Hey, like I said earlier in the thread about ROT, I was satisfied after Mota pointed out that permission was given. Clear and simple and I think I've established my view on this quite adequately. Now, I just hope that Lord of the Horses would just leave his little fight against windmills with the proper individuals and leave me the heck out of it instead of feable attempts at "witty humour" at my expense. Done deal for me, it has been since Mota pointed out what he had pointed out in the other thread.

Clearly you haven't seen my smilie face and my wink... Kissadokie.

As for you being satisfied with Mota having pointed out about permission, I am glad you are satisfied. All the world is glad about that, I suppose! I would have not slept at night knowing you weren't satisfied!

Ok, done deal!

And sorry for my "feable" humor...

Mmhmm. I presented you with logic in the original ROT thread and you came back with the vague sidestepping landmines approach. Remember it was a simple matter of explaining that the version of Thought Channel that I had was a older version and that I was truly misinformed since I did not have the newer edition with the newer crediting. You may go back and peruse that other thread and your original long and detailed post. To sum it up for the record here, you basically said that you don't know who released what first which clearly is wrong since Jerome clearly stated who did what first in his Background entry of Thought Channel. Obviously you being completely vague and then throwing such things as "Oh, people borrow ideas all the time, you can't just say this is so and so's and I shouldn't release it" when all you really had to do was present me with facts instead. Clearly you saw something that APPEARED negative towards your buddy there and you came on in defense mode. It's quite ridiculous. Even though I was misinformed I'm clearly not at fault since clearly my edition of Thought Channel was before the additional text stating that permission was given. Clear and simple. Quite insulting especially when you clearly had a agenda. Why don't you man up and just leave it be since I've clearly explained myself yet you feel the need to come on and have fun at my expense yet again? I thought that you were a well respected member here and in the community, this show of character is clearly expressing something completely different. I've never had a issue with you until you've started poking fun at me which is very insulting.

I thought you said it was a done deal...

Also, since you insist - I will tell you that (and this can be entirely my fault, but you know English is only my 3rd language, so I'm not as good as many native speakers here!) first of all if you re-read my post in Inner Thoughts, I spoke about "blessings and permission" not so easily granted from the e-mails exchange I was involved in - not some after the fact "permission" that - while I'm happy like you are to see has happened - could have been happened on Mars, for all I know.

Also, I stated explicitly (or I think I had) that I ESTEEM both men and, to me, that kind of argument they had over "paternity" of the effect was ludicrous - and, again I'm happy that this is water under the bridge (at least, in Jerome's words!)

Finally, I also stated that TC is different from Prevaricator and you said for you it was not.

Now, even Jerome has just posted (and I quoted it above) that TC and Prevaricator are different things.

To which I 100% agree and you (probably, judging from your previous statements) don't!

Let's agree to disagree!

I'd drink to that! After posting my last post it occurred to me that there might be a language issue going on here and what I took as negative connotations may have been easily addressed as mis-communication due to English not being your first (and apparently not even your 2nd!) language So, all that is settled and under the rug

Good!

I'll drink to that, too!

Actually all this typing has - for some weird reason - made me thirsty!

This thread seems to have changed....Can I ask something of you guys?

Next time you have an issue with what is being discussed, and it has been discussed elsewhere, add a link instead of rewriting and changing the course of the thread.


with all due respect-

There is so much info on the Café, here is a great link .with some video and more.

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......forum=15

One more thing, Relic and Templar are 100%, but they offer what many are missing, a great story, the magic with these two are the story, it pulls your spectator in and grabs them , it is real, then you do your magic, all the mentioned marketed effects work, and work well, it is a preference you need to search and a method you will feel comfortable with, many , including myself , use more than one method. I use an old coin, made in the same manor as Relic, I use one method to tell me what hand it is in from one of three spectators, from a distance, then another method to tell heads or tales.Since receiving Templar, this is all I use.

I do not think that the other methods are really missing a story. They are just missing a story for the items in play but if you think about it, there is no need to make up a story to justify simple every day objects such as a chapstick, piece of gum, flash drive, etc. These objects are inconsequential. You pull them out only to use them in the demonstration and they are the only things that's relatively small that you have with you at the time. Somewhere along the routine I would also use one of their objects (usually at the end when there's two of my objects and one of theirs, I then tell them which object is where). The thing is, if common objects are use, there's no justification needed for the objects, it is already understood if you've explained what and why you are attempting the demonstration. In other words, your story is really just you explanation of this skill/knack/ability that you have. I think if one was to do a demonstration of mindreading, this simple and direct approach would be one of them. I like the Relic and Templar and their story but I feel that even though it may be entertaining, it takes a little away from the pure mindreading aspect of it. It also feels a little bit like a magic trick than a mentalism demonstration. When performing mentalism I have always favoured having the spectators think "how did he know what I was thinking" over "how did he figure it out?" Even though the two sounds the same one implies mindreading the other implies there must be some kind of logical explanation and method.

Kissdadookie, I think you are on the money, no pun intended, what I was trying to say so early in the morning was, the Templar and Relic offer a story and the others do not, nothing wrong with that, it gives the freedom to do pure magic, I think I said what I said because I have been in a story telling mind set recently and getting some new and great reactions, I in no way was trying to take away from the others, as I have been doing them for more years than I care to remember, Mentalism has been my main stay for a very long time,

Patrick, Jerome, and Paolo are performers I respect greatly and I do not think for even a second that there is any foul play with TC. It is a bolder and cleaner version of prevaricator that has more applications than just a ring of truth routine. That is the main difference

Other than psychological techniques, there are many gimmicks on the market that can acheive this effect and I will put in another vote for the relic

My one problem with the Relic is the size. Although it can be hidden in the hand quite easily, when I have seen the effect done, a lot of spectators think that the size of the coin has to do with it. Again, they think about the method in the Illusionist which has nothing to do with the actual one.

I also would like to give a major thumbs up for BOHT. I really love the Safwan Papers and the story behind BOHT was amazing as well. I can't wait for 2.0.

Thought channel

With contributions from Paolo Cavalli, Paul Vigil, ideas inspired by Armando Lucero and insights from Arnon (the Bulldog) Sincoff, "Thought Channel" is something I hope makes a lot of people very happy. It's certainly been good to me.

------------

I see no ref to Patrick redford.... or do you have to first spend the 120$ to see the reference?

------------

probably that's because more than one version has been published ??

I have the Relic and will hopefully have the Templar soon. They are 100%. Another effect you can do with a coin or practically anything else is Rick Maue's Truth Of The Relic in The Book Of Haunted Magick. It is fail safe and can be 100% if the specs don't get confused which is more a matter of scripting than the workings of the effect.

Thanks for that. Yes it was a mentalism feat I most likely will never top...glad you can use it. Treat BOHT well....

Regarding "2.0:" I'm going to Afghanistan soon, so the next tome will be called the Tora Bora, or Kabul Papers! (Although I do have a small "trio" of effects I want to relase before I go....)

Bryn

If anyone is aware of a video of anyone performing this effect, it would be great to post it here.

Performance of what? BOHT? Not really a effect, just a very very very strong method to add to your current "which hand is it in" type effect. The thinking behind the method also opens one up for a new approach on the way we present effects. Dave, it's $30 and a steal at $30. It also has some other excellent content such as a very good routine with a Himber ring, excellent bank night, practically no fail card force without cards, and a brilliant billet index amongst a myriad of other items You will not be disappointed.

I don't think the method to BOHT is strong, although I did like the story. Just my opinion.

'The truth of the Relic' is a great effect, but too similar to the 'Ring of truth' plot and not which hand plot.