Posts

Profile of Mick Ayres
The problem here is that I play my mentalism on the off-beat.

Again, I consistently get strong reactions from the presentation (even a few standing ovations). If you are not, well...sorry, but it ain't the routine. Perhaps more rehearsal will help. IPS does require a performer to put forth more than average effort into acting and theatre. If you are just reading the manuscript through quickly and expecting to floor your audience with it immediately...then this isn't for you.

I will say this again, too: I have not proposed IPS as THE solution to Curry's Open Prediction...I offered it as A PRESENTATION for it, period. The description on my webpage attempts to capture the drama of the presentation itself in a condensed manner.

Please, please, please understand...IPS is not about solving Curry's Open Prediction Challenge in a manner that satisfies magicians. Rather, it is about presenting his Challenge with all the drama, conflict, tension and theatre I can muster to please an audience!

Sigh,
Mick Ayres

PS: About the price of IPS...I now agree it is completely wrong. I should have listened to Callahan and charged $50 for it instead.
THE FIVE OBLIGATIONS OF CONJURING: Study. Practice. Script. Rehearse. Perform. Drop one and you're done.
adamc
View Profile
Regular user
Sydney, Australia
133 Posts

Profile of adamc
If you're looking for a good solution to the Open Prediction problem, you might want to check out BRRR! or 27 Below from Thomas Baxter's eBook, Not a Dianoetic Rage, both of which seem more fair than the first method used from In Plain Sight, which in my opinion is a little weak. Combining either of these methods with the presentation from In Plain Sight would be killer.
goldeneye007
View Profile
Inner circle
London
1487 Posts

Profile of goldeneye007
Quote:
On 2008-11-12 22:58, Mick Ayres wrote:
The problem here is that I play my mentalism on the off-beat.


I do unserstand that and I truly think it's a good idea.

Quote:
Again, I consistently get strong reactions from the presentation (even a few standing ovations).


And I do beleive you... though I would have said that IPS gave you weaker reactions than usual... but anyway...

Quote:
If you are not, well...sorry, but it ain't the routine. Perhaps more rehearsal will help. IPS does require a performer to put forth more than average effort into acting and theatre. If you are just reading the manuscript through quickly and expecting to floor your audience with it immediately...then this isn't for you.


There I don't agree. From the beginning you've said that it's not about a new method, it's ALL about presentation. But I repeat it, I don't see how just explaining what the Curry Problem is makes a weak method a strong routine. Let me be more clear: of course a presentation can turn a small trick to an extraordinary miracle and every (or nearly every) magician/mentalist (especially mentalist) knows that. HOWEVER, and that's where we also have to be realistic on some things, and even if it's my own opinion, it really depends on the power ratio trick/presentation. You can always make a funny routine out of a small trick with a very good presentation and, sometimes, but not always, you can make a miracle out of nearly nothing. My problem with IPS is that, imo, first the presentation is not really that original and powerful (please don't take it personal, I know it's easy to say for me, but I really try to be objective, I'm not angry at you) and second it's not powerful enough to hide what is happening.

Let me give you two examples to illustrate my thinking: you sure must know Lennart Green's routine "The Eye of Stonehenge". THIS is an extraordinary presentation. He has taken a small mathematical principal and invented a routine which simply hides everything. Or let's take "White Star" which is another OOTW plot. The story is incredible (of course this is my opinion here), but people are just too concentrated on the story to see what is technically happening : they take part in the story in fact and cards are not cards anymore. In "The Eye of Stonehenge", cards become priests and in WS, cards are people, represented by photographs. In your routine cards are... well cards. And people are COMPLETELY focused on that. Besides, you tell them the story about the Curry problem (I'm sorry but unlike WS or The Eye of Stonehenge it's not really creative...) and you even suggest to show the procedure required which you don't follow in the end....! It's not about presentation, it's about being coherent. I know you can do a lot with specatator management, but I'm sorry audiences are not THAT stupid : if you give them a rule to follow they will follow the rule... no?

Ok, as I said the second method is slightly better, but still does not follow the script YOU give at the beginning regarding the Curry procedure. So at least don't talk about it! But if you don't... well... the whole story does not work any more...



Quote:
I will say this again, too: I have not proposed IPS as THE solution to Curry's Open Prediction...I offered it as A PRESENTATION for it, period. The description on my webpage attempts to capture the drama of the presentation itself in a condensed manner.


Here is a quote from you webpage:

"Unfortunately, Paul Curry passed away before coming up with an adequate solution to this daunting presentation...known today as "Curry's Open Prediction Challenge". Will Curry's elusive proposal ever be solved? Yes!"

I understood, like others apparently, that IPS was a solution...

But again, it's not really what troubles me. Of course what is important is what spectators see... Unfortunately people I performed it for (and I never was told that I was THAT bad at presentation... but hey, there's a beginning for everything...) saw that something was wrong... It's like saying to people that a film takes place in China and in fact it's about Australia...

Quote:
Please, please, please understand...IPS is not about solving Curry's Open Prediction Challenge in a manner that satisfies magicians. Rather, it is about presenting his Challenge with all the drama, conflict, tension and theatre I can muster to please an audience!


Ok... the idea of your routine is ok: you use a known technique to make a routine out of it but I wouldn't have sold it as a single effect in pdf...

Quote:
PS: About the price of IPS...I now agree it is completely wrong. I should have listened to Callahan and charged $50 for it instead.


Oh, that my friend you know you're wrong! Selling an effect as a solution to the Curry problem for $50 would not have prevented a LOT of people to buy it... but how disappointed they would have been...

Anyway... Please acccept my best wishes all the same,

Ben
Ben BV
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Ebooks, PDF's or Downloads » » In Plain Sight (by Mick Ayres & Jim Callahan) (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.35 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL