I went to an NLP seminar not too long ago... pretty amazing demonstrations!

Just when I thought I knew everything...you guys start talking about NLP. Never heard of it. It's not in Aristotle. But it IS in Wikipedia, so I'm reading up on it.

C., I understand why the door knockers bother you, but you could also look at them as part of the never-ending parade of human quirkiness, and be amused rather than bothered. Just look at the parade here on the Café, and you can be amused. I mean, look at the two of us: you, a cheater who often posts in the "Right or Wrong" forum, and me, a philosopher who likes to associate with card cheaters. Are we really "better" than those who knock on people's doors with the intention of saving souls? What better intentions can you have than to save people from hellfire?

Now, this may be unethical: but over the years I've played a few games with the door knockers. I've pretended to be crazy. I've argued with them. I've prayed with them. The only thing I NEVER do is give them money. But I give them time, when I have it, just because. My absolute favorite trick is to quote Bible verses which in fact I make up on the spot. I've never been called on it yet. They just dart their eyes around and ignore me and go on to their next point as if I weren't even there.

Back on topic: I guess I'll back pedal. I still think it's a bit shady to sell this "effect", but it's really small...very small...potatoes. On a scale of 1 to 10 it hardly rates a 1.

And to Drew M.: actually, teaching for money *IS* something that makes me feel uncomfortable. The main distinction the ancient Greek philosophers made between the sophists and themselves was that the sophists were in it for the money, and the philosophers weren't. But...you know...I have to eat. And I'm not good enough with cards to earn my pay as a mechanic. So there you have it.

But perhaps all of you will agree with me on one simple point: freezing a beer is, at the very least, the waste of a good beer. Beer is for drinking, not for freezing.

That's going to be rule #17 in my book, "50 Rules for Being Ethical", of which all of you will get free copies as soon as it is published. Of course, before I finish writing it I need to finish reading my copy of "Ethics for Dummies", because my opinion might change. I also need to finish the Wikipedia article on NLP

Love and horses,
Jeff

If you can sell snow to the Eskimos at a fair market price, then by all means you should. Just so long as you don't claim that it is anything other than what it actually is. That's ethics. This is a good visual effect, particularly if your audience is unaware if the mechanism by which it works. Why judge that the should know how it works. Actually, I know and understand the principle entirely, and did before reading this thread, but had never considered the application used here, and didn't associate the two when I saw it. Isn't that what magic is? Some of you are judging too much. You are applying rules which do not exist.

Stone, you certainly have a way of with enlightment. I never thought about the irony of a cheater in the right and wrong forum.

I do agree with "Ethics Law" #17, beer is for drinking, LOL.

and, Jack, as much as we don't see eye to eye, you have point with this. A good example of selling ice to eskimos is us as a society. I mean aren't we the suckers that go out and buy bottled waters when tests after tests show that our tap water is, in many cases, better. Boy, I certainly feel like an eskimo. And, I do pay for bridges and roads in toll charges; knowing well I can get to my destination through a different, sometimes shorter, route... Go figure!

They say, and I do not know if it is true, that Edison entered a meeting with some company to sell his light bulb. Now I'll probably get the story wrong, but it's the idea that matters. In that meeting they went back and forth and ultimately settled on $200 for the contract. On the way out of the meeting, one of the board members told Edison, "I feel a little bad, we would have gone up to $500, but you settled so fast," Edison replied, "That's alright, I came here thinking I would accept no less than $100."

Ethics don't tell you if something is valuable or not, nor do they tell you what somethings exact value is. I'm certainly not saying that it is fair to misrepresent a thing when selling it. The actual value of an item lies somewhere between what one person will pay for it, and what another will accept for it. It is by no means unethical to provide one end or the other in that struggle. As to the quality of the product, that must be between the buyer and the seller to decide. If someone wants to buy your glass of water for $1000, and you never represent it to be anything other than a glass of water, then sell away, that's the free market.

Drew, I don't want to be a smart alec, but why is the free market ethical?

My problem with you is that you make an enormous number of assumptions, and then accuse us of assuming. Someone like me--a complete newcomer to magic, but someone who has struggled with the great texts of philosophy for a quarter of a century--you dismiss as not knowing what ethics are.

Of course, I agree with you. I don't.

But what makes you think you do? What qualifies you to speak with such certainty about what is ethical and what is not? I thought you were a magician, not King Solomon.

It's OK. I just find your posts slightly offensive--but perhaps you don't mean them to be. If you do, that's OK as well. God knows, I don't want to be an angel either.

Jeff

We are not buying the water. We are buying the brand and the experience of the bottle of water. This goes back to some old research cocacola did many years ago when they designed their bottles and label.

What makes a free market ethical? Full disclosure and willing participation makes it ethical. If either of those do not exist, then it is not either a free market, nor is it ethical. There are unethical and illegal misuses of free market, but the concept itself is neither unethical nor illegal.

Why do you want my credentials? Is an incorrect statement less incorrect if said by an expert? If a fool states a truth, is it somehow a lie? Debate the facts, not the man who presents them. That fallacy has a name.

Drew, I did not ask for credentials. I asked what qualifies you to make statements without arguments and what qualifies you to accuse others others of ignorance.

There is a difference.

Again, my point: you accuse others of being ignorant. Please, stop it. It is offensive.

The fallacy here is that you do not read and do not understand. Again: I am not accusing you of being stupid or ignorant or dumb or anything else. I am accusing you of accusing others.

Can you not see that?

Jeff

Not only did I not see that, I did not see, and still do not see anywhere that I have made that accusation here. As for asking for my credentials, I will agree that you haven't asked for them by that name, the result however is no different. What qualifies me? What says I must have some variety of qualification? Pretty certain I poses the required command of the English language. I have the basic understanding of logical thought, one needs for such discussions. Other than that what is there? You want my formal educational history? I don't see that it's relevant.

Now to what I think you are trying to say. I am not just giving answers. I am giving answers and the logical line of reasoning from which they flow. If that isn't valid, shut down the forums, there is no point to their further existence.

Drew, my rhetoric is perhaps a bit too opaque. That is my fault. But if you re-read the part where I compare you to Solomon, you'll see that I wasn't asking for your formal educational history. After all, I don't know what his was.

It's not a big deal. If you lived nearby I would invite you out for a few beers. In a bar we might have a fair chance of understanding one another. Here it is clear that we have no such chance. And I'm pretty sure we'll get into another argument here in the "Right and Wrong" forum.

For now we'll let it drop, and I offer you this:

:stout:

That's the best I can do from this distance.

Jeff

Hi, I hope you don't mind my two cents here...

People have been selling common information (public domain stuff) since the beginning of time. 90% of all the info you buy on the internet is public domain stuff. The trickshop.com is nothing but old public domain info from the early 1900's repackaged.

Could you ever do a card trick without using common information from the past? How would you force a card, palm a card, do a false shuffle, etc. Have you ever bought an instructional DVD on card handling techniques? Well, what was unethical about that DVD? Get my drift?

In fact, when you think about it, every single magic trick you do is based on public domain info that is either the original public domain info or which might have been extended or improved upon in some way from it's original form. Also, can you levitate without science? Can you do PK magic without science? Can you do any really cool magic without using some kind of science and engineering techniques? Every single product that you see in the stores is based on some public domain information.

I personally paid the $10 to buy that beer freeze info. It never really seemed to work right for me which was disappointing. Perhaps you may say that I'm a sucker, but that's life. I've bought a lot of magic stuff that wasn't as good as I thought it would be.

However, that's not my point. The fact still remains that selling public information and/or adding a little bit to public information is a common place thing that is done all the time. Everything you see in the store is based on public domain information. How can that possibly be unethical?

Thanks,
Don Itjen

Man, I miss seeing a new issues of ABC comics every month.

Alan Moore is a creative powerhouse, for sure.

And magician.