The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Marlo a Thief (8 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2~3..12~13~14 [Next]
MagicT
View Profile
Inner circle
New Orleans
1248 Posts

Profile of MagicT
Why is Marlo known as a thief in card magic?


Thank You,
Trini
Trini Montes
magicfish
View Profile
Inner circle
6918 Posts

Profile of magicfish
...oh boy.
ancientmagic
View Profile
Regular user
Tucson AZ
112 Posts

Profile of ancientmagic
I'm sorry...but this could be the tag line for a heavy-weight champion bout. Something like the "Thrilla in Manila." Gentlemen, go to your corners...wait for the bell and come out....

Best John
"In victory you deserve champagne…in defeat you need it!" –Napoleon Bonaparte
Chappo
View Profile
Special user
Bris Vegas
754 Posts

Profile of Chappo
Suddenly I sense about 2000 lurkers watching one single thread...
The rules of a sleight of hand artist, Are three, and all others are vain,

The 1st & the 2nd are practice... And the 3rd one is practice again


- 'Magic of the Hands', Edward Victor (1940)
pepka
View Profile
Inner circle
Uh, I'm the one on the right.
5041 Posts

Profile of pepka
Talk about a bee's nest. I can tell you from my first meeting with Steranko, that it's still a hotbed issue. All I said was it's a pleasure to meet you, now that you've signed my Nick Fury Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. #1, could you sign this, and handed him my copy of Steranko on Cards. What followed was a 20 minute rant All in all, that was the best comic book convention I'd ever attended.
Justin W
View Profile
Special user
Lawrence, KS
929 Posts

Profile of Justin W
The Gordon thread was one thing, Trini. But now you're just being obvious Smile
R.E. Byrnes
View Profile
Inner circle
1206 Posts

Profile of R.E. Byrnes
Has something to do with someone else having thought of something before he published it, and facile magician notions about "ethics" taking over from there
motown
View Profile
Inner circle
Atlanta by way of Detroit
6078 Posts

Profile of motown
I use to read Nick Fury all the time.

Now back to Marlo.
"If you ever write anything about me after I'm gone, I will come back and haunt you."
– Karl Germain
RS1963
View Profile
Inner circle
2723 Posts

Profile of RS1963
A well known card man once said about Marlo something like this. "If you think Ed was a thief you're probably right. If you think he was a magical genius, you're probably right" I won't say who it was. Yes he was a student of Ed Marlo's and is still around.
Artie Fufkin
View Profile
Special user
855 Posts

Profile of Artie Fufkin
This is a classic "troll" topic, and really has been discussed to death here on the Café, in books, and elsewhere online.

If you can't speak well of the dead, don't speak of them at all.
ASW
View Profile
Inner circle
1879 Posts

Profile of ASW
Quote:
On 2011-05-12 12:30, R.E. Byrnes wrote:
Has something to do with someone else having shown him something in confidence before he published it, and conventional notions about "ethics" taking over from there


Fixed that for you.

:)
Whenever I find myself gripping anything too tightly I just ask myself "How would Guy Hollingworth hold this?"

A magician on the Genii Forum

"I would respect VIPs if they respect history."

Hideo Kato
the fritz
View Profile
Special user
647 Posts

Profile of the fritz
Artie... it's not your timing. I love everything Polymer Records put out!
MickeyPainless
View Profile
Inner circle
California
6065 Posts

Profile of MickeyPainless
Quote:
On 2011-05-12 14:23, Artie Fufkin wrote:
If you can't speak well of the dead, don't speak of them at all.


Ah c'mon Artie, I was hoping the next topic could be on Vernon as a dedicated husband and father! Smile

Actually I totally agree, if ya wanna flame someone flame the living so they can at least defend themselves if they so choose!

MMc
MagicT
View Profile
Inner circle
New Orleans
1248 Posts

Profile of MagicT
I understand the idea of not flaming the dead, but many have said that Marlo was a thief. I am looking for hard facts as to why this is said. Was it said while he was alive? Was it said directly to him? Did he ever defend his position? If so, how, when, and where?



Thank You,
Trini
Trini Montes
The Burnaby Kid
View Profile
Inner circle
St. John's, Canada
3158 Posts

Profile of The Burnaby Kid
One particular controversy was well-discussed in the Genii article on the Zarrow Shuffle.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
MickeyPainless
View Profile
Inner circle
California
6065 Posts

Profile of MickeyPainless
Feb. 2008
Turk
View Profile
Inner circle
Portland, OR
3546 Posts

Profile of Turk
Quote:
On 2011-05-12 16:10, ASW wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-12 12:30, R.E. Byrnes wrote:
Has something to do with someone else having shown him something in confidence before he published it, and conventional notions about "ethics" taking over from there


Fixed that for you.

:)


Andrew,

First off, my issue, as set forth in this post, is not what Marlo may or may not have done or said. (Those issues and the facts and opinions regarding the same has been hammered to death in many many prior posts.) Rather, my issue is the manner in which you inserted your opinion into the mix, and, in doing so, how you, intentionally or unintentionally, attempted to ascribe attribution for your remarks to Mr. Byrnes.

With all due respect, perhaps a better way for you to have "fixed this" for R.E. Byrnes would have been to have not manipulated his quote in the first place to reflect your editorializing but, instead to have:

1) First provided Mr. Byrnes' quoted remark using the Café's "quote" feature, and,

2) Then just come right out and stated your premise (perhaps with with words to the effect that: "Perhaps, for clarification, a better, and in my opinion, a more accurate perspective of what the issue is, might be 'Has something to do with someone else having shown him something in confidence before he published it, and conventional notions about "ethics" taking over from there'".

In that way, the reader would be clear as to what Mr. Byrnes' comments actually were and to now also be able to understand the manner in which you felt his statement did not accurately reflect the facts as you understand them to be.

Your use of the phrase "Fixed that for you" and your use of the emoticon does little to alert a subsequent reader as to what Mr. Byrnes' original quote actually was and in what way you had "fixed it" for him. Quite frankly, upon reading your post, I had naively first attributed good motives to you in that I had (incorrectly) surmised that you had merely corrected a typo, or taken out a duplicate use of a word,…or some other innocuous form of stylistic correction. However, curious as to what you had actually "fixed" for him, I took the time to go back, look up and read his original quote.

Upon reading Mr. Byrnes' actual quote, I was shocked to learn that the two quotes (i.e., yours and his) could not have been more dissimilar in nature and content and that you had, in fact, actually misstated what you had actually done in your post. You had not "fixed it" for Mr. Byrnes. Rather, by you attributing your remarks even tangentially to Mr. Byrnes, you had seriously misrepresented both Mr. Byrnes' actual comment and you had seamlessly interjected your own opinion as his own. In effect, under the attempted guise of humor, you had substituted and interjected your editorial opinion for his...and done so ostensibly under his name.

To modify another person's quoted remarks as you did (particularly by way and use of the Café's "quote" feature), even under the most innocuous of motives would and did cause confusion as to what Mr. Byrnes actually stated and/or believed. As such, I would respectfully suggest that such technique and device by you violates accepted standards of journalism and publication style.

Not cool.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your actual motives in the aforesaid, a person can chalk your comments up to a feeble attempt at humor gone awry. But, that said, still not cool in that a third person could read your post and ascribe comments and opinion to Mr. Byrnes that are clearly not his own. This is the way that misinformation can be disseminated and reputations can be damaged.

Finally, this post does not attempt to address the issue of any perceived pomposity or arrogance that your unsolicited "fixing of things for Mr Brynes" might evoke. Those issues are best left for another day.


The foregoing is all IMHO; the reader's mileage may vary...and probably does.

Best regards,

Mike
Magic is a vanishing Art.

This must not be Kansas anymore, Toto.

Eschew obfuscation.
Roger Kelly
View Profile
Inner circle
Kent, England
3332 Posts

Profile of Roger Kelly
Where would we be without Turk and Vlad?

You can't help but admire such beautiful articulation of the English language!

I don't know either but I'd wager they are lawyers!
MagicT
View Profile
Inner circle
New Orleans
1248 Posts

Profile of MagicT
Turk,
That's a bit harsh. You disected a post that was not that serious. Are you a lawyer?

So does anyone have any concrete evidence that Mr. Marlo was a thief?



Thanks,
Trini
Trini Montes
Tim Sutton
View Profile
Elite user
Tim Sutton AIMC, London UK
460 Posts

Profile of Tim Sutton
Quote:
On 2011-05-12 18:45, Turk wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-12 16:10, ASW wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-12 12:30, R.E. Byrnes wrote:
Has something to do with someone else having shown him something in confidence before he published it, and conventional notions about "ethics" taking over from there


Fixed that for you.

:)


Andrew,

First off, my issue, as set forth in this post, is not what Marlo may or may not have done or said. (Those issues and the facts and opinions regarding the same has been hammered to death in many many prior posts.) Rather, my issue is the manner in which you inserted your opinion into the mix, and, in doing so, how you, intentionally or unintentionally, attempted to ascribe attribution for your remarks to Mr. Byrnes.

With all due respect, perhaps a better way for you to have "fixed this" for R.E. Byrnes would have been to have not manipulated his quote in the first place to reflect your editorializing but, instead to have:

1) First provided Mr. Byrnes' quoted remark using the Café's "quote" feature, and,

2) Then just come right out and stated your premise (perhaps with with words to the effect that: "Perhaps, for clarification, a better, and in my opinion, a more accurate perspective of what the issue is, might be 'Has something to do with someone else having shown him something in confidence before he published it, and conventional notions about "ethics" taking over from there'".

In that way, the reader would be clear as to what Mr. Byrnes' comments actually were and to now also be able to understand the manner in which you felt his statement did not accurately reflect the facts as you understand them to be.

Your use of the phrase "Fixed that for you" and your use of the emoticon does little to alert a subsequent reader as to what Mr. Byrnes' original quote actually was and in what way you had "fixed it" for him. Quite frankly, upon reading your post, I had naively first attributed good motives to you in that I had (incorrectly) surmised that you had merely corrected a typo, or taken out a duplicate use of a word,…or some other innocuous form of stylistic correction. However, curious as to what you had actually "fixed" for him, I took the time to go back, look up and read his original quote.

Upon reading Mr. Byrnes' actual quote, I was shocked to learn that the two quotes (i.e., yours and his) could not have been more dissimilar in nature and content and that you had, in fact, actually misstated what you had actually done in your post. You had not "fixed it" for Mr. Byrnes. Rather, by you attributing your remarks even tangentially to Mr. Byrnes, you had seriously misrepresented both Mr. Byrnes' actual comment and you had seamlessly interjected your own opinion as his own. In effect, under the attempted guise of humor, you had substituted and interjected your editorial opinion for his...and done so ostensibly under his name.

To modify another person's quoted remarks as you did (particularly by way and use of the Café's "quote" feature), even under the most innocuous of motives would and did cause confusion as to what Mr. Byrnes actually stated and/or believed. As such, I would respectfully suggest that such technique and device by you violates accepted standards of journalism and publication style.

Not cool.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your actual motives in the aforesaid, a person can chalk your comments up to a feeble attempt at humor gone awry. But, that said, still not cool in that a third person could read your post and ascribe comments and opinion to Mr. Byrnes that are clearly not his own. This is the way that misinformation can be disseminated and reputations can be damaged.

Finally, this post does not attempt to address the issue of any perceived pomposity or arrogance that your unsolicited "fixing of things for Mr Brynes" might evoke. Those issues are best left for another day.


The foregoing is all IMHO; the reader's mileage may vary...and probably does.

Best regards,

Mike


It was a hell of a lot funnier the way Andrew did it.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Marlo a Thief (8 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2~3..12~13~14 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2023 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL