(Close Window)
Topic: Paul Mckenna exposes!
Message: Posted by: Looch (May 21, 2004 11:40AM)
OK this may not seem like much but I'd have thought better of him. On the radio yesterday he was been interviewed and someone asked him about David Blaine and he said that the two of them were friends. They apparently had the same agent in NY and he went on to describe the Balducci Levitation and its secret live on air...OK, many people know it but it's still not the point, I'd have thought someone of his caliber would know better.
Message: Posted by: Top Hat (May 21, 2004 12:15PM)
I am shocked and upset.
Message: Posted by: shrink (May 21, 2004 12:37PM)
Shows a lot of disrespect. I think it's a naff effect but he still had no right to expose it.
Message: Posted by: justforeffect (May 21, 2004 01:26PM)
Which radio station was this?
Message: Posted by: Top Hat (May 21, 2004 01:33PM)
MAGIC
Message: Posted by: Looch (May 21, 2004 01:49PM)
Hahaha, no, it was Hallam FM, it broadcasts in the Yorkshire area, very, very big station for that area.
Message: Posted by: rannie (May 21, 2004 10:53PM)
That's screaming insecurity for you. Shame on him!

Rannie
Message: Posted by: Darko Dojin (May 21, 2004 11:13PM)
Big deal! Paul McKenna is a hypnotist not a mentalist so to judge him on that basis is premature. Besides, everybody knows about the Balducci and Blaine's use of it so the harm done is pretty minimal. No doubt Brad Henderson, Paul Alberstat, Bambaladam and the rest of the ethics police will probably jump on to this and give McKenna the crap they've given Ian Rowland and Andy Nyman. It makes me laugh...
Message: Posted by: Samuel Catoe (May 22, 2004 12:34AM)
I'll be the first to jump on then. He had no need to do something like this. Hypnotist, mentalist, or pet psychic, it does not matter. He is obviously involved in the magic fraternity in some way and with Blaine by his own admission. Why would you expose the work of someone who is supposed to be your friend? To gain name recognition with the public. Nothing more. His name gets put in the papers and becomes more recognizable. Well I will not bite and will not discuss "what's his name" any further.
Message: Posted by: truthteller (May 22, 2004 12:44AM)
Darko,

Can you please identify any instance in which I have ever "given any crap" to either Mr. Rowland or Mr. Nyman?

Respectfully,
Brad Henderson
Message: Posted by: hjelm (May 22, 2004 01:09AM)
What do you mean, Darko? I thought that the first thing you learn is not to expose magic for other than magicians?

Is exposing magic a law for you or not? Maybe "Brad Henderson, Paul Alberstat, Bambaladam and the rest of the ethics police" should react on this?

Not quite so respectfully
hjelm
Message: Posted by: procyonrising (May 22, 2004 02:22AM)
Wait guys,

I've met the guy twice and he seems like a pretty nice guy. You all have to remember that McKenna started out in radio and went directly into hypnosis. He has no magic background. He doesn't know about the "no exposure" rule. Blaine might have shown the trick to McKenna, screwed it up, and McKenna just laughed about it. It might be like someone saying, "This guy showed me this amazing trick that used a big plastic finger..."

You can't blame non-magicians for talking about methods. You should, however, blame those who tell non-magicians those methods which they talk about.
Message: Posted by: Looch (May 22, 2004 05:58AM)
Actually, he was onair saying that he had to get blaine extremly drunk before he wourl reveal how he did it, he then went onto going into detail the method used for the balducci, showed the 2 hosts of the show how to do it and later on one of the hosts tried it to the other, and asked for a reaction, to which she replied, "that was crap, you can tell your just stood on one foot, you need to get the angle right.

so what if everyone and their granmothers knows the secret behind this, he is a proffessional and it is still wrong, he should know better.
Message: Posted by: mysterious_guy (May 22, 2004 08:54AM)
It was definitely wrong of him to reveal it, don't know how he has the cheek to. Is there anywhere that we can listen to the interview, say an online archive of the radio station?
Message: Posted by: enriqueenriquez (May 22, 2004 08:58AM)
I agree with the general idea here. Even if MacKenna is a dog walker, to reveal other people secrets is not a nice thing. Especially if you call yourself a friend of the person you are exposing.

I dont see how this could be OK, nice, or smart. Is just plain stupid.
Message: Posted by: carlomagic (May 22, 2004 10:44AM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-22 00:13, Darko Dojin wrote:
Besides, everybody knows about the Balducci and Blaine's use of it so the harm done is pretty minimal.
[/quote]
Oh really. What a ridiculous thing to say. Mckenna was wrong, he should know better and anyone who thinks they can expose methods based on the concept of "well everyone knows anyway" is a complete fool.

The "harm" done is subjective, but if you have something that is part of YOUR act and some fool is blabbing about it for their own personal idea of favour, you must realize that is wrong.

Like any episode of [i]Magic Secrets Revealed[/i], there is harm to those who have spent hours/weeks/years preparing something, only to have some selfish moron expose it for their OWN, probably only financial, reasons. I cannot see a case for ANY form of intentional exposure of methods, and the fact that Paul McKenna did that really annoys me.

So maybe the Balducci levitation script ends up in the box of budget tricks at our local supermarket, available for 84p, but even then no one has the right to go on to a public forum and intentionally expose it, no matter how you feel about that effect in terms of quality, etc.

Carlo
Message: Posted by: davidtan (May 22, 2004 11:20AM)
I don't see the huge fuss, the method is well knownanyone with a brain and google can find it.
Message: Posted by: Darko Dojin (May 22, 2004 01:02PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-22 01:44, truthteller wrote:
Darko,

Can you please identify any instance in which I have ever "given any crap" to either Mr. Rowland or Mr. Nyman?

Respectfully,
Brad Henderson
[/quote]
Sorry Brad. I mistakenly had your views on people exposing Derren Brown by committee in my head when I wrote this. This has nothing to do with that and I apologize most sincerely and would like to publicly retract my former statement.

That said, I stand by my view that little harm was done and McKenna has, in my view, done nothing wrong in exposing an already exposed method. How on earth can he profit from this? I am not in favour of exposure and do not condone it in any way but I do think that those of you who think McKenna is wrong to have done so ask yourself realistically if you are voicing your anti-exposure views purely because you want to be seen to be 'ethical' and jumping on the bandwagon just because everybody else is voicing this view. You have to look at the actual damage done.

In my opinion, there is little damage done and you need to look at the bigger picture. By making a mountain out of a molehill you really need to get a life. The real issue here is whether Blaine gives a **** by supposedly being betrayed by his friend. However, given the widespread knowledge of this method I have a feeling Blaine doesn't care anymore.
Message: Posted by: Banachek (May 22, 2004 04:07PM)
Listen, it is true that often the exposure shows do little harm but if you love our art why do it any harm at all? The "It does little harm if any" excuse is a poor one for agreeing with or accepting it.

Why should McKenna expose the Balducci? What good did it do him to expose it? What good did it do for anyone else to know it? Did this exposure make him seem smarter in anyway? Did it further his career? Are people going to remember (lay people) that McKenna taught them the secret? Did it strengthen his relationship with Blaine? I think the answer to all of these are NO!

Best to further our art by helping it, by doing good magic, good hypnotism. McKenna could have taken that three minutes and talked about his own exploits, that would have been a better ploy. He could have talked about his relationship with Blaine in a positive way, not in a way to cheapen what Blaine was doing. The statement, "He is a brilliant performer and I am glad to be a friend of his," would have much better served him than the exposure and the fact he had to get Blaine drunk to be a sneeky **** and get the info out of him. (Keep in mind I did not see the show so going on second hand here.)

I am not sure what the equations with this exposure and the "ethic police" have to do with this at all. I agree some go way over in their zealous actions to stop people they think are exposing. I suspect their actions often do more harm than good by cementing the wall between themselves and the people they think are exposing. I have often wondered if any of these people have spoken to those they think of as exposing and asked them where they stand today on the subject and past actions. We all make mistakes. I sure have made mine. Much better to talk to them, understand and try to pull those people into a better way of understanding of what their actions do rather than create an all out war. With war there are always casualties on both sides.

If you look above you will see some such statements only made from the side of those who accept exposure. These kind of attacks do nobody any good and solve nothing other than to give the attacker much sort after attention. (Watch who attacks my statements later.) I have even seen people talking about breaking the law to get back at someone they thought was an exposer.

When I was four years old I knew two wrongs don't make a right it just makes matters worse and puts you lower than the person you felt did the first wrong. How many people are in jail today for doing the second wrong? (Rhetorical question.) :)

Better to perform wonderful, brilliant magic/mentalism/hypnotism.

As I once said, Blaine has done more to promote magic in a postive way in one special than anyone has done going after people who expose a thousand times. This is not to say we should not try to put a stop to exposing. Any exposure at all hurts our art, even if in a small way. But we need to be smart in how we go about it. Often the attention we bring to it by attacking does more harm than the original exposure. I think, (notice I said 'I think') that it is a very fine line we walk but certainly all of us in this art should be aware of.

I may be wrong on this. If you think I am, by all means disagree but please do so respectfully.

Thanks
Message: Posted by: salsa_dancer (May 22, 2004 05:49PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-22 17:07, Banachek wrote:

Better to perform wonderful, brilliant magic/mentalism/hypnotism.
[/quote]
Sorry to only quote part of your statement Banachek, but I think this line sums it up totally. Why expend energy on the exposer, when in some respects this is what they want?

There have been many posts on this subject in the past, and originally I was amongst those that said, "Hey what does it matter? It only makes us work harder to come up with new ideas." I have since seen the error of my ways....

However, I stand by what I have said in the past that we need to be aware of what is going on but don't go in guns a blazin'. A recent example is the Houdini Museum, I would never of heard of the exposure if it hadn't been so vehemently opposed and brought into the public eye.

Paul McKenna could possibly be trying to revitalize his 'slipped' career and was wrong to jump on the Blaine bandwagon in THAT way by exposing the levitation... but, shhhhh, it will have slipped by SO many people that we should not bring it to light anywhere but amongst ourselves.

We as a collective group of people can now boycott the people we feel are exposers and gently steer any newcomers away also, if we are so inclined. Not with the cries of "HE IS AN EXPOSER!" but with the tactful approach of maybe, "They are not highly regarded by some..."

Banachek summed it up with that one line, lets concentrate on what our goals and objectives are and keep a watchful eye over the arena, then self-regulate without drawing 'public' attention to it.
Message: Posted by: procyonrising (May 22, 2004 08:04PM)
Hey Looch,

After hearing things that way, you're absolutely right. McKenna was out of line there (if for no other reason than ridiculing someone else's work that way).
Message: Posted by: hjelm (May 23, 2004 02:22AM)
Well written, Banachek.

Maybe it's stupid of me to continue the discussion but I have to. I'm not angry with McKenna. What is done is done. If the thing happened as told it was silly of him. The thing that worries me is people here writing things like: "McKenna has, in my view, done nothing wrong in exposing an already exposed method."

"An already exposed method?" It's not exposed for my mother (I think)! :) I thought that the magic was for her, the audience, and not for me, the entertainer! Let me put it this way:

The magic club in our part of Sweden have had courses in magic several years. One year I was the teacher. The fourth time I asked one of my neighbours if he was coming with me to the course. "No, this time I'm going to hunt elks. And by the way, I don't want to study in this course any more. I don't want to know the secrets. I want you to come to my house, have a cup of coffee and do tricks for me. And I want to be amazed and I want to sit and think for myself how everything is done."

Isn't that what it's all about?

We are making magic to people! They don't want to know the secrets! They don't want to think, "Was it that easy?!" They want to be thrilled! If you tell one or two things for people they wouldn't get happier. If you tell my mother how the Balducci is done you destroy something for her.

Who is to decide if a method is already exposed?

So the thing is clear, I think: Don't expose magic!
Message: Posted by: BonzoTheClown (May 23, 2004 07:42AM)
Salsa...Few people can remain at the top forever, least of all Paul McKenna. He was at the highest point he possibly could be, with once what was the number on rated show in the UK.

Marc Climens
Message: Posted by: Darko Dojin (May 23, 2004 08:43AM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-22 17:07, Banachek wrote:
I agree some go way over in their zealous actions to stop people they think are exposing. I suspect their actions often do more harm than good by cementing the wall between themselves and the people they think are exposing. I have often wondered if any of these people have spoken to those they think of as exposing and asked them where they stand today on the subject and past actions. We all make mistakes. I sure have made mine. Much better to talk to them, understand and try to pull those people into a better way of understanding of what their actions do rather than create an all out war. With war there are always casualties on both sides

This is not to say we should not try to put a stop to exposing. Any exposure at all hurts our art, even if in a small way. But we need to be smart in how we go about it
[/quote]
Steve's comments make a whole lot of sense. I have never been in favour of exposure. I completely disagree with the zealous manner with which some react even to minor acts of exposure.

If McKenna exposed IT or NW I would be pretty upset but the Balducci? It's a question of degrees and reactions to them. Not all exposure is equal and no one deserves to be pilloried for exposing something that has already been exposed even though it is technically and ethically wrong.
Message: Posted by: John Clarkson (May 23, 2004 11:23AM)
[quote]On 2004-05-23 09:43, Darko Dojin wrote:
...If McKenna exposed IT or NW I would be pretty upset but the Balducci? It's a question of degrees and reactions to them. Not all exposure is equal and no one deserves to be pilloried for exposing something that has already been exposed even though it is technically and ethically wrong.
[/quote]

I tend to agree in principle, Darko, although you and I may disagree about specifics. If one believe that [i]all[/i] exposure merits shunning and boycotts, then one will end up not purchasing or reading works of some of the greats in magic. All of the following people have been accused of exposure: Dai Vernon, Andy Nyman, Ian Rowland, Jim Steinmeyer, Harry Houdini, Shoot Ogawa, Darwin Ortiz, Danny Korem, The Pendragons, Dunninger, and a host of others. The list could be expanded indefinitely, depending upon your particular definition of unacceptable exposure. Some even extend the boycott and shunning to people who, although not exposers themselves, fail to condemn other people the boycotter believes are exposers.

By this logic, we could, I am quite sure, manage to shun every magician and mentalist, living and dead. I've even heard people accuse Banachek of exposure since he uses the word "magic" when describing his mentalism performances. (Yep, according to this doctrine, Banachek has exposed that mentalism is not real psychic power!) And worse yet, Banachek is friends with Randi who, according to some, is an exposer! The McCarthyism and heavy-handedness in this area is distressing, not because it is unkind, but because it displays such utter lack of reason.

Performers who have ever rolled up their sleeves or shown that their hands are empty during a performance have exposed secrets of magic by revealing that sleeves and palms are tools used by magicians. How many of you have flicked a card to prove it was a single, thereby implying that it [i]could have been[/i] more than one card? Shameless exposure of the concept of multiple lifts! Have you ever handed out a prop for inspection, thereby proclaiming that other magicians could be using trick decks or gaffed coins?

Honest, ethical people can differ as to the boundaries of what is acceptable revelation. It's really not as absolute as some would have us believe. If it is not an absolute, then there must be weighted factors used in making the decision about whether or not to reveal something. I've been known to roll up my sleeves, but I wouldn't expose the Balducci Levitation. Even so, I cannot get my shorts in a knot over McKenna's apparent revelation.

:nose:
Message: Posted by: Darko Dojin (May 23, 2004 11:32AM)
John, always the voice of reason and pragmatism. It's good to see you back on the board.
Message: Posted by: John Clarkson (May 23, 2004 11:42AM)
Thanks, Darko. Good to be back.

Top Hat, [i]please[/i] don't boycott my upcoming 43-volume treatise on the corner crimp. And, don't distribute video clips of my dear old mother in compromising positions at her last garden party simply because she fails to condemn my utter disregard for magical secrets. :bg:

:nose:
Message: Posted by: TheRealDeal (May 23, 2004 12:59PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-23 12:23, John Clarkson wrote:
All of the following people have been accused of exposure: Dai Vernon, Andy Nyman, Ian Rowland, Jim Steinmeyer, Harry Houdini, Shoot Ogawa, Darwin Ortiz, Danny Korem, The Pendragons, Dunninger, and a host of others. The list could be expanded indefinitely, depending upon your particular definition of unacceptable exposure.

Honest, ethical people can differ as to the boundaries of what is acceptable revelation. It's really not as absolute as some would have us believe. If it is not an absolute, then there must be weighted factors used in making the decision about whether or not to reveal something.
[/quote]
It's worth noting that some of the above actually HAVE exposed magical secrets. It does not have to be as absolute as some would have us believe, but neither does it have to be as fuzzy as you would seem to imply. To borrow your metaphor, why should condemning McCarthyism require excusing actual spies?
Message: Posted by: Darko Dojin (May 23, 2004 01:06PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-23 13:59, TheRealDeal wrote:

To borrow your metaphor, why should condemning McCarthyism require excusing actual spies?

[/quote]

Because espionage is illegal and threatens national security and endangers lives.
Message: Posted by: Banachek (May 23, 2004 01:37PM)
There is a big difference between being friends with someone and agreeing with everything they do. If I were going to shun everyone I disagree with, I would no longer be married and have nothing to do with my kids. As for Randi, I may not agree with the exposures in the past however I do agree with his warm kind giving to people who have needed help, the amount of people he helped get and eductaion. I agree with his stance on racism in a time when racism was really rampant in the U.S. Randi refused to perform in theaters where only whites where allowed. I do agree with the basic idea Randi has about Pseudo-science . But enough on that as I have spoke about it elsewhere here. Bottom line is there is more to a person than one dimension.

Also note I speak about us all making mistakes. We all have skeletons in our closets whether it be in magic or other areas of our life. Should we constantly have them held against us? Does nobody grow with experience of their mistakes? Agreement and understanding of mistakes are two different things and it seems to me that many do not understand this. Empathy does not equate to agreement.

As for exposure by greats through the years. Yes many have, but does this make it right? Just because Dunninger did it, Houdini did it does not make it right and does in no way show that it helps magic. At the same time, did it hurt magic, on some level yes on others maybe it caused some to come to magic and invent wonderful magic we would not have. But as said, if you love our art you should want to better it by performing great magic and promote it that way, that way also brings people to want to perform magic.

I think Blaine and Derren have brought more people into our art than all the exposures put together.

As for equating associating magic with mentalism as a form of exposure. By associating mentalism with a form of magic in no way exposes the methods of our art. It is just a description (the true one) of what we do, in other words an exposure of the truth but not an attack at the foundation, neither does it take the mystery and wonderment of what mentalists do away despite what some may think. My audiences are amazed despite my disclaimers just as people are amazed and in awe at a great performance of magic. The only way that this equation would fit is if someone felt the lie of saying it is real outside the context of a show and that it is not just entertainment, is okay.

Some could argue that giving our methods away is an exposure of the truth but it is an exposure that takes the very foundation of doing what we do away. Our job is to entertain and whenever a spectator knows a secret, it makes it a little harder to entertain with magic. Exposure removes the magical awe and amazement of what we do. In a way we are stealing the feeling of wonderment away when one exposes a magical secret. There is no lie when it comes to performing magic, there is no wrong to be put right, audiences know it is magic and expect it to be. Therefore there is no need to expose the secrets on any level.

If one exposes the simplest of magic tricks, one teaches the psychology behind what we do, the misdirection we use.
Yes a show can still be entertaining on some level, such as a great story of a great joke, wonderful costumes or even great lighting and special effects. But we are not just storytellers, comedians, we are magicians/mentalists/hypnotists. A magician needs all his tools to be a magician and that includes the secrets of his magic. Without our secrets, it is just great theater.

Having said this, I do feel there is a difference between magic books and exposure. In one you have to be interested enough to pay for it and search out what you are looking for. Same as if you want to be a marine biologist or any other profession.

As I said before, we all make mistakes and should be given a chance to rectify them. But to agree with something just because you feel it does little harm. I can't understand that either just as I can't understand a vehement hatred of someone you disagree with. Life is waayyy to short for hatred.

Just my 1/2 a cent :)
Message: Posted by: TheRealDeal (May 23, 2004 02:14PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-23 14:06, Darko Dojin wrote:
[quote]
On 2004-05-23 13:59, TheRealDeal wrote:

To borrow your metaphor, why should condemning McCarthyism require excusing actual spies?

[/quote]

Because espionage is illegal and threatens national security and endangers lives.

[/quote]

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but I think this supports my point. In the McCarthy era, many people were attacked who were not guilty or "guilty by association." But there were also some real perpetrators. Their spying had harmful consequences. So it is with exposing. It can and often does have harmful consequences. (Maybe not like international expionage. It is only a metaphor after all.) McKenna's exposure will adversely impact those who do the effect. Nothing of value was gained by it. Where's the gray area?
Message: Posted by: carlomagic (May 23, 2004 03:13PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-23 14:37, Banachek wrote:


Exposure removes the magical awe and amazement of what we do. In a way we are stealing the feeling of wonderment away when one exposes a magical secret.

If one exposes the simplest of magic tricks, one teaches the psychology behind what we do, the misdirection we use.


[/quote]

Perfectly put, and one main reason behind my objection to exposure.

I may not know anyone who actually uses the Balducci, but I bet there are some who have paid a lot of money for other levitation effects and would be pretty disheartened by cries of 'I know how you do that...' by a public attributing gained knowledge in the form of public exposure (sounds a bit rude!!). :lol:

I re-read my initial post and thought I was a bit too strong in the wording, I just have an objection to the actual principle raised - not really individuals who do the exposure OR those who see no harm.

I just feel that the essence of our art is the reservation of knowledge for those who genuinely seek it to continue the art itself. And those are also the people who, for me, are worth listening to and learning from.

Best regards,

Carlo
Message: Posted by: Darko Dojin (May 23, 2004 03:18PM)
I was never in favour of exposure, merely that I thought there was a massive over-reaction to it which needs to be tempered with a degree of pragmatism.
Message: Posted by: Trev (May 23, 2004 03:33PM)
I can't believe it. Everyone's getting their knickers in a twist about this!!
Message: Posted by: John Clarkson (May 23, 2004 04:18PM)
On 2004-05-23 13:59, TheRealDeal wrote (referring to my earlier post):[quote]
It does not have to be as absolute as some would have us believe, but neither does it have to be as fuzzy as you would seem to imply.[/quote]Actually, I've implied no specific degree of fuzziness. I have merely suggested that there are few absolutes here.

[quote]To borrow your metaphor, why should condemning McCarthyism require excusing actual spies?[/quote]More innocent people than spies were harmed by McCarthyism. Moreover, it is a tenet of Anglo-American justice that we'd prefer to set 10 guilty men free than hang one innocent person. You may dispute the soundness of that approach, but I think I'll stick with it for the time being.

There are two issues that have arisen: (1) the vagueness of standards concerning exposure; and, (2) the appropriate response when we believe that someone has violated the standards.

Since I deal on a daily basis with issues that could deprive someone of life and liberty, I simply cannot muster a whole lot of righteous indignation over the exposure of the Balducci Levitation; I don't have enough energy left for that. The best I can do is to state my belief that, if we all strive for the ideal of preserving our secrets [i]as we understand that term[/i], magic will not perish as a result of the occasional transgression. I myself adhere to fairly traditional standards about the exposure of magic. I also recognize that reasonable people may differ.

In accordance with your statement that "it doesn't have to be as absolute as some would have us believe," when I look at the list of people who have been accused of exposure, I conclude that one man's magical spy is another man's Professor.

:nose:
Message: Posted by: shrink (May 23, 2004 04:35PM)
John Clarkson wrote:

"The best I can do is to state my belief that, if we all strive for the ideal of preserving our secrets as we understand that term, magic will not perish as a result of the occasional transgression."


When does occasional become to much? It seems to me that exposure has become more than occasional. And the size of the exposure and nature of the exposure also come into play.

Magic may not perish but material used by mentalists and magicians to earn a living may well become unworkable.

The Levitation in question may not be of great value however it wasn't Mckenna's to expose. And surely he could've came up with something more entertaining to say. Although he usually puts me to sleep, reminds me of an insurance salesman.

If anything needed exposing it is the incompetence of many lawyers who hide behind esoteric jargon.........;-)

Just teasing John although half serious at the same time!!
Message: Posted by: John Clarkson (May 23, 2004 04:56PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-23 17:35, shrink wrote:
...
When does occasional become to much? It seems to me that exposure has become more than occasional. And the size of the exposure and nature of the exposure also come into play. [/quote]Hard to know, shrink. By occasional transgression, I was referring to the inevitability of sin, no matter how hard we strive to achieve the ideal. "Occasional" referred to more to the sins of an individual than to the cumulative impact of many occasional sinners.

[quote]Magic may not perish but material used by mentalists and magicians to earn a living may well become unworkable.[/quote]Debatable. So far, exposure doesn't seem to have done great harm. (I am referring here to magic in general, not to individual performers.) That doesn't justify it; it is just a factor to consider when deciding upon an appropriate response.

[quote]If anything needed exposing it is the incompetence of many lawyers who hide behind esoteric jargon.........;-)[/quote]You and I agree completely on this point, shrink. I will add that jargon--whether legal, medical, or magical--has the effect of denying power to the masses. But, consumers demand the jargon. Wouldn't you rather read "De minimis non curat lex" than a bald admission that the legal system cannot cope with the smaller problems that plague us all?

Likewise, why do physicians use highfalutin terms for the obvious? Perhaps it is because we are willing to pay dearly to hear them say, "Son, you have nonspecific urethritis" but would scream "fraud" if they presented a bill for telling us the same thing in plain English: "I have no idea why it burns when you pee."

:nose:
Message: Posted by: appletruth (May 23, 2004 07:01PM)
[quote][i]Having said this, I do feel there is a difference between magic books and exposure. In one you have to be interested enough to pay for it and search out what you are looking for. Same as if you want to be a marine biologist or any other profession.[/i]-Banachek[/quote]

I don’t see how you can discern a substantial difference between them, [b]Banachek[/b] --Perhaps you can expand on your statements to clarify?

Both are exposure, but I take it maybe what you mean by exposure is an unwanted (by the magic community) means of spreading information.

But the means of the transactions appear the same in both cases. One has an interest to search out (via channel flipping on the TV or radio) information that is appealing just as one searches books and videos that are appealing to gather information. These books and videos cost money just as one needs to purchase TVs, radios, antennas, satellites and cable channels. Money segregates only those who have money from those who do not. The means of delivering information you deemed not being exposure seems to parallel the unwanted exposure that can be found on TV and radio.

Is it not important to have a perception of the person one is offering information too? How does one perceive someone’s motivations for purchasing their books or videos if money and interest is the only transaction for gaining the information?

Regards,
Appletruth
Message: Posted by: Banachek (May 23, 2004 10:19PM)
Big difference Appletruth. On TV, radio and such it is shoved in the faces of the masses whether they want it or not.

A magic book one has to take the time and energy to search what one is looking for. Then one has to take the time to read it. This is all an investment.

TV really can't be equated that way, TV/newspapers are all a part of everyday life, reading a magic book is not. Buying a magic book is not. Very, very different animals. To equate the two, in my opinion is just playing semantics and really seems to be arguing for the sake of arguments sake. A waste of time in my opinion.

Appletruth, are you saying that there should be no magic books or are you saying exposure is okay? If you are equating magic books on the same level of exposure then you must be making a clear statement of one or the other!

A magic performance itself relies upon the secrets to be magical.
Message: Posted by: marmaduke (May 23, 2004 10:30PM)
Since Paul Mc'Kenna has virtually ruined stage hypnotism as a career in the UK albeit indirectly and unintentionally he may as well do the same for magic.
Message: Posted by: Banachek (May 24, 2004 12:36AM)
Funny thing this exposure. The other night I was watching David Blaine on The Howard Stern show. Howard told Blaine that he had met a young lady who was so amazed by Blaine and how Blaine was able to tell her things about herself that there was no way he could have know, David must be psychic. David told Howard that "No" he was not psychic, just a "card magician", rather than leave it there though, David went into a complete explanation of cold reading and gave the lines he uses on unsuspecting Strippers, word for word. Exposing?
Message: Posted by: TheRealDeal (May 24, 2004 01:11AM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-23 17:18, John Clarkson wrote:
it is a tenet of Anglo-American justice that we'd prefer to set 10 guilty men free than hang one innocent person. You may dispute the soundness of that approach, but I think I'll stick with it for the time being.
[/quote]
I don't dispute the soundness of that approach. It isn't even relevant to this discussion. I'm simply talking about acknowledging the fact that, while reasonable people might disagree about exposure in some instances, there are also some instances where it is very clear cut. The incident that sparked this thread, for example. It was a boorish, childish, and offensive act. Why can't we simply call it such instead of bogging down on when exposure is or isn't acceptible?

[quote]
Since I deal on a daily basis with issues that could deprive someone of life and liberty, I simply cannot muster a whole lot of righteous indignation over the exposure of the Balducci Levitation; I don't have enough energy left for that.
[/quote]
Nobody's asking for a lot. A small amount would be just fine.

[quote]
best I can do is to state my belief that, if we all strive for the ideal of preserving our secrets [i]as we understand that term[/i], magic will not perish as a result of the occasional transgression.
[/quote]
Obviously we don't all strive for that ideal. If we did there would be no "Masked Magician" or "Secrets of the Psychics Revealed," and Paul McKenna would keep his trap shut.

Why does the condemnation of bad behavior have to hinge on such dire consequences? There are many forms of bad behavior that have no immediate ill effects, but which have an long-term corrosive impact. There are others which are simply wrong by nature. If somebody tells a racist joke in my presence, I'll speak up, even if nobody else is around to hear it. If somebody throws a small piece of trash on the ground, I'll speak up, even though the fate of the planet obviously won't be altered by that one tiny piece. If somebody belittles my profession by blabbing a secret to the wrong ears I'll speak up there as well.


[quote]
I myself adhere to fairly traditional standards about the exposure of magic. I also recognize that reasonable people may differ.
[/quote]
Specifically adressing Paul McKenna's exposure, how may reasonable people differ?

[quote]
I accordance with your statement that "it doesn't have to be as absolute as some would have us believe," when I look at the list of people who have been accused of exposure, I conclude that one man's magical spy is another man's Professor.

:nose:
[/quote]
Actually, that's your statement. My statement was that sometimes things are pretty clear. To argue that exposure is sometimes a murky issue is fine to a degree, but if you never take a stand, if you draw the line nowhere at all, after a while it begins to look more like a smokescreen than an argument.
Message: Posted by: kinesis (May 24, 2004 04:11AM)
As far as I see it McKenna shot himself in the foot. The guy's a hypnotist and yet he had to get Blaine drunk. Doesn't say much for his hypnotic powers. :)
Message: Posted by: medains (May 24, 2004 06:26AM)
I agree with kinesis.

Exposure of methods is going to happen, if you make a fuss about it then you will just get more people finding out...

What McKenna did wrong was presenting his relationship with Blaine (getting him drunk) - doesn't paint a rosey picture on either of them.
Message: Posted by: TheRealDeal (May 24, 2004 08:28AM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-24 07:26, medains wrote:
I agree with kinesis.

Exposure of methods is going to happen, if you make a fuss about it then you will just get more people finding out...

[/quote]


How is criticizing it on the MagicCafe going to get more people finding out?

[quote]
What McKenna did wrong was presenting his relationship with Blaine (getting him drunk) - doesn't paint a rosey picture on either of them.


[/quote]


Is that the only thing he did wrong?
Message: Posted by: John Clarkson (May 24, 2004 09:21AM)
On 2004-05-24 02:11, TheRealDeal wrote (referring to my earlier post):
[quote] ...I don't dispute the soundness of that approach. It (a tenet of Anglo-American justice) isn't even relevant to this discussion.[/quote]The tenet of justice is relevant. We've not examined all the evidence nor heard McKenna's side of the story, yet some, apparently, are willing to hang him.

[quote]...It (McKenna's conduct) was a boorish, childish, and offensive act. Why can't we simply call it such instead of bogging down on when exposure is or isn't acceptible[/quote]One could call it that. In fact, one [i]did[/i].

[quote]...Nobody's asking for a lot (of righteous indignation). A small amount would be just fine.[/quote]I've stated that I myself would not reveal the Balducci Levitation. Because keeping my own house in order is a full-time job, I'm unable (or unwilling) to summon the sanctimony it requires to presume to live other people's lives for them.

[quote]...Why does the condemnation of bad behavior have to hinge on such dire consequences? ....If somebody tells a racist joke in my presence, I'll speak up, even if nobody else is around to hear it.[/quote]On this, we agree. My protest to the joke-teller is a statement that I don't find racism (or sexism or homophobia) funny. I refrain from telling him whether he should continue to tell the joke. And, I doubt that I'd go (under most circumstances) to an Internet forum to complain about the joke.

[quote]If somebody belittles my profession by blabbing a secret to the wrong ears I'll speak up there as well.[/quote]Have you spoken with [i]McKenna[/i] about this?

[quote]Specifically adressing Paul McKenna's exposure, how may reasonable people differ?[/quote]Difficult to say until we hear McKenna's side of the argument. Some reasonable people may think that exposing the Balducci Revelation on radio is about as effective as holding a beauty pageant on the radio.

[quote]To argue that exposure is sometimes a murky issue is fine to a degree, but if you never take a stand, if you draw the line nowhere at all, after a while it begins to look more like a smokescreen than an argument.[/quote]And, that, RealDeal, is precisely the attitude I object to. [i]You[/i] have concluded that it is clear, and, therefore, if others are unwilling to conclude the same, their position is merely a smokescreen. My goodness, what have you imagined I am trying to hide with a smokescreen? No, never mind, I really don't care.

I'll stick with my original propositions: (1) I would not reveal the Balducci Levitation. (2) Reasonable people can differ about the boundaries of acceptable exposure. (3) I do not know what McKenna may have been thinking or what his motivation may have been. (4) I am not convinced that, at least in this case, punitive measures such as boycotts and shunning would be appropriate. (5) I have no reserve of righteous indignation to draw upon for something as relatively trivial as the possible exposure of the Balducci Levitation--or the 21-Card Trick-- by [i]radio[/i].

You may disagree with me without my calling into question whether you are hiding some some grievous defect. As I say, I've got neither the time nor the inclination to continue with this. I [i]am[/i], however, looking forward to reading your posts in other threads.

:nose:

[quote]
On 2004-05-24 01:36, Banachek wrote:... David went into a complete explanation of cold reading and gave the lines he uses on unsuspecting Strippers, word for word. Exposing?
[/quote]Steve, you've pointed to probably one of the most difficult areas when it comes to exposure. What do [i]you[/i] think about what you heard Blaine say?

:nose:
Message: Posted by: christopher carter (May 24, 2004 10:49AM)
John, I'm going back to my real name on this one since this is not the sort of discussion that should proceed under anonymity.


[quote]
The tenet of justice is relevant. We've not examined all the evidence nor heard McKenna's side of the story, yet some, apparently, are willing to hang him.
[/quote]

No, bringing it up is a straw man fallacy, since at no time did I call it into question. Implying that I am trying to "hang him" is useless hyperbole, considering that I merely called the behavior as reported boorish and offensive. I called for no boycots, no sanctions whatsoever.


[quote]...It (McKenna's conduct) was a boorish, childish, and offensive act. Why can't we simply call it such instead of bogging down on when exposure is or isn't acceptible[/quote]One could call it that. In fact, one [i]did[/i].
[/quote]

And yet when I did, you responded with the suggestion that taking offense was tantamount to McCarthyism. That's just ridiculous.



quote]I've stated that I myself would not reveal the Balducci Levitation. Because keeping my own house in order is a full-time job, I'm unable (or unwilling) to summon the sanctimony it requires to presume to live other people's lives for them.
[/quote]

If you can't see the irony in this, you're not looking. This thread was started with the reporting of an unfortunate incident and a series of comments by people to the effect that they thought it was tacky, unwarranted, and belittling. These people were quickly told they were over-reacting, and you brought up the specter of McCarthyism, equating even a very mild criticism of a specific incident of exposure with a very dark period in American history. It is not the criticism of McKenna that is sanctimonious in this case. The sanctimony lies in your presumption to know what we should find offensive and what is an appropriate response. All I'm asking for is the right to say, "The behavior as reported offends me. I don't think it is morally right," without the demagogic insinuation that speaking my mind is equivalent to McCarthyism.


[quote]If somebody belittles my profession by blabbing a secret to the wrong ears I'll speak up there as well.[/quote]Have you spoken with [i]McKenna[/i] about this?
[/quote]

That is a very good suggestion, and I will try that next.


[quote]Specifically adressing Paul McKenna's exposure, how may reasonable people differ?[/quote]Difficult to say until we hear McKenna's side of the argument. Some reasonable people may think that exposing the Balducci Revelation on radio is about as effective as holding a beauty pageant on the radio.

[/quote]
Hypothesize. What sort of situations might make it acceptible? Permission from Blaine? Protection of the masses? Ineffectuality of the exposure? I'll grant that we don't have all the information, but this is an imperfect world, and this is only a discussion forum; nobody is REALLY on trial. Based on the information we have, it appears that none of the above apply. If you disagree, then lets get to details.


[quote]To argue that exposure is sometimes a murky issue is fine to a degree, but if you never take a stand, if you draw the line nowhere at all, after a while it begins to look more like a smokescreen than an argument.[/quote]And, that, RealDeal, is precisely the attitude I object to. [i]You[/i] have concluded that it is clear, and, therefore, if others are unwilling to conclude the same, their position is merely a smokescreen. My goodness, what have you imagined I am trying to hide with a smokescreen? No, never mind, I really don't care.
[/quote]

You misconstrue me. I am stating the fact that, given what I know, it appears clear to me. I am trying to draw you, or others, into a discussion of this particular incident, without having to move into the realm of the abstract. What I imagine is that you're trying to avoid specific discussion of a specific incident, while at the same time implying(or sometimes overtly stating) that those who do object to a specific incident of exposure are sanctimonious for doing so. Apparently you imagine that I'm opposed to a standard tenet of American Jurisprudence. If we're wrong about each other, I'd say we're probably about even.

[/quote]
You may disagree with me without my calling into question whether you are hiding some some grievous defect.
[/quote]

Ah, but there's the rub! That is precisely what you did when you brought up McCarthyism, and when you suggested, wrongly, that I opposed certain specific legal principles. All I did was maintain that some of the "greats" you listed, particularly Dunninger, really did engage in behavior worthy of approbation, and you took it on an offensive and dishonest tangent.

--Chris
Message: Posted by: John Clarkson (May 24, 2004 03:46PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-24 11:49, christopher carter wrote:
John, I'm going back to my real name on this one since this is not the sort of discussion that should proceed under anonymity.[/quote]Thank you, Chris. I am not sure what circumstances would justify the discussion [i]start[/i] under the veil of anonymity.


[quote]...No, bringing it up (the tenet of justice) is a straw man fallacy, since at no time did I call it into question.[/quote]Actually, you said it was irrelevant. It isn't. "Hanging" merely furthered the metaphor. No, you have not advocated capital punishment. You have merely appeared anonymously in an Internet forum and called the guy "boorish, childish, offensive." You later reveal that you have not talked with McKenna himself. That sounds like a verdict before all the evidence is in.

[quote]I called for no boycots, no sanctions whatsoever. [/quote]To your credit, you did not. Not everything in my posts was directed to you, Chris.

[quote]...you responded with the suggestion that taking offense was tantamount to McCarthyism. That's just ridiculous.[/quote]No, Chris, I suggested that the rampant emotionalism, the lack of rationality, and the tendency that arises to find guilt by association when this topic arises is tantamount to McCarthyism. I was not referring to you or your post. See below.

[quote]If you can't see the irony in this (sanctimony), you're not looking. ..., and you brought up the specter of McCarthyism, equating even a very mild criticism of a specific incident of exposure with a very dark period in American history ... (a)demagogic insinuation that speaking my mind is equivalent to McCarthyism.[/quote]I did not equate your speaking your mind to McCarthyism. You seem to base most of your response on this assertion, Chris. It simply didn't happen. My reference to McCarthyism was in the context of my immediately preceding comment that some people condemn Banachek because he is friends with Randi, who has, some claim, exposed. I myself have received horridly hateful e-mail from a noted mentalist using language to indicate that he would rejoice in the news of my death...because, if you can believe it, I defended a person's right to have differing opinions about exposure (while making it clear that I did not share that person's view of exposure). [i]That[/i], I maintain, is McCarthyism. It has nothing to do with you.

[quote]That is a very good suggestion (speaking directly with McKenna), and I will try that next.[/quote]It would be interesting to know his response. If you feel you can share it, I'd be eager to hear it.

[quote]I am trying to draw you, or others, into a discussion of this particular incident, without having to move into the realm of the abstract.[/quote]Yes, that is exactly what I intend to do. If I have a problem with an individual, I'll take it up directly with him, not by general discussion about him on the Magic Caf (and certainly not under the protection of a quickly-registered moniker to insure anonymity.) I am, however, willing to discuss the abstracts. Chris, you and I have done that in the past, by e-mail, and I thought it had been a productive exchange.

:nose:
Message: Posted by: shrink (May 24, 2004 04:26PM)
This exposure thing always ends up more complicated than it should be. Its really simple you are for or against or on the fence. Everything else is just hot air.


I am against. However I am also realistic. Emotional detachment is the best policy. Whats the point of getting upset about something you can not do much about. Just accept part of magic is exposure. And certain people will sell out for a very small price.

Ive never been a fan of Paul Mckenna I think he is a very fortunate man. His days as a radio 1 DJ set him up and put the contacts on a plate for him. I think he is a very average performer who got lucky.
Message: Posted by: kaytracy (May 24, 2004 04:54PM)
Just to throw this into the mix, there are a large number of folks who DO have a brain, and may not have computers to google things. They also rather enjoy seeing magic and illusions. Revealing it does them no favors. My Mother does not have a computer, but still enjoys seeing magic, and not just the odd bits I do for her! I do the worlds worst linking rings, but I manage to never give the secret, my mother loves it. Does she know it is a trick? Of course, but she does not care, or want to know "How it is done". she likes the effect.

I might suggest that some of you who think exposure does no harm consider talking to a larger segment if your audiences. Maybe its just me, but most of the folks I perform for would rather enjoy the effect, than the secret. True, I get the usual "How did you do that?!" and I always respond with a smile and the standard, "It's Magic." To any who press me, I tell them when they show me some magic, I will then work with them.
For someone who says they had to get someone drunk to get a secret out of a person, well, might be because I am female, but that is basically "Date Rape", even if it was only mind sex to get what he wanted, and not a physical act. Bad Karma, Bad Manners, and Very Bad Ethics. Not anyone I would ever consider seeing perform, or lecture, Thanks for the heads up.
Message: Posted by: christopher carter (May 24, 2004 05:33PM)
John, there are quite a lot of reasons a working professional would want to avoid direct name recognition on a magic forum. Unfortunately, it is clear to me that the downsides outweigh the upsides. It was an experiment that just didn't work out to my satisfaction.

It should be understood that any conclusions about anybody's behavior are provisional. Most people on these boards can understand that, I believe. If it is more to your liking, I will reprhase: If the reports are accurate, then McKenna's actions are/were boorish and offensive. Since I have heard substantially similar reports from several independent witnesses now, I believe that the reports probably are accurate. I don't mind being shown wrong, but as I have said it is an imperfect world and we can't avoid making judgements, even if provisional. Again, if they are accurate, I can see no reasonable justification for them. Certainly they appear to violate those conditions that you and I agreed upon as to what constitutes "acceptible exposure." That you don't acknowlege this, even as a thought experiment, baffles me.

The issue of jurisprudence IS a straw man. First, my argument is clearly moral and ethical, not legal. Second, my argument was related to a specific statment you made: (paraphrase) 'many great magicians/mentalists have been accused of exposure.' While this was not specifically an argument, you acted as if several conclusions came from it. First, you acted as if their greatness nullified any bad behavior they might have committed. Second, you acted as if being accused of exposure was sufficient to cause inclusion in an exclusive club; ie. 'you're in good company.' Neither of these conclusions follow from the premise. Stature in the field is not an excuse for bad behavior when it has happened, and because sometimes people go to extremes, it does not follow that all who have been accused of exposure have not been guilty of exposure. While there is some room for disagreement, practically one does have to draw the line in the sand somewhere. Further, all justifications for exposure are not equally valid. By failing to ever take a stand on what constitues unacceptible exposure, and by bringing up the McCarthy metaphor, you create the impression of deep disdain for those who would draw the line anywhere.

Your lecture about the gravity of you job is shockingly disrespectful, and well beyond sanctimonious. It's just plain pompous! So you deal with life and death issues every day!? Therefore issues of exposure are trivial to you. Obviously I'm glad I'm not in your shoes. As an argument, this is just an effort to marginalize the arguments of those who don't find exposure so trivial. It shows no compassion whatsoever for those who do earn their living from performance, and no respect for the legacy and hertitage given to us by the creators of the exposed effect. Just because a particular exposure isn't meaningful to you doesn't mean it isn't meaningful to others whose opinions you SHOULD respect.

--Chris
Message: Posted by: appletruth (May 24, 2004 06:17PM)
[quote][i]Big difference Appletruth. On TV, radio and such it is shoved in the faces of the masses whether they want it or not.[/i]-Banachek[/quote]
Oh really! I do not know about the masses but I for one FEEL I can consent or reject to a great extant what I view, listen, or read on the TV, radio, and newspaper simply by channel flipping, turning the OFF or ON button, closing my eyes, covering my ears, walking away, and putting down the paper. What about you, do you FEEL you have some control over what you watch, what you listen too and what you read? How and why do the masses have the TV and radio shoved in their faces whether they want it or not?
[quote][i]A magic book one has to take the time and energy to search what one is looking for. Then one has to take the time to read it. This is all an investment.[/i]-Banachek[/quote]
Does it not take an investment of ones time and energy in searching and watching/listening to the TV or radio?
[quote][i]TV really can't be equated that way, TV/newspapers are all a part of everyday life, reading a magic book is not. Buying a magic book is not. Very, very different animals.[/i]-Banachek[/quote]
TV/newspapers are not a necessity for life therefore not necessarily an aspect of ones everyday life.
[quote][i]To equate the two, in my opinion is just playing semantics and really seems to be arguing for the sake of arguments sake. A waste of time in my opinion.[/i]-Banachek[/quote]
A waste of time if one is not open to the idea of changing there opinions, then yes, I would agree such a discussion is perhaps a waste of time. I’m not arguing for the sake of argument. I’m arguing for understanding. You have not giving sufficient reasons why not to equate the two. Your statements, rather then discerning a difference between them, gather support for equating them.
[quote][i]Appletruth, are you saying that there should be no magic books or are you saying exposure is okay? If you are equating magic books on the same level of exposure then you must be making a clear statement of one or the other![/i]-Banachek[/quote]
What makes you believe I expressed a belief in any of these statements? I am just questioning and asserting that the criteria you applied to differentiate exposure from non-exposure expresses them as being the same. Either this is the case or you need to expand or clarify for me to understand.

Regards,
Appletruth
Message: Posted by: salsa_dancer (May 24, 2004 06:30PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-24 19:17, appletruth wrote:
[quote][i]Big difference Appletruth. On TV, radio and such it is shoved in the faces of the masses whether they want it or not.[/i]-Banachek[/quote]
Oh really! I do not know about the masses but I for one FEEL I can consent or reject to a great extant what I view, listen, or read on the TV, radio, and newspaper simply by channel flipping, turning the OFF or ON button, closing my eyes, covering my ears, walking away, and putting down the paper. What about you, do you FEEL you have some control over what you watch, what you listen too and what you read? How and why do the masses have the TV and radio shoved in their faces whether they want it or not?

[/quote]

I think what Banachek stated here is that it more likely that someone will stumble across the information in a more wide spread media than a book that is available in a magic store.... You yourself stated that you channel hop, so it is right to assume that others may do this and land on the show that exposes something?

What is worse is that you probably know this, which means you are prolonging the argument for the sake of the argument, not the cause..
Message: Posted by: John Clarkson (May 24, 2004 07:26PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-24 18:33, christopher carter wrote:
... Second, my argument was related to a specific statement you made: (paraphrase) 'many great magicians/mentalists have been accused of exposure.' While this was not specifically an argument, you acted as if several conclusions came from it. First, you acted as if their greatness nullified any bad behavior they might have committed. Second, you acted as if being accused of exposure was sufficient to cause inclusion in an exclusive club; ie. 'you're in good company.' Neither of these conclusions follow from the premise.[/quote]You paraphrase my statement, posit (inaccurately), what my conclusions were, then you attack them. Goodness! Talk about strawmen arguments! My statement was that if we shun and boycott everyone whom anyone has ever accused of exposure, we would miss out on some greats of magic. That's the extent of it. The rest of your argument here, addresses your inaccurate projections about what I meant. I'll, therefore, not respond.

[quote]Your lecture about the gravity of you job is shockingly disrespectful, and well beyond sanctimonious. It's just plain pompous! So you deal with life and death issues every day!? [/quote]You and I clearly have a different definition of "lecture." I stated that in light of the issues I deal with on a daily basis, it was hard for me to must much emotion over the revelation of the Balducci Levitation. If that seems pompous, Chris, so be it.

[quote]...It (John's position) shows no compassion whatsoever for those who do earn their living from performance, and no respect for the legacy and hertitage given to us by the creators of the exposed effect.[/quote] Thank you, Chris. I was pretty sure that those are not my feelings and thoughts, but I'll defer to your psychic ability here...

[quote]Just because a particular exposure isn't meaningful to you doesn't mean it isn't meaningful to others whose opinions you SHOULD respect.[/quote] The only thing I haven't respected, Chris, is the anonymous attacks on an individual. I have nothing but respect for the fact that exposure makes you feel bad. You can, therefor, respect the fact that it doesn't mean I am pompous if my emotional threshold is not the same as yours. I have stated that I would not have revealed the Levitation. I can add that I wish the McKenna didn't (if it turns out that he did.) I draw the line, I guess, at calling the man names in a public forum.
Message: Posted by: appletruth (May 24, 2004 07:58PM)
[quote][i]I think what Banachek stated here is that it more likely that someone will stumble across the information in a more wide spread media than a book that is available in a magic store.... You yourself stated that you channel hop, so it is right to assume that others may do this and land on the show that exposes something?[/i]-salsa_dancer[/quote]
So what I think you are telling me is the burden of unwanted exposure rests on the receiver rather then the giver. Exposure is defined by the quantity of people who receive the information and not by the criteria set by the giver for those who should be allowed to receive it... do I have this right? If not, what is it that you're trying to say?
[quote][i]What is worse is that you probably know this, which means you are prolonging the argument for the sake of the argument, not the cause..[/i]-salsa_dancer[/quote]
What is worse, [b]salsa_dancer[/b], is you seemed to have carelessly danced through my last post.
Message: Posted by: Banachek (May 24, 2004 08:32PM)
Appletruth, this is getting silly. You are arguing for the sack of argument.

Surely you are smart enough to know that one can be watching a show they like and all of a sudden, something comes on that they did not expect, too late to change the TV.

Media is a part of almost all people's life in the US, I never said they were a necessity, never. Just that they are part of every day life. Surely you know that too.

And yes it takes time to find the program you may want to watch, however, what is on that program, like the McKenna statements are unexpected, surely you also know that. You seem very smart. Seems this was the problem with the Janet Jackson fiasco on the superbowl. Kids were watching, not enough time to change the set and they all saw some unexepected booby.

Surely you also know it takes very litte effort to pick up the remote and switch on the TV to your favorite show. Very little effort at all. I don't have to turn the computer on and order it since I get cable (yes I have to pay the bill and yes I had to subscribe but heck even you know that was not to get the McKenna statements unlike a magic book you would have to be specifically going out of your way to purchase for specific information)

YOu ask how I came to the conclusion of your expressed belief in two statmens. What makes me believe you either must believe one of those statments or are just playing a game is your own statement in rebuttle of mine stating there is a difference between TV exposures and magic books, you seem to think there is no difference therefore you have to be stating that either exposure is okay or two that that magic books are wrong. If the exposure is equal in each case (as you stated) it has to be one or the other. To put it nother way in case you still do not understand, if magic books and tv exposure equal the same as you suggest, then if if exposure is wrong, magic books are wrong. If magic books are okay then exposure is okay. Your rules Appletruth, not mine. I personally think there is a dfiference, from your words you either do not think there is or are arguing for the sake of arguing. Here is your quote below:

Quote: "These books and videos cost money just as one needs to purchase TVs, radios, antennas, satellites and cable channels. Money segregates only those who have money from those who do not. The means of delivering information you deemed not being exposure seems to parallel the unwanted exposure that can be found on TV and radio."

Again, that was in reference to my Magic books and TV being two different animals.

I'm tiring of this actually, it is silly. I did not want to get into an argument on this, just wanted to calm things down on both sides. I felt we should be concerened about exposures and work on stopping them in a positive civil way and not get fantatical about it. Seems that message has been lost.
Message: Posted by: salsa_dancer (May 24, 2004 08:41PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-24 20:58, appletruth wrote:
[quote][i]I think what Banachek stated here is that it more likely that someone will stumble across the information in a more wide spread media than a book that is available in a magic store.... You yourself stated that you channel hop, so it is right to assume that others may do this and land on the show that exposes something?[/i]-salsa_dancer[/quote]
So what I think you are telling me is the burden of unwanted exposure rests on the receiver rather then the giver. Exposure is defined by the quantity of people who receive the information and not by the criteria set by the giver for those who should be allowed to receive it... do I have this right? If not, what is it that you're trying to say?[/quote]

No, I am saying the burden lies with the giver.. The media in which a person puts out information is the discussion here. Information given for study to further someone in the art of magic is not exposure. A TV show called Mentalists / Magicians 'Exposed' is, and has been put into this format for an explicit purpose...


[quote][i]What is worse is that you probably know this, which means you are prolonging the argument for the sake of the argument, not the cause..[/i]-salsa_dancer[/quote]
[quote]What is worse, [b]salsa_dancer[/b], is you seemed to have carelessly danced through my last post.
[/quote]

I didn't dance through anything, you stated you were arguing for understanding... I just fail to see how one can 'argue' to understand. By its very nature it cannot happen.. now if you are 'questioning' to understand then that is a different matter entirely... ;)

It is hard to have a discussion using this medium as tonal inflections cannot be expressed and words can be taken to mean different things, and of course you have the language barriers that transcends the Internet...

I don't want to be drawn into philisophical discussions, I am here to further my learning so I will kindly bow out of the conversation. Thank You.. ;)
Message: Posted by: christopher carter (May 24, 2004 10:09PM)
On 2004-05-24 20:26, John Clarkson wrote:
[quote]
You paraphrase my statement, posit (inaccurately), what my conclusions were, then you attack them. Goodness! Talk about strawmen arguments! My statement was that if we shun and boycott everyone whom anyone has ever accused of exposure, we would miss out on some greats of magic. That's the extent of it. The rest of your argument here, addresses your inaccurate projections about what I meant. I'll, therefore, not respond.
[/quote]

Fair enough, but you are taking this somewhat out of context. My paraphrasing and discussion above is primarily an attempt to relate the history of this exchange without having to transcribe entire posts. I can accept that I mistook some or even all of your meaning, and to that end I won't attempt to defend my errors. Nonetheless, when I wrote "To borrow your metaphor, why should condemning McCarthyism require excusing actual spies?" I was making a legitimate point. Your response, "Moreover, it is a tenet of Anglo American justice that we prefer to set 10 guilty men free than hang one innocent person. You may dispute the soundness of that approach, but I think I'll stick with it for the time being" does not address the point I was making and does attribute to me a claim that I most explicitly did not make. I have pointed this out to you multiple times and you have yet to acknowlege it.


[quote]Just because a particular exposure isn't meaningful to you doesn't mean it isn't meaningful to others whose opinions you SHOULD respect.[/quote] The only thing I haven't respected, Chris, is the anonymous attacks on an individual. I have nothing but respect for the fact that exposure makes you feel bad. You can, therefor, respect the fact that it doesn't mean I am pompous if my emotional threshold is not the same as yours.[/quote]

Perhaps we would both do well to re-examine the tenor of our rhetoric. Your comments re: the gravity of your job did indeed appear to be directed toward those who are bothered by the exposure in question, as if to say "your issues are trivial compared to mine." They still do look that way to me, but I'll gladly accept that they aren't meant that way. Most of my harshness was, I believe, precipitated by my reaction to that. I guess I don't understand how you can't muster some pique on behalf of those who are injured by such exposure. To frame it as an issue of differing thresholds is not something I can easily comprehend. Obviously there is an emotional component to all this that keeps me from seeing it with cool detachment.

You are right, of course, that I should not have posted my criticism of McKenna anonymously. I could see that, and took steps to rectify it. My criticism stands, but at least it's now under my own name.

--Chris
Message: Posted by: 7th_Son (May 24, 2004 10:19PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-22 00:13, Darko Dojin wrote:
Besides, everybody knows about the Balducci and Blaine's use of it so the harm done is pretty minimal.
[/quote]

Not true. Every *magician* knows about Balducci and Blaine, but most muggles have no idea.
Message: Posted by: John Clarkson (May 25, 2004 12:16AM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-24 23:09, christopher carter wrote:
... Nonetheless, when I wrote "To borrow your metaphor, why should condemning McCarthyism require excusing actual spies?" I was making a legitimate point. Your response, "Moreover, it is a tenet of Anglo American justice that we prefer to set 10 guilty men free than hang one innocent person. You may dispute the soundness of that approach, but I think I'll stick with it for the time being" does not address the point I was making and does attribute to me a claim that I most explicitly did not make. I have pointed this out to you multiple times and you have yet to acknowlege it.[/quote]Sorry you feel I did not acknowledge your point. I thought I had. My meaning was that, as in Anglo-American law, I am willing to let 10 guilty men go free (parallel: ignore ten exposers) if by doing so we insure fair treatment of the innocent or somehow strengthen another, more important, principle. McCarthyism, in my view, ignored that principle and was willing to hang any number of innocent people to "get" the one guilty party. Thwarting a system of McCarthyism may very well mean "excusing" (or ignoring) the single guilty party. I can live with that. As I said, Chris, you [i]may[/i] dispute the soundness of the traditional Anglo-American common law approach (and I wouldn't think it unreasonable for you to do so); in fact, there are times I wonder about it myself. I will, however, adhere to the principle until I can figure out something better.

[quote]Perhaps we would both do well to re-examine the tenor of our rhetoric. Your comments re: the gravity of your job did indeed appear to be directed toward those who are bothered by the exposure in question, as if to say "your issues are trivial compared to mine."[/quote]I can see how you might have taken it that way, but that is not what I meant. I meant what I said: after dealing with the problems that some of my clients face, at the end of the day, I really simply do not have the energy to muster much emotion for the exposure of the Balducci Levitation. Let me try to put it in context: Yesterday, a client came in to see me unexpectedly. We had talked about a month before. He has AIDS and has some money, but there are no people in his life. He is a really nice, gentle guy, but he is completely alone. He wanted me to help him do some good with his money after he dies. Yesterday, he came in and looked terrible. He told me we needed to work faster because he has also developed a type of cancer and he has decided not to treat it, since treatment will only prolong his life for a short time, if at all, and the treatment itself is very uncomfortable. Now, it's not that I am so important, Chris, but, honestly, after days like yesterday, I just don't [i]feel[/i] much when I log onto the Magic Caf and read that someone has tipped the 21-Card Trick or the Balducci Levitation on the radio. [i]Intellectually[/i] I make a judgment (which I have expressed here: I would not have revealed it and I wish it had not been revealed.) But, [i]emotionally[/i] not much happens. Maybe if I dealt with other things in my life, my emotional priorities would be different. However, I [i]do[/i] deal with those issues and I simply cannot feel apologetic for not feeling much emotion over this particular exposure.

My guess, Chris, especially after our past private e-mails, is that we agree with respect to principles and definitions here. Where we seem to differ is with respect to emotional response, and, perhaps, as to what course of action one should take in the face of another person's exposure.

I am still open to discussing the abstracts, the principles. I am not, however, willing to discuss a particular individual, especially if he is not present to defend himself. I can't speak for others, but I would gain more by clarifying concepts and ideas than by discussing personalities. My goal would be to insure that I walk the line, rather than to decide whether someone else is taking the same path.

So, here's an abstract perhaps we could beat to death: from what does the duty not to reveal a secret of magic emanate? Is there something inherently unethical about exposure, or is exposure unethical only because we have promised not to reveal secrets? In other words, is the sin the exposure itself, or the breach of some promise not to expose?

:nose:
Message: Posted by: christopher carter (May 25, 2004 01:02AM)
John,

OK, that does make this issue look kinda trivial!

--Chris
Message: Posted by: Looch (May 25, 2004 03:29AM)
On that note I think this topic should now be locked
Message: Posted by: appletruth (May 25, 2004 09:35AM)
[quote][i]Surely you are smart enough to know that one can be watching a show they like and all of a sudden, something comes on that they did not expect, too late to change the TV. [/i]-Banachek[/quote]
Why is it too late to change the channel? If they stay its seems it’s because they have an interest.
[quote][i]Media is a part of almost all people's life in the US, I never said they were a necessity, never. Just that they are part of every day life. Surely you know that too. [/i]-Banachek[/quote]
I never said that you said it was a necessity for life, nor did I imply that you made such a comment. It was to help illustrate that they are activities taken in interest and not inescapable parts of everyday life.
[quote][i]And yes it takes time to find the program you may want to watch, however, what is on that program, like the McKenna statements are unexpected, surely you also know that. You seem very smart. Seems this was the problem with the Janet Jackson fiasco on the superbowl. Kids were watching, not enough time to change the set and they all saw some unexepected booby. [/i]-Banachek[/quote]
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with these statements but that maybe unexpected events are unwanted. Is that correct? You would need to explain the purpose of these statements for me to give a response to whatever they’re suggesting.

Our expectations cause the unexpected to happen us.
[quote][i]Surely you also know it takes very litte effort to pick up the remote and switch on the TV to your favorite show. Very little effort at all. I don't have to turn the computer on and order it since I get cable (yes I have to pay the bill and yes I had to subscribe but heck even you know that was not to get the McKenna statements unlike a magic book you would have to be specifically going out of your way to purchase for specific information) [/i]-Banachek[/quote]
So what’s the point you’re getting at, Banacheck?

Life is a subscription to the unknown. What do you think?
[quote][i]you have to be stating that either exposure is okay or two that that magic books are wrong. If the exposure is equal in each case (as you stated) it has to be one or the other. To put it nother way in case you still do not understand, if magic books and tv exposure equal the same as you suggest, then if if exposure is wrong, magic books are wrong. If magic books are okay then exposure is okay. Your rules Appletruth, not mine. I personally think there is a dfiference, from your words you either do not think there is or are arguing for the sake of arguing. [/i]-Banachek[/quote]
No, I have not suggested this out of my own beliefs but I have suggested it from the reasoning you’ve provided. On your terms I tried to show that how you discerned a difference did not actually show a difference. My words are just an extension of your own reasoning. That magic books and TV exposures equal the same, whether wrong or okay, is what’s suggested by the consequences of the reasoning you have put forward so far(as I perceive it).
[quote][i]I'm tiring of this actually, it is silly. I did not want to get into an argument on this, just wanted to calm things down on both sides. I felt we should be concerened about exposures and work on stopping them in a positive civil way and not get fantatical about it. Seems that message has been lost. [/i]-Banachek[/quote]
It seems one should be clear at what actions quantify exposure first before they can effectively stop exposures in a positive civil way.

Tiring and silly if one is incapable or does not want to change when ones reasoning cant squeeze out the exact results one desires.

Your message isn’t lost Banacheck, its just seems (to me) you find it tiring and silly to put the work in to solve the problem your message is concerned with.

Regards,
Appletruth

[quote][i]No, I am saying the burden lies with the giver.. The media in which a person puts out information is the discussion here. Information given for study to further someone in the art of magic is not exposure. A TV show called Mentalists / Magicians 'Exposed' is, and has been put into this format for an explicit purpose...[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
Oh, ok. So a TV show called “Learn the art of being a Mentalist and Magician” would not be seen as exposure to you because the information is given to further someone’s learning in this art. Do I have this correct?
[quote][i]I didn't dance through anything, you stated you were arguing for understanding... I just fail to see how one can 'argue' to understand. By its very nature it cannot happen.. now if you are 'questioning' to understand then that is a different matter entirely...[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
Argue: To debate or discuss; to offer reasons to support or overthrow a proposition or opinion; to call into question…

In what way, [b]salsa_dancer[/b], did you come to believe arguing by its definition or by its nature cannot bring about understanding? Please explain.
[quote][i]It is hard to have a discussion using this medium as tonal inflections cannot be expressed and words can be taken to mean different things, and of course you have the language barriers that transcends the Internet...[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
Why do you think that tonal inflections cannot be expressed in this medium?
[quote][i]I don't want to be drawn into philisophical discussions, I am here to further my learning so I will kindly bow out of the conversation. Thank You..[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
Odd statement. By any chance you decide to look up the word argue in the dictionary take a look at philosophy as well, it might further your learning.

Regards,
Appletruth
Message: Posted by: Banachek (May 25, 2004 12:43PM)
Appletruth, you are way to smart for all of us. I can't compete with your intelligence so no point in doing so. Have fun.
Message: Posted by: MrCyNic (May 25, 2004 03:20PM)
... and here comes Appletruth with a steel chair! My God, what a shot! He's cleared the ring! Appletruth has cleared the ring!!!

Ahem...

Sorry, just got the Wrestling Channel in the UK. Interesting discussion.

Cheers,

Cy.
Message: Posted by: appletruth (May 25, 2004 04:24PM)
[quote][i]Appletruth, you are way to smart for all of us.[/i][b]-Banachek[/b][/quote]
How did you come to this conclusion? It seems to me like an impertinent assumption that’s only purpose in this discussion would be to try and alienate me from others.
[quote][i]I can't compete with your intelligence so no point in doing so. Have fun.[/i][b]-Banachek[/b][/quote]
I wasn’t aware this was a competition of intelligence (if there could be such a thing) but thought it was an inquiry into what constitutes an [i]unwanted exposure[/i] of information. An understanding of what establishes unwanted exposures from other wanted forms, I think, would be needed before one could even consider what the problem is or how to deal with it. Maybe you did not have this goal in this discussion.

Well, [b]Banachek[/b], I hope you [i]had fun[/i] and will have fun.

Regards,
Appletruth
Message: Posted by: salsa_dancer (May 25, 2004 06:21PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-25 11:53, appletruth wrote:
[quote][i]No, I am saying the burden lies with the giver.. The media in which a person puts out information is the discussion here. Information given for study to further someone in the art of magic is not exposure. A TV show called Mentalists / Magicians 'Exposed' is, and has been put into this format for an explicit purpose...[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b]

Oh, ok. So a TV show called “Learn the art of being a Mentalist and Magician” would not be seen as exposure to you because the information is given to further someone’s learning in this art. Do I have this correct?[/quote]

No you don't. There is no difficulty in tuning in to a TV show in comparison to researching via a book.

[quote]
Odd statement. By any chance you decide to look up the word argue in the dictionary take a look at philosophy as well, it might further your learning.

Regards,
Appletruth
[/quote]

Oh dear... the term argument, regardless of the dictionary definition is often taken to mean a discussion with hostility, and often by its very nature people are unable to see another point of view. Very different to a discussion...

I come to 'The Magic Caf' to further my learning in this subject not play the 'who is cleverer than who' game... I maintain that you are unwilling to see the point of view offered by others and resort to the constant 'why?' questioning, without giving the impression that you are remotely interested in the answer..

I agree with Banachek, I am not sure I am intelligent enough to be able to offer you a constructive discussion.

Regards,

Richard

P.S. Out of curiosity what the hell is it that causes the crazy symbols to appear in your posts? Makes it difficult to read...
Message: Posted by: appletruth (May 26, 2004 12:24AM)
[quote][i]Oh, ok. So a TV show called “Learn the art of being a Mentalist and Magician” would not be seen as exposure to you because the information is given to further someone’s learning in this art. Do I have this correct?[/i]-[b]Appletruth[/b]

[b]No you don't. There is no difficulty in tuning in to a TV show in comparison to researching via a book.[/b]-salsa_dancer[/quote]
So are you telling me that unwanted exposure is measured by comparing the difficulty of engaging in one medium over another? If this is the case then all one needs to do is compare the difficulty of engaging in a magic book to something that is perceived more difficult to engage in to make the magic book an unwanted exposure. That, I think, would seem to be a funny way to define unwanted exposure.
[quote][i]Oh dear... the term argument, regardless of the dictionary definition is often taken to mean a discussion with hostility, and often by its very nature people are unable to see another point of view. Very different to a discussion...[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
I can’t tell if you still think I used argue incorrectly for my purpose. You just had an incorrect (one-sided) conception of the word.
[quote][i]I come to 'The Magic Caf駠to further my learning in this subject not play the 'who is cleverer than who' game...[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
Do you perceive this discussion with me as a game of ‘who is cleverer than who?’ If your answer is a “yes” then are you aware that you’re contradicting your stated intentions by having participated in this discussion?
[quote][i]I maintain that you are unwilling to see the point of view offered by others and resort to the constant 'why?' questioning, without giving the impression that you are remotely interested in the answer..[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
To ask ‘why?’ is to be curious. To be curious is to be interested. My questions relate to and arise from the answers given thus showing my interest in the answers. To not get the impression I’m interested, [b]salsa_dancer[/b], just seems to tell me that one is trying to paint a false picture of the situation to uphold ones vacuous opinion that I do not care about the subject in discussion.
[quote][i]I agree with Banachek, I am not sure I am intelligent enough to be able to offer you a constructive discussion.[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
This sounds like a cop-out.

[quote][i]"P.S. Out of curiosity what the hell is it that causes the crazy symbols to appear in your posts? Makes it difficult to read..."[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
Sorry. I don’t know what you’re speaking of.

Regards,
Appletruth
Message: Posted by: salsa_dancer (May 26, 2004 04:33AM)
Appletruth,

I guess I should stop replying, but I am easily drawn into conversation. The bottom line, in MY opinion (not saying this is right but it is how I view it) is that TV exposure is likely to be viewed by more people than will pick up a magic book to find out how things are done.

Let me give you an example..

My girlfriend will ask how something is done and I will direct her to my bookcase filled with books. To this day she has never once opened any of the books, yet I have come home and found her watching the Masked Magician and saying she knows how some things are done now....

You are right in one respect where you said I am using a line as a cop out in your post. You seem intent on littering your argument with dictionary definitions and big words, it is very easy to read something and then pick it apart. I don't particurlarly have time to check word definitions before I post, so if I use something in a different context to the definition that you are using then I apologise.

I love a good discussion, but I don't think you realise the frustration you cause when all you do is pick apart what is being put forward, this is not conducive to a good discussion. For this you would need a modicum of understanding and possibly 'some' compromise.

With regard to the strange symbols, you may not be aware but every time you use an apostrophe it puts 3 strange symbols in it's place ( ) which makes it difficult to read.

I look forward to my post being picked apart ;)

Richard
Message: Posted by: dg (May 26, 2004 05:15AM)
I agree this topic should be locked. There are varying opinions about exposure from different sources.
The main point should be the type of exposure which damages magic and reveals magic principles which are at the cornerstone of our art, should be stopped.
Exposure for exposures' sake is wrong. The other argument is, the wealth of knowledge on the internet means it is easy for people to learn a lot about magic without ever walking into a magic shop or buying a book/dvd.
In my opinion the best way to keep on top of this is to constantly create new effects, based on existing principles or not; by this I mean to reinvent your existing routines to give different presentations and try to keep your audience on their toes.
Magicians have been doing this for ever.
OK now you can lock it
Message: Posted by: John Clarkson (May 26, 2004 09:01AM)
The discussion is worthwhile, not because we will reach agreement, but because it will help each of us refine the ideal to which we strive.

The point of these discussions, I think (and the reason the thread is useful and should not be locked), is that it helps us refine our definitions of the factors and helps us to weight them. I know, for instance, that my discussions with Chris Carter have helped me clarify my thoughts and, as a result, have made me a better magician.

It's probably true that there will always be disagreement as to what constitutes unacceptable exposure of magical secrets since each of us is likely to define factors and weight them differently.

Off the top of my head, I can think of four major factors:[list][b]1) The Content[/b]. Here we have sub-factors like specificity and exclusivity to the magical arts. For example, if I stand on a street corner and shout, "Magicians use sleight of hand," some people may feel I have engaged in unacceptable exposure. Sleight of hand is, after all, a body of techniques that is pretty much exclusive to the magical arts. However, the lack of specificity makes the statement pretty innocuous. Likewise, if I publish a chemistry book that reveals that a clear solution will turn red when a certain chemical is added to it, I doubt that I have engaged in unacceptable exposure. It may be a technique used by magicians, and I may have been very specific in my description, but it is not the exlusive domain of magicians.

[b]2) The likely recipient of the information.[/b] The balance we try to strike is to make the information available to those who will use it to entertain while keeping it secret from the merely curious. The best way to do this is difficult to determine. Ed Marlo, for example, had a series of treatises on shuffling techniques. At one time, you had to buy them directly from him. He decided if you were worthy to receive the information, and, he would only sell them to you in a specified order. That's probably the most restrictive approach I've heard of. So, to answer a question that appletruth has posed: yes, the difficulty of accessing the medium is [i]part[/i] of the equation. No system of dissemination that we design will be foolproof, but we can try.

[b]3) The likely impact.[/b] Here, we have a great split of opinion. Some magicians believe that any exposure of any secret, no matter how trivial, is a breach of some ethic. Others believe that the likely impact of the exposure on magic is just one more factor to consider. I fall into the latter category. It's not that I condone the exposure of small secrets, it's simply that I don't get too upset about it --- it's the same reasoning we use to refrain from imposing the death penalty for jay-walking. Some things are simply more important than others.

[b]4) The intent of the person who is revealing the secret.[/b] Again, there is great division among magicians on this point. I personally think that intent is an important factor. Others adhere more to a "strict liability" theory. For me, this factor has to do with how I respond to a person's revelation of a secret. However, it is a factor I consider in the whole calculus.[/list][b]There is one more issue that I consider:[/b] that is whether the person who is revealing the secret has a duty not to do so. Currently, I am thinking this way (thoughts subject to revision after discussion with others here): a person only has a duty not to reveal secrets by virtue of some promise not to do so. A plumber, for instance, owes no duty of secrecy or loyalty to a magician. I keep secrets because I have promised to do so, and I honor that promise. I don't think there is anything inherently evil or unethical about disseminating information; I have simply promised not to reveal certain information to certain people. I do my best; some of you may be surprised to know that I am pretty conservative when judging my [i]own[/i] behavior in this area. Where it gets nasty is when I start to wonder if magicians owe a duty of secrecy to mentalists, and vice-versa. Since I believe that mentalism is another branch of magic, I consider it my duty to keep the secrets of mentalism. Those who see mentalism as something different from magic may well be arguing (to their detriment) that magicians have no duty to protect the secret methods of mentalism.

So, does anyone want to discuss other things that factor into the mix or how they weight the ones I have listed? I'd like to discuss the ideas, though, not specific individuals.

:nose:
Message: Posted by: shrink (May 26, 2004 09:27AM)
God what a lot of hot air and wasted time in this thread! .....

Im gonna read a book on Zen...

:)
Message: Posted by: John Clarkson (May 26, 2004 09:29AM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-26 10:27, shrink wrote:
God what a lot of hot air and wasted time in this thread! .....

Im gonna read a book on Zen...

:)
[/quote]Thank you, shrink. I think you [i]should[/i] read a book on Zen.... but only if it makes you happier than hurling insults at other people.

When you finish the book, perhaps you could contribute some thoughts to the thread.

:nose:
Message: Posted by: dg (May 26, 2004 10:28AM)
Just a quick question, throughout the history of magic has exposure been such a problem? or is it the case that the information is easier to come by these days?
Message: Posted by: MrCyNic (May 26, 2004 10:30AM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-26 10:01, John Clarkson wrote:

Off the top of my head, I can think of four major factors:
[/quote]

Beautifully put, John, and one of the most lucid and thought-provoking posts I've read in a long time.

As you've stated, the focus of this thread belongs firmly on the issue, and not the personalities involved. The only "hot air" I've read in this thread has been a few incidences of (IMO) belligerent and childish name-calling, of no value to the discussion.

Cheers,

Cy.
Message: Posted by: David Todd (May 26, 2004 11:21AM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-26 10:01, John Clarkson wrote:
The discussion is worthwhile, not because we will reach agreement, but because it will help each of us refine the ideal to which we strive.



Off the top of my head, I can think of four major factors:

[b]1) The Content[/b].

[b]2) The likely recipient of the information.[/b]

[b]3) The likely impact.[/b]

[b]4) The intent of the person who is revealing the secret.[/b] [/quote]


Great list , great post , John. This one is a keeper .

I think [i]intent[/i] is a huge factor.
Some people try to pooh-pooh the impact of the Valentino /Howard Becker types of crass exposing by saying that they are really not much different than , say, the Mark Wilson Course in Magic, or Bobo's MCM being widely available in Barnes & Noble or other popular bookstore chains. However, for me the intent and the attitude of the authors of an instructional book vs. the "hey look how it's done" attitude of the exposers changes everything.
Message: Posted by: christopher carter (May 26, 2004 11:32AM)
John's questions are worth hashing out. I don't entirely agree that it is better to examine them purely in the abstract, without reference to real-world incidents. While I very much agree that it our first priority is our own behavior, I still believe that our obligations to the secrets we hold in trust also requires us to police the actions of others (hopefully wisely and cautiously.)

If the rules are that we can't discuss real-life examples I'm still up for the talk, because at least we can discuss something.

--Chris
Message: Posted by: DaveS (May 26, 2004 03:27PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-26 12:32, christopher carter wrote:
...I still believe that our obligations to the secrets we hold in trust also requires us to police the actions of others (hopefully wisely and cautiously.)
[/quote]
Chris,
As a resident of the US East Coast, I had hoped to attend one of Ian Rowland's lectures during his planned tour this Spring. Then I learned from his web-site that:
"The vocal minority of people who hold the sincere, passionate and yet misguided view that 'Ian is a magic exposer' contacted some of the magic traders and organisations who were participating (e.g. hosting or sponsoring a lecture) and made various threats. So people pulled out, so the tour wasn't viable any more, so it's been cancelled."

It's not my intention to re-open a can of worms here, nor am I suggesting that this is the sort of "policing" action you have in mind or that you would use "wisdom and caution" to describe the actions of a few who would take it upon themselves to act as police, prosecutor and jury on matters of "exposure." Just that, IMO, without the sort of standards John is proposing for discussion and some semblance of "due process" (not sure what that would be in the mentalism community) the business of "policing" exposers is a slippery slope.
DaveS
Message: Posted by: appletruth (May 26, 2004 03:42PM)
[quote][i]Let me give you an example..

My girlfriend will ask how something is done and I will direct her to my bookcase filled with books. To this day she has never once opened any of the books, yet I have come home and found her watching the Masked Magician and saying she knows how some things are done now....[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
What if you pointed to a stack of magic videos and lets say she did watch one, then would that make the video unwanted exposure? Or lets just say she did read one of your books, would that book become unwanted exposure now? It sounds like, according to what you’ve said, that what she decides to do (the receiver) is what will determine what is unwanted exposure. I thought you rejected this stance in an earlier post.
[quote][i]You seem intent on littering your argument with dictionary definitions and big words, it is very easy to read something and then pick it apart. I don't particurlarly have time to check word definitions before I post, so if I use something in a different context to the definition that you are using then I apologise.[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
My argument, I think, is not littered with dictionary definitions for I only gave them in one post to clear up an incorrect and empty point you made that was to call into question my intentions. I feel (by these comments you’ve made) that you resent me for clearing up your misconception.
[quote][i]I love a good discussion, but I don't think you realise the frustration you cause when all you do is pick apart what is being put forward, this is not conducive to a good discussion. For this you would need a modicum of understanding and possibly 'some' compromise.[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
The frustration, I would imagine, is a result from someone struggling with their inadequacy to deal with the problems of their own reasoning (a struggling against the self) or communication (a struggle to make known). My observations and questions in this case are to illuminate (to make apparent) what I find as incoherencies and failings in the reasoning put forward by someone to support their beliefs. They, I think, have themselves to blame for their frustrations – the tiring and the silliness. I would think having things made apparent that maybe otherwise weren’t would be conducive in a discussion.

Could one learn in a discussion if everyone was in agreement and everything was apparent? It is these aspects in a discussion, disagreement and ignorance, that indicates to me the promising possibility that learning and a greater understanding can maybe take place in the discussion. To avoid these aspects, to compromise the struggles of understanding, is to accept some vacant account of how things seem by way of our preconceived notions and wishful thinking.
[quote][i]With regard to the strange symbols, you may not be aware but every time you use an apostrophe it puts 3 strange symbols in it's place (⠀ ?) which makes it difficult to read.[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
We may, I’m guessing, have some aspect of the site setup differently. I don’t see the symbols.

-----------------------
[quote][i]I agree this topic should be locked. There are varying opinions about exposure from different sources.
The main point should be the type of exposure which damages magic and reveals magic principles which are at the cornerstone of our art, should be stopped.
Exposure for exposures' sake is wrong. The other argument is, the wealth of knowledge on the internet means it is easy for people to learn a lot about magic without ever walking into a magic shop or buying a book/dvd.
In my opinion the best way to keep on top of this is to constantly create new effects, based on existing principles or not; by this I mean to reinvent your existing routines to give different presentations and try to keep your audience on their toes.
Magicians have been doing this for ever.
OK now you can lock it[/i][b]-dg[/b][/quote]
What would be the motivation for wanting to lock this topic? It would only seem to paralyze people from expressing their opinions and prevent any potential there may be for a better understanding of the subject at hand. For someone to express that this topic should be locked and then go on to add other thoughts can draw one to the conclusion that this someone, is either unknowingly contradicting their statements as to what they want, or, does not find it distasteful to express ones-self to others and then promote the prevention of others to do the same. If one wants to have a topic starve to death then don’t feed it, don’t refortify it. The nutritional value of what one feeds the topic can be debated but just because someone might perceive it as suffering from malnutrition it does not mean it will always suffer… for it may grow healthy if given the chance to be nourished.

Regards,
Appletruth
Message: Posted by: salsa_dancer (May 26, 2004 04:11PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-26 16:42, appletruth wrote:

[quote][i]Let me give you an example..

My girlfriend will ask how something is done and I will direct her to my bookcase filled with books. To this day she has never once opened any of the books, yet I have come home and found her watching the Masked Magician and saying she knows how some things are done now....[/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
What if you pointed to a stack of magic videos and lets say she did watch one, then would that make the video unwanted exposure? Or lets just say she did read one of your books, would that book become unwanted exposure now? It sounds like, according to what you’ve said, that what she decides to do (the receiver) is what will determine what is unwanted exposure. I thought you rejected this stance in an earlier post.
[/quote]

I think you may misunderstand me here. The point I am making here is out of the choices offered, including DVD's, she went with the one that she happened to stumble across on the television, the easy option...

In the example I stated, 'I' was the exposer for offering the chance to look in the books. She, as the receiver, turned this down, I have asked her why she watched the show on TV and she said 'because it was the only thing on worth watching' there was no desire to learn the secrets and without that show being made she never would have... does this make a difference?
Message: Posted by: appletruth (May 26, 2004 10:57PM)
[quote][i]…does this make a difference? [/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
Does this make a difference in my understanding of how you get to the belief that wanted exposures (books, videos/DVDs, etc) are different from unwanted exposures (TV, radio, etc)? I’m not sure if this is what you’re asking but if it is what you’re asking, my answer is unfortunately, no.
[quote][i]I think you may misunderstand me here. The point I am making here is out of the choices offered, including DVD's, she went with the one that she happened to stumble across on the television, the easy option... [/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
I think I’ve already given a response to this point earlier without receiving a clear response back from you. I’ll repost it incase it was overlooked.

[i]“So are you telling me that unwanted exposure is measured by comparing the difficulty of engaging in one medium over another? If this is the case then all one needs to do is compare the difficulty of engaging in a magic book to something that is perceived more difficult to engage in to make the magic book an unwanted exposure. That, I think, would seem to be a funny way to define unwanted exposure.” [/i]
[quote][i]In the example I stated, 'I' was the exposer for offering the chance to look in the books. [/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
When you say, “‘I’ was the exposer”, do you mean that you now consider your action of offering your girlfriend access to information an undesirable act of exposing something you feel should be kept off limits to her? I’m confused with how you’re using the word exposer, such as an exposer that you consider okay or one that you consider not okay.
[quote][i]I have asked her why she watched the show on TV and she said 'because it was the only thing on worth watching' there was no desire to learn the secrets and without that show being made she never would have... [/i][b]-salsa_dancer[/b][/quote]
So she thought it was ‘worth watching’ but she had no desire to learn the secrets. If she did not desire to learn the secrets then what was the worth she saw in the show and why did she watch it? If the show is about exposing magic secrets and she decided to watch it, it seems obvious to me she had a desire to learn them. It’s hard to make sense of why people do the things they do without them having the desire to do them…don’t you think?

Regards,
Appletruth
Message: Posted by: salsa_dancer (May 27, 2004 03:54AM)
Appletruth,

I am sorry, I am obviously struggling to communicate correctly and get my point across, I am sure it is my problem not yours.

Thanks for the discussion anyway.

Regards,

Richard
Message: Posted by: John Clarkson (May 27, 2004 09:37AM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-26 12:21, Dai wrote:
...
I think [i]intent[/i] is a huge factor.
Some people try to pooh-pooh the impact of the Valentino /Howard Becker types of crass exposing by saying that they are really not much different than , say, the Mark Wilson Course in Magic, or Bobo's MCM being widely available in Barnes & Noble or other popular bookstore chains. However, for me the intent and the attitude of the authors of an instructional book vs. the "hey look how it's done" attitude of the exposers changes everything.[/quote]Dai, I take intent into consideration strongly, too. But, you know, it's an awfully difficult issue. Our legal system has struggled with concepts of "intent" since its inception. And, in spite of centuries of dealing with it, we've never settled on a single standard. Sometimes, we use a subjective test of intent: "what did this particular person actually mean to do?" Sometimes, we simply posit that subjective intent is not important, but that a person "intended" precisely what the foreseeable consequences of his/her actions were. For instance, if a person intentionally discharges a machine gun into a crowd of people, if someone in the crowd is killed, the shooter will be held responsible for the homicide even if throughout the time he was firing his thought was, "I sure hope no-one gets hit." Most of us would consider that fair. In essence, I think, the law has, in some circumstances (by necessity), copped out on the intent argument, deciding that sometimes the impact of behavior is so severe that we don't really care what the actor's intent was. Or, maybe it's just that we don't believe him when he says he didn't intend to hurt anyone. It is a balancing act between intent and one of the other factors I listed: likely impact. Of course, with exposure of magical secrets no one gets killed, but some professionals feel that their livelihood is endangered. So, once again, we see that "impact or likely impact" is, perhaps, a weightier factor than it might seem at first. It's a complicated calculus. That's why, although I apply fairly traditional, conservative standards to my own conduct, I am hesitant to condemn others.

[quote]
On 2004-05-26 12:32, christopher carter wrote:
...While I very much agree that it our first priority is our own behavior, I still believe that our obligations to the secrets we hold in trust also requires us to police the actions of others (hopefully wisely and cautiously.)
...[/quote][quote]
On 2004-05-26 16:27, DaveS wrote:
... Just that, IMO, without the sort of standards John is proposing for discussion and some semblance of "due process" (not sure what that would be in the mentalism community) the business of "policing" exposers is a slippery slope. [/quote]Chris, although I'd not use the word "police" (I am a defense attorney, after all!), you and I probably agree in principle here. I think all of us share a responsibility to make sure we collectively examine the issue and become more aware of the consequences of our conduct. That's why discussions like these can be helpful.

To avoid that slippery slope, I take the following approach (although I am not suggesting it is the [i]only[/i] proper approach): If I have concerns about a fellow magician's "loose lip," I mention it to him. I do it, when possible, directly to him. I remember when I used to smoke. All the haranguing in the world did not change my behavior. I was, however, affected by the quiet, persistent statements of friends who said, "I wish you didn't smoke. It makes me worry about your health and, as a special bonus, it makes you smell bad!" Just as important, I think, I began to see that my friends who didn't smoke seemed to be having more fun; they were able to be more active, and had more disposable income since they weren't wasting it on cigarettes. Without discussing specific individuals, you might want to check out the web site of someone who takes a lot of flak for things he said and did many moons ago. Note how often he refers to his friends in magic and mentalism. In fact, this individual has even stated that he would today do things differently because of the effect it would have on his friendships and the feelings of his friends. He did not mention his enemies or people who have attacked him. I think that is very telling.

And, lest I sound too sanctimonious ( :blush: ), on occasion, when I have mentioned my concern about another magician's approach to exposure, a discussion has ensued in which I've learned a thing or two and which has caused me to modify my judgment...

:nose:
Message: Posted by: christopher carter (May 30, 2004 11:58PM)
John,

Basically, "what you said." I'm simply talking about the imperative to take action on one's principles.

--Chris
Message: Posted by: Bambaladam (Jun 11, 2004 08:07PM)
[quote]
On 2004-05-26 11:28, dg wrote:
Just a quick question, throughout the history of magic has exposure been such a problem? or is it the case that the information is easier to come by these days?
[/quote]

Exposure has been a terrible problem. Who believes in magic today?

/Bamba

[quote]
On 2004-05-26 16:27, DaveS wrote:
[quote]
On 2004-05-26 12:32, christopher carter wrote:
...I still believe that our obligations to the secrets we hold in trust also requires us to police the actions of others (hopefully wisely and cautiously.)
[/quote]
Chris,
As a resident of the US East Coast, I had hoped to attend one of Ian Rowland's lectures during his planned tour this Spring. Then I learned from his web-site that:
"The vocal minority of people who hold the sincere, passionate and yet misguided view that 'Ian is a magic exposer' contacted some of the magic traders and organisations who were participating (e.g. hosting or sponsoring a lecture) and made various threats. So people pulled out, so the tour wasn't viable any more, so it's been cancelled."

It's not my intention to re-open a can of worms here, nor am I suggesting that this is the sort of "policing" action you have in mind or that you would use "wisdom and caution" to describe the actions of a few who would take it upon themselves to act as police, prosecutor and jury on matters of "exposure." Just that, IMO, without the sort of standards John is proposing for discussion and some semblance of "due process" (not sure what that would be in the mentalism community) the business of "policing" exposers is a slippery slope.
DaveS
[/quote]

Please, let's all remember we have only heard one side of this story, and that one was expressed in very vague terms and without responding to questions.

Who knows what really happened?

/Bamba