(Close Window)
Topic: J ack right about Randi from the get go.
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 8, 2007 05:59PM)
Looks like the tide does turn.

Better now than never.

J ack

H.O.A-X
Message: Posted by: r1z08 (Feb 8, 2007 07:09PM)
I'm really not too sure what to say about this. What was J ack right about?
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 8, 2007 07:18PM)
...nothing wrong?
Message: Posted by: bitterman (Feb 8, 2007 07:34PM)
Now I'm lost. I thought J ack and Jim were the same guy, only to find out that they are both Randi?
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Feb 8, 2007 07:38PM)
Shhhh
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 8, 2007 08:10PM)
That's right Shhhhh people are catching on.

J ack
Message: Posted by: Baggins (Feb 8, 2007 08:19PM)
This a fun game. Secrets are best held close to the bosom. Magic is all about secrets.
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Feb 8, 2007 09:29PM)
This was the real point to the entire RV threads - at last revealed! A fantastic display of precognitive RVing, JJ. Truly, the paranormalist unparalleled.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Feb 9, 2007 12:17AM)
I never said that Jack was [b]wrong[/b] about Randi!
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 9, 2007 01:14AM)
Jim, didn't you say you were going to delete your account?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 9, 2007 07:56AM)
Funny how J ack and Jim try to mention Randi's name as many times as humany possible so as to capture just a bit of his fame.

Randi right or wrong pretty easy in this case to see. But it seems as if J ack and Jim, and Randi, share a quality. They want to latch onto someone in the spotlight at all costs.
Message: Posted by: entity (Feb 9, 2007 08:03AM)
Has anyone read the article?

I'd be interested to know peoples' thoughts about how damaging (or not) what Randi has written really is.

- entity
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 9, 2007 08:08AM)
I don't see any exposure there that any kid wouldn't know anyway. A magnet moving a compass... wow, that's shocking.

I liked this clip he included there about the compass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSko0byaDiI&eurl=

So far, not too bad. The question is what he will post there in the next few weeks..
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Feb 9, 2007 09:10AM)
Then we all agree this exposure is bad, the dissagreement is just on how bad it is...? Right?
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 9, 2007 09:15AM)
Of course it's bad in general. But do you know any magicians that move a compass during shows? The only one I saw doing that is Geller, and he even exposed it himself.
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 9, 2007 09:25AM)
People are beginning to see the problem or so it looks to me.
Message: Posted by: entity (Feb 9, 2007 09:27AM)
I personally don't like to see any exposure of methods, but I think things must be kept in perspective and also we should consider the context.

When Randi exposed Peter Poppov's method of operation, I don't think it hurt any Mentalists who were using the same technology. In that case, the cause justified the exposure, in my opinion.

I'll still argue strongly against the exposures with Randi, and he's said he'll still pass along his 'Geller revelations' to me before he prints them, so if there's anything [b]really[/b] objectionable, I'll do my best to convince him to modify his remarks.

- entity
Message: Posted by: Scott Xavier (Feb 9, 2007 09:53AM)
My problem is that people still don't realize that supernatural is a word that can not exist.
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 9, 2007 10:08AM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-09 10:25, Jim-Callahan wrote:
People are beginning to see the problem or so it looks to me.
[/quote]

Jim/Jack/Thad Beaumont/George Stark, that post made me smile..
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 9, 2007 10:47AM)
You know the saying, "What goes around, comes around." The question is what do all the exposed have hiding for Randi?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo&NR
Message: Posted by: Joshua Quinn (Feb 9, 2007 10:53AM)
I began to see the problem when I was about eight years old, and I saw some dolt on TV convincing a bunch of people he had super powers by doing a compass trick that I had learned from Mr. Wizard's Book of Science Magic.

The problem was, those people were grownups, and I thought grownups were supposed to be smart.

Try as I might, I just can't get upset about this effort on Randi's part to make grownups as smart as they're supposed to be.
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 9, 2007 11:26AM)
So it is cool to expose your work Quinn?

Even if he is not exposing your gaffs he is devaluing them as entertainment.
It is all connected.

Just like music.

Mike, man you got it right.
When it comes down it all will.
Swing for the fences I say.
The boy should not pitch stones if someone has a big one to pitch back.

J ack
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Feb 9, 2007 11:41AM)
Questions (yes, this is likely a thread move to Right or Wrong):

Is there a professional body of professional magicians that accredit someone to be a magician? Reason -> what is a magician (or mentalist).

If one is a magician, is one bound to not expose as part of being a professional? It seems so ala physicians and the hippocratic oath equivalent.

If one is a magician not accredited and just calls themselves a magician, whatever that means, are they bound to non-exposure? Guess not - but we would consider them deadbeats I suppose - however - how do these people get ahold of effects in the first place? (YEAH, THERE IS AN ISSUE)

Next, is Randi still considered a professional magician? Is he bound to non-exposure? Because he once was a pro magician does that make him always a pro magician? Or is he now a professional debunker skeptic whose purpose is to expose? Why should he then care about magicians making $ of these effects? His goal is to protect the world against evil EVIL!

This whole issue seems to revolve around 1) expecting people to keep secrets where there is no way to promote it as a universal understanding to those who know magical secrets; 2) is Randi considered a magician or he is something else now; why it is sad so many people publish so much now and sell it to anyone with $... is that not a responsiblilty that we should not take on ourselves? i.e. as much as people complain about exposure - what about the people selling magic secrets in shops and the internet? Any bozo can go buy magic DVDs and books etc. and then post in on YOUTUBE etc.

The mistake here is Randi is not an entertainer professional magician anymore - he is the head of JREF and his mission is clear. What is the big surprise? I think it is nice that he is talking with Entity but I doubt he will back down. He believes what he is doing serves his purpose at this time.

Protect thy secrets. No one else will. Or: three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead (maybe).
Message: Posted by: entity (Feb 9, 2007 11:49AM)
Spektor: I never thought of it as the chance that Randi might back down. It's more a matter of my trying to influence the level of exposure and the context in which it is offered. I think Randi sees where I'm coming from and, in his own way, has taken some small steps to be sensitive to the magicians' point of view.

It's probably the most we can expect.

- entity
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Feb 9, 2007 11:58AM)
Entity: Wasn't referring to your posts - more others who seem surprised at Randi or expect he would be acting as a entertainer professional magician. I think you did the best thing anyone could do - talk to the guy about it.
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 9, 2007 12:02PM)
Phase 1. Knock, knock. "Randy, somesone is at the door. He calls himself a/the masked magician. He says he wants to see you about messing up his big job he was offered on a tv special."

Phase 2. Siren.

Phase 3. Let us bow are heads.

Phase 4. Thank God All Mighty we are free!
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 9, 2007 12:10PM)
No Mike that aint the way to do things.

You do just as Randi does.

J ack
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 9, 2007 12:13PM)
Expose secrets?
Message: Posted by: entity (Feb 9, 2007 03:36PM)
No Dynamike. You do what you think is right.

- entity
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 9, 2007 04:34PM)
Or what will turn a buck for ya at the expense of others.
Without breaking any laws.

That is what I was getting at E.

I do not think Randi does what he thinks is right all the time.
But what makes him happy or pleases him.

J ack

H.O.A-X
Message: Posted by: entity (Feb 9, 2007 04:43PM)
You're entitled to your opinion on such things, Jim.

- entity
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 9, 2007 05:00PM)
Heck we all are.

Are we not?

J ack

H.O.A-X
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 9, 2007 05:04PM)
So is the problem that people say things that need exposing, or that they are exposed?

J ack/Jim makes some claims that scream to be exposed. IF he was doing it for ANY other reason than for entertainment that is.

Problem with "exposure" is that it is a slippery slope. Exposure to educate against the 3 card monte, hurts performers who do gambling demonstrations.

Exposure always screams the question to me, "who is doing the exposing and why?".

In "general" it comes to the simple answer, "For money you fool".

The "who" varies.

I am confused by Randi in this. I really am.
Message: Posted by: Corona Smith (Feb 9, 2007 07:01PM)
I think perhaps his actions betray a lack of imagination, little else, but I am not really bothered what he does, all that babel over the pond just ends up sounding like big mac and fries cooking by the time it gets over here. I hear that hardly anyone outside the western world has heard of either Randi or Geller, th***btip, exposure, believe it or not this is at least half the world (actually much more).

Corona.
Message: Posted by: entity (Feb 9, 2007 07:21PM)
Even less have heard of Annemann, Corrinda and Derren Brown, but I wouldn't want their stuff exposed either.

I agree with you in principle, though, Corona.

- entity
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Feb 9, 2007 07:22PM)
Uzbeckistan?
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 10, 2007 03:07AM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-09 17:34, Jim-Callahan wrote:
I do not think Randi does what he thinks is right all the time.
But what makes him happy or pleases him.

J ack
H.O.A-X
[/quote]


Maybe if some people didn't pretend to have paranormal powers, then there would not even be any reason to expose anything. Did you ever think of that?
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 10, 2007 03:27AM)
I heard the masked magician was banned from performing in Las Vegas. Why wasn't Randi ever banned from performing anywhere?
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 10, 2007 03:35AM)
In that case why don't they ban Criss Angel from stage shows and TV for exposing magic tricks? Why don't they ban Penn And Teller for exposing a few tricks of their own? Randi doesn't even perform magic anymore, from where they could ban him?

Some of the posts here are way too weird..
Message: Posted by: bitterman (Feb 10, 2007 09:00AM)
How does one get banned from playing Vegas? I didn't know they had a Master of Revels.

I'm sure if there is money in it someone/anyone would book him.

That said, The Masked Magician is probably a knotch or two below The Unknown Comic in name recognition with the general public these days, so I wouldn't be shining up the tigers and waxing the t.t. just yet.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 10, 2007 10:48AM)
To crusade against those taking money from dupes is a noble persuit.
To expose to get your name out there one last time, seems a little despirate.

I do enjoy the way Jim keeps putting his name as many times as possible in a sentence with Randi. They reel agianst him, but still find him a usefull advertising tool.

Very interesting.

Maybe Jim you and Slim are upset he is only taking on "well known" frauds, and you guys seem to have slipped under the radar, even with all the haranging you do about him on the internet. You have still gone beyond notice.

I have a GREAT way you guys could show him what for. WIN THE MONEY. Stop the nagging on the internet and win it. IF you have the power or your friends do, just win. I bet nothing would shut them up quicker.

Barring that it seems like a lot of talk and looking to get the name out there on BOTH sides now.
Message: Posted by: Scott Xavier (Feb 10, 2007 11:01AM)
This is the first time I can agree with danny. Don't bend the rules. Follow them. He wont bend the rules, so if your gifts are real, than you should be able to perform any time any where...
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 10, 2007 11:41AM)
I see what you are saying, Danny. You think we should use my name in the next thread against Randi? I never got a turn yet. I got nothing to advertise either.
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 10, 2007 12:52PM)
Danny, to be truthful I never mention the guy to anyone outside this board because no one really knows who he is.

He is mentioned on my website because some people find it interesting and is a nice componant to my challanges and guarantees.

The point of this thread however is that many are getting hip to the deal finally.
That the guy is not good for mentalism or magic that he is detriment.

J ack
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 10, 2007 01:17PM)
What's up with using a name of a fake character in your posts? Sounds like the beginning of Schizophrenia if you ask me..
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Feb 10, 2007 01:19PM)
DJM:

There is nothing fake about J ack. It appears, you don't know J ack. :)
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 10, 2007 01:21PM)
Tony, now I'm starting to be worried about you as well. :(
Message: Posted by: Corona Smith (Feb 10, 2007 01:35PM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-10 04:35, DJM wrote:

Some of the posts here are way too weird..
[/quote]

Hold on to your textbook!

A hundred years all baldy, as the saying goes.

Corona.
Message: Posted by: Arnon (Feb 10, 2007 01:40PM)
More cronyism - finally it is painfully obvious. Too bad Tony is involved too - I normally like fellow martial artists and entertainers.
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 10, 2007 01:41PM)
Arnon, it's good to see you again! :)
Message: Posted by: Arnon (Feb 10, 2007 01:43PM)
I had to take a break and get over the nausea from reading the inanity/insanity here.

Good to see you are alive and well, and prospering!
Message: Posted by: Corona Smith (Feb 10, 2007 02:13PM)
Told you.

Corona.
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Feb 10, 2007 02:20PM)
Arnon:

It is really good to see you posting here again.

As for my involvement in the Randi threads, I only express my opinion on issues raised, not on the person. Who am I to question how a person lives, or what they believe? But if they make public statements, or take action that affects people or things that I see as unfair, I can comment on those actions and statements.

In the past I have made statements on individuals, but have grown to see the error and hypocrisy of my statements and will attempt to control that type of action from now on.

Once again, I am glad to see you here again.

Tony
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 10, 2007 02:24PM)
OK, I'm in. I wanna play too. Who's side am I on today?
Message: Posted by: Arnon (Feb 10, 2007 02:26PM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-10 14:19, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
DJM:

There is nothing fake about J ack. It appears, you don't know J ack. :)
[/quote]

[quote]
On 2007-02-10 15:20, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Arnon:

It is really good to see you posting here again.

As for my involvement in the Randi threads, I only express my opinion on issues raised, not on the person....
[/quote]

And the beat goes on...
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 10, 2007 02:27PM)
I should be the referee.
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Feb 10, 2007 02:42PM)
Do you have the striped shirt?


Posted: Feb 10, 2007 3:43pm
-------------------------------------------
[quote]
On 2007-02-10 15:26, arnon wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-02-10 14:19, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
DJM:

There is nothing fake about J ack. It appears, you don't know J ack. :)
[/quote]
[quote]
:band:

On 2007-02-10 15:20, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Arnon:

It is really good to see you posting here again.

As for my involvement in the Randi threads, I only express my opinion on issues raised, not on the person....
[/quote]
And the beat goes on...
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 10, 2007 02:44PM)
If my striped jacket will not work, how about a ghetto referee. They can wear anything.

Turn up the music. I can not hear it.
Message: Posted by: Arnon (Feb 10, 2007 02:46PM)
Oh, and this too:

[quote]
On 2007-02-10 15:20, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
....
In the past I have made statements on individuals, but have grown to see the error and hypocrisy of my statements and will attempt to control that type of action from now on.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Feb 10, 2007 02:48PM)
[quote]

On 2007-02-10 15:26, arnon wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-02-10 15:20, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Arnon:

It is really good to see you posting here again.

As for my involvement in the Randi threads, I only express my opinion on issues raised, not on the person....
[/quote]

And the beat goes on...
[/quote]

True enough. :band:

:)
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 10, 2007 02:49PM)
Ok already. Forget the referee. Who wants me on their team? I am real good. Look at my previous post.
Message: Posted by: Arnon (Feb 10, 2007 02:50PM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-10 14:19, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
DJM:

There is nothing fake about J ack. It appears, you don't know J ack. :)
[/quote]
So Tony, have you grown or regressed?
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 10, 2007 02:52PM)
Come on guys. I wanna play too. Remember, equal rights.
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Feb 10, 2007 02:55PM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-10 15:46, arnon wrote:
Oh, and this too:

[quote]
On 2007-02-10 15:20, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
....
In the past I have made statements on individuals, but have grown to see the error and hypocrisy of my statements and will attempt to control that type of action from now on.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Yes, I do admit I've made mistakes and try to learn from them. Sometimes we are blind to our own flaws and need friends to point them out to us. You helped me in this reguard, and I thank you Arnon.

Tony
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 10, 2007 02:56PM)
That's not fair. Dynamike [b]does[/b] play that.
Message: Posted by: Arnon (Feb 10, 2007 02:58PM)
Namaste.
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 10, 2007 03:01PM)
Namaste? Let's play a different level today. Everybody, switch your computers to "easy" level.
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Feb 10, 2007 03:13PM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-10 15:58, arnon wrote:
Namaste.
[/quote]
Arnon, that is a greeting that I should be giving you.

Thank you for the honor.

Tony
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 10, 2007 03:17PM)
Ok, you guys won. I give up because I'm a sore looser.
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 10, 2007 03:19PM)
Mike I am lost also.

Have no idea what Arnon has a problem with.
I am what I am and he is lost in my opinion.

But that is his nature judging from his past postings.

J ack
Message: Posted by: Jerome Finley (Feb 10, 2007 06:58PM)
Arnon is just being Arnon. You've gotta love the guy!

Thokoza,
J.
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 10, 2007 08:30PM)
You do as you so choose.

I will decide later.

J ack

H.O.A-X :die:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 12, 2007 09:42PM)
Can we just get to the finale here?

Usually this ends up with Jim or Slim trying to pitch something. Can we dispense with the preliminaries and get to the main event? :)
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 13, 2007 06:20AM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-12 22:42, Dannydoyle wrote:

Usually this ends up with Jim or Slim trying to pitch something.
[/quote]

Maybe everyone is scared to bat because those two might be using pine tar: [url=http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/hdtv-ultrarevealing-in-2006-world-series-210655.php]gizmodo.com[/url]
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 13, 2007 05:50PM)
Danny I have no idea what you are going on about.

When I am selling something people know it.

Jim
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Feb 13, 2007 07:09PM)
What..."Main Event?".......Danny?
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Feb 14, 2007 07:49AM)
Go Spleeners? Free Little Dougie? Free Mabel Stark? Free Dr. X? Free Lucia Von Franz?
Message: Posted by: Eman (Feb 14, 2007 08:46AM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-10 14:17, DJM wrote:
What's up with using a name of a fake character in your posts? Sounds like the beginning of Schizophrenia if you ask me..
[/quote]

Ouch!

I'd be careful if I were you. Slinging a mental disability at anybody as if it were a weapon is probably not the best of ideas. What if someone on these forums has Schizophrenia and happens to read the thread to find J ack having the word Schizophrenia used upon him as an insult? Things would probably go really sour, really fast.

Besides, "Eman" is a fake character. My mother definately didn't name me Eman (that would be interesting, though). My username and the very character I post as are "fake" (but that doesn't mean my posted opinions are). Does that make me Schizophrenic?

Edit- I forgot to sign off!

Evan, out!
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 14, 2007 09:12AM)
Since it seems pretty obvious that Jim knows the difference between hismelf and his fake character, then using that remark should be seen as a joke. I have no idea how you see it as some weapon or insulting people who really have Schizophernia.

If everyone had a problem with that kind of jokes, then 99% of the stand up comedians would be out of job by now. You shouldn't take things too seriously..
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Feb 14, 2007 09:47AM)
By the way - the correct diagnoses full multiple personalities is called Dissociative Identity Disorder. Schizophernia is an illness that causes functional decline via postive/added symptoms of hallucinations and delusions (of a bizarre nature usually) and "negative" symptoms of decrease ability to display affect, be motivated, etc. all resulting in a steady decrease in psychosocial functioning.

I happen not to like jokes that call other people "illnesses" e.g. might as well say the person has a brain tumor, suffering from cancer, or into a dementia caused by AIDS.

Hence why it isn't a question of lightening up - but ask yourself if you'd use that with a paying audience? If not, then you know there is something a bit off about using that line anywhere.

I, however, soemtimes worry about even my own self-put down jokes, which I realize can offend others. I can't stand the famous "I am X there I can tell X jokes"...

Hey waitasecond - what is this thread about??

Go JJ go!
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 14, 2007 10:06AM)
So when people say things like: "Are you crazy or something?" does it mean they are making fun of all those in the world that have mental problems?

The joke was about Jim, not about the condition itself. If I thought that he really had that, then that's when things would be out of line. Believe me that I've heard famous comedians make jokes that are much more "offensive" than that, and they even get paid to say that stuff.

BTW, looks like it took 4 days until someone said anything about it, so maybe it wasn't that bad.
Message: Posted by: Scott Xavier (Feb 14, 2007 10:17AM)
J ack or Jim,

Maybe all this is my snide attempt at publicity as well, but lets try some open ended questions and cold reading:

I feel like you use to play the Dr. Zodiac character who was snide and some what wild so that people remember the name. Now that the sales are coming, you have to take a step back right?

So you say you never sell with out selling? How about Hoa X or what ever. How about all the little hints and dropping of info in posts? It seems like J ack and Jim start whole topics just to seed with little clues. It also seems like drama follows product releases for slim as an attempt to hype his products. Since you aren't slim you can't really answer, but it is a thought.

At one time you wanted the name Jim Callahan off of a magic board as you didn't want people searching for the name to find it here, what happened?

What is your Randi claim? Will you ever apply? I don't want how the test is biased, just the answers.

I feel as if reading your posts, I need to step back and realize that you are the same guy who pulled a humbug on thousands by dieing on the internet. Interesting, but you have to wonder what a mans intentions are when he has constant publicity stunts...
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Feb 14, 2007 10:21AM)
DJM:

If you reread the Doctor's post, he says, "I happen not to like jokes that call other people "illnesses"" and then continues.

Personally, I share his loathing for that type of joke. Anything that mocks those who are suffering from a real affliction in an attempt to make humor is not very funny to me. Perhaps there is a sensitivity as I have studied this topic, and know people who suffer from several associated illnesses.

To me, there is little to know difference between this type of humor and the "dead baby jokes" popular in the 1980s. All seek humor is sensitive and painful areas and mock others tragedies.

Tony
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 14, 2007 10:30AM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-14 11:17, Scott Xavier wrote:
J ack or Jim,

Maybe all this is my snide attempt at publicity as well, but lets try some open ended questions and cold reading:

I feel like you use to play the Dr. Zodiac character who was snide and some what wild so that people remember the name. Now that the sales are coming, you have to take a step back right?

So you say you never sell with out selling? How about Hoa X or what ever. How about all the little hints and dropping of info in posts? It seems like J ack and Jim start whole topics just to seed with little clues. It also seems like drama follows product releases for slim as an attempt to hype his products. Since you aren't slim you can't really answer, but it is a thought.

At one time you wanted the name Jim Callahan off of a magic board as you didn't want people searching for the name to find it here, what happened?

What is your Randi claim? Will you ever apply? I don't want how the test is biased, just the answers.

I feel as if reading your posts, I need to step back and realize that you are the same guy who pulled a humbug on thousands by dieing on the internet. Interesting, but you have to wonder what a mans intentions are when he has constant publicity stunts...
[/quote]

Scott you may hate this but I am in total agreement with you.

He and a couple others here are the "boy who cried wolf" of publicity stunts for a select few on the internet.

YOU sir are right on line with what I meant about lets get to the main event. I figured with Jim throwing arround Randi's name again, it was a build up to some sort of silly stunt to sell something.

Bottom line is this for Slim and Jack/Jim. Randi has ignored them both, along with aparantly Slims friend. They are completly under the radar no matter how hard they try and I think it frustrates them even more now that they didn't make the cut.
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 14, 2007 10:43AM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-14 11:21, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
DJM:

If you reread the Doctor's post, he says, "I happen not to like jokes that call other people "illnesses"" and then continues.

Personally, I share his loathing for that type of joke. Anything that mocks those who are suffering from a real affliction in an attempt to make humor is not very funny to me. Perhaps there is a sensitivity as I have studied this topic, and know people who suffer from several associated illnesses.

To me, there is little to know difference between this type of humor and the "dead baby jokes" popular in the 1980s. All seek humor is sensitive and painful areas and mock others tragedies.

Tony
[/quote]

Tony, you can find something offensive in almost every joke in the world. People should understand the difference between that and actually mocking millions of people.

I've heard a lot of jokes that could also be "about me," but I never take that personally as long as it's clear it's only a joke. This world is pretty screwed up, we need to find a way to laugh about our problems sometimes.
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Feb 14, 2007 11:08AM)
DJM:

The old, "it's only a joke" excuse, huh?

When a joke singles out a particular segment of the population and uses them, their characteristics (real or not), or biases about them as a standard to imply humor, it is prejudicial.

Having had different experiences, and being a different age I see this differently than you.

Tony
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Feb 14, 2007 11:09AM)
Hello again,

The generic "crazy" - it still all depends on context. Schizophrenia is a bit more specific. Now, you are right - certain comedians thrive off using vulgar and inuslting techniques to generate a certain type of Humour (Andrew Dice Clay (say what happned to him))... while others use certain swears, etc. and yet come across as speaking in a way that conveys truths, gives them respect, and you feel they are Ok (e.g. I might be "crazy" but that would be Chris Roc (notice my use of the word crazy - it may offend some... but it does show me I got to reflect on that anyway)...

Now, if there was a joke involving the condition of schizophrenia etc. that has some human meaning besides a put-down insult... that might go over well.

Here is a classic - it sounds like a terrible joke and yet when you look at it from the outside it discusses the real tragedies of life, horrible things happen, how a condition can actually help defend against horrible truths, and yet that condition will also lead to trouble...

e.g. Doctor has bad news for a person... "tell me doc, I can take it!" "Ok, sir... I have terrible news... you have cancer." "Oh my God... " "that is not all. You also have Alzheimer's disease..." "O my god - well at least I don't have cancer!"

Tasteless.. horrible... yet one could do an entire lecture on it or use it in the proper context to discuss suffering, acceptance etc. Note: I never use jokes like this anyway!

Now a joke like "How many (fill in the blank insult target) does it take to make a driveway?" "Depends how thin you slice them...." good for maybe a dark laugh - where the heck is the laughter's source? The dark reptilian brain perhaps...

In any case DJM, don't mind me - one of my tasks at my work is doing antistigma initiatives for mental health and addiction - just thought I would bring up something to ponder. I do not consider you some sort of maniac monster :)... but I like to blab a lot.

Ciao

Dr S
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 14, 2007 11:23AM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-14 12:08, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
DJM:

The old, "it's only a joke" excuse, huh?

When a joke singles out a particular segment of the population and uses them, their characteristics (real or not), or biases about them as a standard to imply humor, it is prejudicial.

Having had different experiences, and being a different age I see this differently than you.

Tony
[/quote]

It's not an excuse, it's an opinion. I think jokes could help making people stronger about their problems, and I'm also talking from experience. It's a matter of prespective.

And I don't see how age has anything to do with it, I can give you a list of comedians that make jokes about everything and anything, and some of them are even older than you.

That wasn't a remark against old people, and I apologize if anyone got offended by that.

[quote]

Tasteless.. horrible... yet one could do an entire lecture on it or use it in the proper context to discuss suffering, acceptance etc. Note: I never use jokes like this anyway!

[/quote]

It's too late. :) But seriously, I didn't see anything offensive in your joke, because it was meant as a joke.

If anyone seen the movie Borat, he makes fun of everyone there, including some jokes about the Jews. That didn't offend me at all and even found some of that very funny. BTW, the actor is Jewish himself, and I don't think he offended himself either..

[quote]

I do not consider you some sort of maniac monster

[/quote]

Thanks! I think that's nicest thing anyone has ever said about me. ;)
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Feb 14, 2007 11:43AM)
Scott...Are you saying that I WANT drama to interfere with my already limited releases????? My Lawyer can assure you that I was the financial loser on any litigations. I won the battle but at a great cost.
What question do you want answered?
And Danny's post just proves my point.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 14, 2007 01:40PM)
Tony in all fairness, MOST jokes fall into the catagory you mention. A group is singled out for humor.

I am not defending, I am not attacking, just mentioning.
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Feb 14, 2007 01:54PM)
I'm not saying they don't, just pointing out why people are offended.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 14, 2007 02:24PM)
Yep, but almost ALL jokes can cause offense. Can't really outlaw humor.

Most times it is when where and HOW they are told which makes the difference.
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 14, 2007 03:39PM)
If nothing else my threads show people thinking and considering things.
And holding debates of value I think.

I will answer Scott tomorrow.
Danny also.

But right now I must finish the last bit on the short film by tomorrow.

-Jim
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Feb 14, 2007 05:02PM)
A joke or not, no one can offend me because I have a good attitude. Some people have tried before, so what, who cares. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 14, 2007 05:05PM)
Yea some do need to take more offence at times your right.
Message: Posted by: lumberjohn (Feb 15, 2007 10:36AM)
Going back to some earlier posts, I don't believe it's fair to compare Randi to the Masked Magician. The MM was motivated by one thing: greed. His exposure was simply for the sake of exposure. It had no higher purpose. He chose the most well-known and often performed effects of his day, thereby directly hurting practicing magicians, apparently with no remorse. He exposed to make a buck and get a TV special, end of story.

I have met Randi and talked to him at length. I have also followed his career. There is no doubt in my mind that Randi believes he and the JREF are providing a public service. We can argue all day about whether the JREF's efforts are really making much of a difference, but I am sure that Randi believes the fight is right and worthwhile. Randi has tried various methods of exposing fake psychics who steal people's money and hopes, but the most prominent ones are still out there deceiving the public.

So he is modifying his tactics again. Now, he is aggresively going after the better known frauds like Uri Geller by, among other things, demonstrating how they are really doing what they claim to be doing through psychic powers. Randi is not exposing on a national television special effects commonly performed by practicing magicians. He is explaining how Uri Geller is actually moving a compass when he says he is doing it with his mind. The "exposure," if you would call it that, is limited, targeted, and narrowly directed to a specific public purpose. Also, Randi is not saying, "Here's how all the practicing magicians and mentalists perform their effects." He's saying "Here is how this fraud Uri Geller is deceiving people."

I believe this to be a major distinction and one that many on this board have completely missed.
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 15, 2007 10:53AM)
And have you missed that he calls them simple magicians tricks?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2007 11:08AM)
Geller and his claims on the TV show have brought back Randi with a vengence.

Not a problem.

I will say this though. Exposure is wrong. BUT does not affect a serious working pro that badly. Unless Randi goes after you. Imagine doing the same type effect as is exposed, and fooling the audience with it. HMMM almost real magic isn't it guys?
Message: Posted by: entity (Feb 15, 2007 11:20AM)
Should we only be concerned with working pro's?

The vast majority of those in Magic are amateurs.

- entity
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2007 11:26AM)
Yes, which spawns another discussion entirley.

A fantastic point, though. One which I will gracefully step away from. It really is a hot button issue.
Message: Posted by: entity (Feb 15, 2007 11:41AM)
I'd prefer that you not step away from it.

Your statement was that exposure won't hurt the working pros that much, and I'd completely agree with you.

Will it hurt amateur performers? Should the rest of us care about that, or should they be left to fend for themselves?

- entity
Message: Posted by: lumberjohn (Feb 15, 2007 12:01PM)
To say "exposure is wrong" is overly simplistic. It is certainly wrong in many situations, but there are surely others in which the limited nature and effect of the exposure is outweighed by the public good. If, for instance, a person started a religion by claiming magical powers, performing one or two simple effects repeatedly to demonstrate his powers, and then used his influence to cause his followers to commit crimes or to kill themselves, I doubt that any of you would have a serious problem with someone revealing to his followers how he performs his effects to show that he does not have magical powers. It is ridiculous to say that the "exposure" in such a case would be unequivocably "wrong." Likewise, I don't think you can make the unequivocal statement that Randi's exposure is "wrong." The correct argument, as I see it, is whether the overall benefits would outweigh the overall negative consequences, keeping in mind that the benefits and costs will fall upon different groups disproportionally.

As for amateur performers, I don't see how the exposure of one or two effects, out of thousands available for study and purchase, would have any negative consequence. If anything, I would think Randi's efforts would lead more people towards the study of magic and mentalism by drawing attention to it. If people see Uri's show and believe that all the effects are performed through psychic powers, they are likely to say "That's cool, but I don't have psychic powers." If they believe, through Randi's efforts, that the effects are performed through magic techniques that can be studied and learned, well, I think the rest is obvious.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 16, 2007 09:29AM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-15 12:41, entity wrote:
I'd prefer that you not step away from it.

Your statement was that exposure won't hurt the working pros that much, and I'd completely agree with you.

Will it hurt amateur performers? Should the rest of us care about that, or should they be left to fend for themselves?

- entity
[/quote]

entity I meant I would step away as really it is a hot button issue. I hate to cause offence believe it or not.

BUT with the allowace that I take NO POSITION on one being better than the other, amateur or pro, I will say one thing.

I am not certain they have as much at stake in the first place. Certainly they don't have to worry aobut eating for working. So in that respect, they are not hurt.

As for guys who only show tricks to others for fun, I am not sure they are hurt either. Left to fend for themselvs? Well that is not really true. This will blow over pretty quick, people will not retain the information. Heck how many people who have seen a 3 card monte demo, still fall for the con? I don't think exposure is right, but I don't see it really hurting ANY serious magician, pro or not.
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 16, 2007 09:40AM)
Well, it looks like Randi didn't mention any new exposres in this week's commentary, so hopefully it means he's not going to it again on the site.
Message: Posted by: entity (Feb 16, 2007 10:51AM)
Time will tell.

- entity
Message: Posted by: John Nesbit (Feb 16, 2007 11:50AM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-15 13:01, lumberjohn wrote:
To say "exposure is wrong" is overly simplistic. It is certainly wrong in many situations, but there are surely others in which the limited nature and effect of the exposure is outweighed by the public good. If, for instance, a person started a religion by claiming magical powers, performing one or two simple effects repeatedly to demonstrate his powers, and then used his influence to cause his followers to commit crimes or to kill themselves, I doubt that any of you would have a serious problem with someone revealing to his followers how he performs his effects to show that he does not have magical powers. It is ridiculous to say that the "exposure" in such a case would be unequivocably "wrong." Likewise, I don't think you can make the unequivocal statement that Randi's exposure is "wrong." The correct argument, as I see it, is whether the overall benefits would outweigh the overall negative consequences, keeping in mind that the benefits and costs will fall upon different groups disproportionally.

As for amateur performers, I don't see how the exposure of one or two effects, out of thousands available for study and purchase, would have any negative consequence. If anything, I would think Randi's efforts would lead more people towards the study of magic and mentalism by drawing attention to it. If people see Uri's show and believe that all the effects are performed through psychic powers, they are likely to say "That's cool, but I don't have psychic powers." If they believe, through Randi's efforts, that the effects are performed through magic techniques that can be studied and learned, well, I think the rest is obvious.
[/quote]

All is not as it appears to be.
Message: Posted by: Bambaladam (Feb 17, 2007 03:02AM)
There is nothing more conceited than ascribing gullibility to those who believe otherwise than oneself. In a bitter twist of irony, it is also extremely unscientific.

/Bamba
Message: Posted by: Bambaladam (Feb 17, 2007 03:04AM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-15 13:01, lumberjohn wrote:
...If, for instance, a person started a religion by claiming magical powers, performing one or two simple effects repeatedly to demonstrate his powers, and then used his influence to cause his followers to commit crimes or to kill themselves, I doubt that any of you would have a serious problem with someone revealing to his followers how he performs his effects to show that he does not have magical powers...[/quote]

I will eagerly await Randi's exposure of the miracles of Jesus of Nazareth.

/Bamba
Message: Posted by: entity (Feb 17, 2007 08:42AM)
Silly argument.

- entity
Message: Posted by: Top Hat (Feb 17, 2007 08:53AM)
How would he do that?
Message: Posted by: Bambaladam (Feb 17, 2007 09:41AM)
Well it seems he believes reproducing a miracle equals proving it was done the way it was reproduced
Message: Posted by: entity (Feb 17, 2007 09:54AM)
Are you comparing Uri Geller to Jesus Christ?

Randi is saying that if he can do Geller's feats through a stage magician's techniques, perhaps people should consider that Geller might be doing it the same way.

- entity
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 17, 2007 10:22AM)
Entity, seems as if my gracefull stepping away happened at exactly the right time.
Message: Posted by: Bambaladam (Feb 17, 2007 10:28AM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-17 10:54, entity wrote:
Are you comparing Uri Geller to Jesus Christ?

Randi is saying that if he can do Geller's feats through a stage magician's techniques, perhaps people should consider that Geller might be doing it the same way.

- entity
[/quote]

I am not comparing anyone with anyone. I just thought lumberjohn's description suited a lot of people.

/Bamba
Message: Posted by: Jerome Finley (Feb 17, 2007 12:12PM)
It didn't suit me.

Lumberjohn proposes that it may not be "wrong" to expose one or two things (out of the many thousands) that are out there, if for a greater good.

The issue I have with this thinking, is "Who is to decide what the greater good is?" Randi has placed himself in a position wherein he feels and believes that he has the authority to say what gets exposed, why, when, etc.

One or two routines may not hurt you, but what about someone who uses the material to create a living for themselves, support a family, etc? Who can say that Randi's exposures really serve anyone other than himself?

His decisions may have a negative impact on many people (including performers), and this does not seem to be an issue with Randi. I hate to say it, but Geller won.

Look at Randi's life, he is obsessed with Geller. Do you think Uri thinks twice about James Randi, on any given day? Nope! As long as James believes he is the worlds "Knight in Shining Armor" (in his own mind), he will keep doing this.

I've come to grips with the fact that exposure doesn't affect me. Still, exposure in this art might be looked upon as morally questionable at any level. Randi can expose it all, and the fake psychics will still win.

J.
Message: Posted by: John Nesbit (Feb 17, 2007 12:15PM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-17 04:02, Bambaladam wrote:
There is nothing more conceited than ascribing gullibility to those who believe otherwise than oneself. In a bitter twist of irony, it is also extremely unscientific.

/Bamba
[/quote]

That is a very lucid thought, well stated. Ironically, it seems to occur too often on this forum.

TT2, Randi seems to have enough peolple on the Café who keep his "armor" shined for him. Uri Geller was targetd for having a potential cult following back then. Now it is "the knight" who seems to have the market cornered with a different kind of a following.
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 17, 2007 12:25PM)
Exposing the methodology behind a mentalism premise ruins the possible effect upon an audience.
(It will be seen as some sort of trick)

It has nothing to do with fooling the audience with a different method.

People may not remember how they were told it works.
But they do remember it was shown to be some kind of trick.

I think this is a fairly easy concept to grasp.

Exposure destroys the underpinning of some of these presentations.

John, good to see others noticing the cult.

-Jim

H.O.A-X
Message: Posted by: Jerome Finley (Feb 17, 2007 12:36PM)
John,
Agreed. I see them as well.

J.
Message: Posted by: bitterman (Feb 17, 2007 12:42PM)
I see dead people.
Message: Posted by: John Nesbit (Feb 17, 2007 01:12PM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-17 13:42, bitterman wrote:
I see dead people.
[/quote]

"You're a "bitterman" than I am, Gunga Din!" -Rudyard Kipling
Message: Posted by: entity (Feb 17, 2007 03:00PM)
There was no exposure on Randi's site this week. I think that's a good thing. Perhaps he has thought twice about it. I don't really know.

There are internet magic shops that expose dozens of magical items and principles. Should we not also be discussing them, if exposure is the issue?

- entity
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 17, 2007 03:20PM)
The problem I have always had with him and others is the mass media exposure.

In fact I could care less about his web site and books becouse a person must go searching for that information.

It is a price to be paid.

However mass media exposure is different animal.

-Jim
Message: Posted by: entity (Feb 17, 2007 03:43PM)
My only concern about the proposed JREF website exposures was that the information might be picked up by wire services, mass media, etc.

- entity
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 17, 2007 08:51PM)
Lets at least be honest.

You guys gripe about exposure because you feel it affects your pocket book.
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Feb 17, 2007 09:09PM)
Danny

Exposure does not really hurt my pocketbook. I've had people sit down with me, people with preconceived notions based on a television show, but when we get started, the looks on their faces change and we move along. I've been told by many that it was nothing like they ever expected.

Exposure does hurt some that I know though; it costs them in routines and effects. When the exposure occurs, many remove the pieces that were exposed, at least for a little while, and replace them with something else. It is inconvenient, and depending on what was exposed, it could be a costly item to replace.

I gripe about it because it is another bit of mystery that is gone. Some person wanting to make a name for himself, or make a point, spoils a mystery that could entertain. Who and what gives that person the right to decide what is good for everyone else? If I want to tell my child about the Easter Bunny, it is my decision, not some guy who didn't get his fill of peeps last year.

Tony
Message: Posted by: entity (Feb 17, 2007 10:13PM)
When you said earlier that exposure of methods doesn't really hurt any competent pro, I agreed with you. It doesn't affect me monetarily at all. My concern is that it affects those learning Magic. It makes their limited arsenal even more limited, and it gives young Magicians the impression that secrets in Magic aren't important.

As Tony mentioned above, it also takes something valuable away from the audience -- Mystery.

- entity
Message: Posted by: Bambaladam (Feb 19, 2007 06:56AM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-17 13:12, TT2 wrote:
It didn't suit me.

Lumberjohn proposes that it may not be "wrong" to expose one or two things (out of the many thousands) that are out there, if for a greater good.
[/quote]

I meant the description I quoted. And I maintain that it is a description that fits many but will be subjectively recognized only in one's enemies, of some kind or other. Or only in the ones one is prepared to actually speak of.

I am claiming that the "skeptical" mindset often displayed here is applied unevenly by the same people to different groups in society, for various reasons.

Millard, great to read your posts. I hope you are well!

/Bamba
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Feb 19, 2007 08:51AM)
TT2 wrote: "Look at Randi's life, he is obsessed with Geller. Do you think Uri thinks twice about James Randi, on any given day?"

Hell yes! Ever since Randi helped expose Geller for what he really is on national television via Johnny Carson, Geller has been obsessed with Randi, sending hundreds of letters through his attorneys and initiating several lawsuits. If it weren't for Randi, there would be many more people around today who would believe that that publicity slut really bends spoons with his alleged mind.

I think if Randi's mission were to simply expose magic secrets he would just post a link to that super secret site where all magic is revealed - Youtube!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 19, 2007 10:29AM)
My belief is and was and always will be they were BOTH very clever marketers. They need each other.
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 19, 2007 10:59AM)
But only one of them is being honest.
Message: Posted by: Jerome Finley (Feb 19, 2007 02:17PM)
Which one? How do you define "honesty"?
Message: Posted by: DJM (Feb 19, 2007 02:27PM)
Honesty:

–noun, plural -ties.
1. the quality or fact of being honest; uprightness and fairness.
2. truthfulness, sincerity, or frankness.
3. freedom from deceit or fraud.
4. Botany. a plant, Lunaria annua, of the mustard family, having clusters of purple flowers and semitransparent, satiny pods.
5. Obsolete. chastity.

I think it's pretty easy to figure out which one, TT2.
Message: Posted by: Bambaladam (Feb 20, 2007 02:56AM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-19 15:27, DJM wrote:
Honesty:

–noun, plural -ties.
1. the quality or fact of being honest; uprightness and fairness.
2. truthfulness, sincerity, or frankness.
3. freedom from deceit or fraud.
4. Botany. a plant, Lunaria annua, of the mustard family, having clusters of purple flowers and semitransparent, satiny pods.
5. Obsolete. chastity.

I think it's pretty easy to figure out which one, TT2.

[/quote]

I don't...
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 20, 2007 02:27PM)
See Danny and Scott this really had nothing to do with anything you two were going on about.

Just a simple comment.

J ack

H.O.A-X
Message: Posted by: John Nesbit (Feb 20, 2007 06:58PM)
"Obsolete, chastity". At least one of these "Honestly" describes the "great debunker".
That, and being "of the mustard family, having clusters of purple flowers and semitransparent". ;)

Posted: Feb 20, 2007 7:59pm
Geller on the other hand was often accused of being just "a plant".
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Feb 20, 2007 07:19PM)
Chastity?
Message: Posted by: John Nesbit (Feb 20, 2007 07:31PM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-20 20:19, Jim-Callahan wrote:
Chastity?


[/quote]

I know, funny how that got in there ! :cool: