The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Secrets of Psychics Revealed » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
John Clarkson
View Profile
Special user
Santa Barbara, CA
749 Posts

Profile of John Clarkson
Quote:
On 2003-10-19 11:41, ESP Guy wrote:

... He may think that there's a small "vocal minority" who have problems with his Judas-approach to the secrets of working professionals,...
Thom
Thom, I suggest you find another analogy. According to traditional Christian theology, Judas, although cast as a villain, played a roll that was essential in the redemption of humankind! I suspect you don't mean to ascribe such a noble result in this case. Moreover, since, according to this theology, Judas betrayed a diety, the analogy may make you appear just a bit arrogant...

Smile
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener

"There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay."
—Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank)
brownbomber
View Profile
Regular user
Edinburgh
156 Posts

Profile of brownbomber
The latest episode in this execrable series last Friday night was the final straw.

Apart from the exposures, and the woeful demonstrations of metal bending, some of the rubbish that was stated about Tarot readings (the usual Barnum statements stuff etc.) was really difficult to take. And to see Derren Brown commenting out of his depth like that, was very disappointing - makes me wonder how much he REALLY understands about the specialist subjects he invites us to believe he is an expert on.

I spotted Ian Rowland on screen (and in the credits) getting involved with the fire walking 'experiment' (I'm not sure what this really achieved other than to humiliate some individuals' faiths and belief systems, so letting them get burnt) and groaned. I could forgive him for his cold-reading 'exposures' on TV, the tasteless chapter on psychic-baiting in his Full Facts book, because I do like a lot of his material, and his recommendations are uniformly excellent. However, anyone with any integrity involved with this totally charmless series should be ashamed of themselves.

A sorry chapter in TV magic.

BB Smile
shrink
View Profile
Inner circle
2609 Posts

Profile of shrink
I stopped watching the programme after the first exposure episode. It made me feel pretty squeemish......I am still not sure why the programme was created in the first place.

I never saw the latest episode. However fire walks are used quite regularly in personal development seminars. If that is their reason for "exposing" the fact that no psychic ability is needed, then they have missed the point totally. The reason they are used is to teach the participants to overcome an instinctive fear of walking barefoot over fire. The reason for this is the changes it can faciltate in those who participate as the overcoming of the fear permeates to other areas of their lives. It therefore didn't expose anything if that was the reason behind it?

But really does this show have any reason other than to make a quick pile of cash and inflate the egos of those involved making it?

Im still totally miffed at Derren's involvement I think he is probably next for some of the same treatment.
brownbomber
View Profile
Regular user
Edinburgh
156 Posts

Profile of brownbomber
Your point is exactly right and I couldn't agree with you more, Shrink.
ESP Guy
View Profile
Regular user
Falls View, Vermont
137 Posts

Profile of ESP Guy
Quote:
On 2003-10-19 12:40, John Clarkson wrote:
Thom, I suggest you find another analogy.


OKAY, How about Benedict Arnold?

Thom
John Clarkson
View Profile
Special user
Santa Barbara, CA
749 Posts

Profile of John Clarkson
Naw, that won't work. Too relative. For the British, he was a hero.

I have a novel idea: instead of name-calling and emotionally loaded epithets, how about a well-reasoned argument? Smile

Smile
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener

"There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay."
—Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank)
ESP Guy
View Profile
Regular user
Falls View, Vermont
137 Posts

Profile of ESP Guy
John,

Not wanting to get into it here with you, I will end by commenting on your accusation of arrogance as well as your desire for a well-reasoned argument...

What I find arrogant is a brother who is a member of our profession exposing for personal gain and notoriety techniques that LEGITIMATE ENTERTAINERS use to support their livelihood and put food on the table for ourselves and our loved ones.

These people jeopardize out ability to procur bookings and cash their checks and then apologize to members of the fraternity... until the next opportunity arises to make money by exposing more and then cashing their checks and apologizing once again, etc., etc.

And for them to infer that a MINORITY of PEA members find that offensive takes the cake. I would love to know which PEA members are being referred to. My guess is if there really are PEA members that feel that way, they are NOT the full-time working pros.

Clink, clink, clink go the 30 pieces of silver. Smile

Thom
Tony Razzano
View Profile
Inner circle
South River, NJ
1583 Posts

Profile of Tony Razzano
Ian,
Since the PEA has been brought into this, I will respond. And I DO speak
for the PEA, as Vice President, Membership Chairman and member of the Board
of Directors.

Ian, your insinuation that the PEA has only a small vocal minority that is
against your exposures in NOT correct. There may only be a few of those who are against exposure who are very
vocal, but the vast and overwhelming majority of PEA members are against
your exposures and you are not held in high esteem, whether the membership is vocal about it or not.

I have been in contact with some of those at your San Jose/San Francisco
excursion,and there were very few PEA members there. And don't paint the entire
PEA based on a few members. Many of the members there were not happy with
you but chose not to be confrontational.
As far as I can tell at the moment, only one PEA member
MAY have suggested that you
join the PEA.

Again, you give the impression that the PEA, as a whole, has no problem with
you and your exposure shows. You are 100% wrong.

The PEA's official stance on exposure is zero tolerance. ZERO tolerance. Any
action by a member that violates that policy is cause for expulsion from the
PEA. So how you can even think of applying is beyond me. And the person who may
mentioned it to you knows that as well.

Again, Café members, the PEA has a zero tolerance for exposure. The PEA
wishes to stay out of these discussions, but it was felt
necessary to correct a mistaken impression given by Ian Rowland.

The PEA does not speak for any of its individual members, but it is my job
to keep my finger on the pulse of the PEA and I do so. To give the
impression that the PEA members against Ian's exposures are few in number is
a very serious error in judgement.

Best regards,
Tony Razzano,
Vice President, PEA
Best regards,
<BR>Tony Razzano, Past President, PEA
Winner of the PEA"s Bascom Jones and Bob Haines Awards
John Clarkson
View Profile
Special user
Santa Barbara, CA
749 Posts

Profile of John Clarkson
Quote:
On 2003-10-19 23:18, ESP Guy wrote:
John,

Not wanting to get into it here with you, I will end by commenting on your accusation of arrogance as well as your desire for a well-reasoned argument...
There was no accusation of arrogance. I commented that comparing yourself (by implication) to a deity may be perceived as a bit arrogant.

Quote:
What I find arrogant is a brother who is a member of our profession exposing for personal gain and notoriety techniques that LEGITIMATE ENTERTAINERS use to support their livelihood and put food on the table for ourselves and our loved ones.
But, Thom, you have assumed his motives (personal gain and notoriety) and further assume that yours is the only legitimate view of what constitutes a secret of legitimate entertainers and what constitutes unacceptable exposure. Mr. Rowland makes cogent counterarguments on his web site at http://www.ianrowland.com. I think I would have done things differently than he (with respect to the ABC Special), but I cannot, after reading his side of the story, ascribe bad faith or bad motives to him.

Quote:
These people jeopardize out ability to procur bookings and cash their checks and then apologize to members of the fraternity... until the next opportunity arises to make money by exposing more and then cashing their checks and apologizing once again, etc., etc.
...
As you know, some well-known and well-respected metalists disagree with you about the impact of these "exposure shows." Derren Brown now also apparently runs the risk of being declared anathema because he clearly has a different opinion about what constitutes unacceptable exposure. My point is that this issue is not so absolute. It seems that certain organizations and individuals have ZERO tolerance for differing, yet intellectually honest, approaches to this topic. (For example, one prominent member of the PEA, on a public forum, compared me to a child molester because I dared to suggest that, although I did not endorse Mr. Rowland's T.V. special, I thought he had much to offer in many respects.) This absolutism seems misplaced to me.

Quote:
Clink, clink, clink go the 30 pieces of silver. Smile
More appeals to emotion and name-calling. You can do better than that, Thom.

************************************

Quote:
On 2003-10-20 00:10, Trinity wrote:
Who said that those opinions are intectually honest, John? You? Just because you say so, doesn't make it true.
I was speaking generally, not referring to the opinion of any particular individual. My point was that there can be intellectually honest, yet differing, opinions. Is your position truly that any opinion that differs from yours (or the policy of PEA) must be intellectually dishonest?

It is true, though, that my assertion does not make something true. Nor does yours make it untrue. How about a statement, then, illustrating how those opinions are intellectually dishonest instead of ad hominem attacks?

In other threads I've tried to set out rational arguments but generally, quite rapidly, the discussion deteriorates.

Quote:
I simpy stated a policy. If you don't like that policy, I don't care. I also tried to, and believe I did, clear up a misconception.
Actually, stating a policy of ZERO tolerance of exposure does absolutely nothing to define the underlying, important issues of what is a secret, what is a method of legitimate performers, and what under what circumstances revealing information is acceptable. In essence, then, you clarified nothing.

Quote:
You may not like what the membership of the PeA tinks, but, as Rhett said to Scarlett...
Again, an example of not-very-well-reasoned response. At least based on your statement, the "policy" is too vague to like or dislike. (See above.)

Quote:
As to a person who you say compared you to a child molester, that is your intrepretation, not his, and it was on a prviate forum, not a public one.
Comparing me to a member of NAMBLA is about as explicit as one can get. I cannot help it if the man in question lacks the ability to understand the gravity of his statement. And, that part of the forum was open to any member of the public who wanted to apply for membership; it was not the private, restricted area of the forum. I would have expected you to know that. (In fairness, I should mention that I received several e-mails from other members of the forum apologizing for the comments of that sad individual. Apparently I was not the only one who "interpreted" his remarks to be highly offensive.)
...

Quote:
For someone who holds rationality in such esteem, John, you certainly poison the well.
If raising concerns about dogmatism or absolutism is "poisoning the well," I am happy to do it. If it worries you, just don't drink from it.

Now, if you'd actually like to discuss the concepts of what constitutes a secret method of legitimate entertainers, and where we should draw the line about revealing information, I'd be happy to listen. We may agree more than you might suppose. If, however, you intend to hurl insults and personal attacks, I am really not interested, Tony.


Smile

Quote:
On 2003-10-20 00:10, Trinity wrote:
Who said that those opinions are intectually honest, John? You? Just because you say so, doesn't make it true.
I was speaking generally, not referring to the opinion of any particular individual. My point was that there can be intellectually honest, yet differing, opinions. Is your position truly that any opinion that differs from yours (or the policy of PEA) must be intellectually dishonest?

It is true, though, that my assertion does not make something true. Nor does yours make it untrue. How about a statement, then, illustrating how those opinions are intellectually dishonest instead of ad hominem attacks?

In other threads I've tried to set out rational arguments but generally, quite rapidly, the discussion deteriorates.

Quote:
I simpy stated a policy. If you don't like that policy, I don't care. I also tried to, and believe I did, clear up a misconception.
Actually, stating a policy of ZERO tolerance of exposure does absolutely nothing to define the underlying, important issues of what is a secret, what is a method of legitimate performers, and what under what circumstances revealing information is acceptable. In essence, then, you clarified nothing.

Quote:
You may not like what the membership of the PeA tinks, but, as Rhett said to Scarlett...
Again, an example of not-very-well-reasoned response. At least based on your statement, the "policy" is too vague to like or dislike. (See above.)

Quote:
As to a person who you say compared you to a child molester, that is your intrepretation, not his, and it was on a prviate forum, not a public one.
Comparing me to a member of NAMBLA is about as explicit as one can get. I cannot help it if the man in question lacks the ability to understand the gravity of his statement. And, that part of the forum was open to any member of the public who wanted to apply for membership; it was not the private, restricted area of the forum. I would have expected you to know that. (In fairness, I should mention that I received several e-mails from other members of the forum apologizing for the comments of that sad individual. Apparently I was not the only one who "interpreted" his remarks to be highly offensive.)
...

Quote:
For someone who holds rationality in such esteem, John, you certainly poison the well.
If raising concerns about dogmatism or absolutism is "poisoning the well," I am happy to do it. If it worries you, just don't drink from it.

Now, if you'd actually like to discuss the concepts of what constitutes a secret method of legitimate entertainers, and where we should draw the line about revealing information, I'd be happy to listen. We may agree more than you might suppose. If, however, you intend to hurl insults and personal attacks, I am really not interested, Tony.
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener

"There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay."
—Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank)
Tony Razzano
View Profile
Inner circle
South River, NJ
1583 Posts

Profile of Tony Razzano
John, I guess it was as you were writing and posting your response, I erased my second set of comments (above), as I thought it best.
Best regards,
Tony Razzano
Best regards,
<BR>Tony Razzano, Past President, PEA
Winner of the PEA"s Bascom Jones and Bob Haines Awards
ev_sp
View Profile
New user
4 Posts

Profile of ev_sp
I agree with Annabelle - spend more time on presentation and less worrying about who is exposing what.
teejay
View Profile
Inner circle
Liverpool, UK
1832 Posts

Profile of teejay
Quote:
On 2003-10-19 12:14, John Clarkson wrote:
(and which no proponent of the "no disclaimer" viewpoint has addressed) is this: would it be OK for me, a layman, to don a Roman collar, rent a hall, and simulate a Roman Catholic Mass, distributing unconsecrated communion hosts to the believers who have shown up thinking that they are taking the body of Christ? My guess is that most of us would find that very offensive. Should we, then, believe that taking someone's sincere belief in the paranormal, or in life after death, and manipulating it with peek devices and one-ahead systems is any less offensive?

Is it sufficient to say that we do it because it satisfies the audience or that it "puts money" in our pockets? Well, in my analogy, the devote Roman Catholics in attendance at the bogus Mass would probably be satisfied, too, as long as no one "exposed" me.

Smile

Hi John
I'll try to address them for you
I'M RC and if I didn't find out, I wouldn't be bothered.
If I didn't find out till later, I would understand it. I would say that it was the work of a lunatic or a fraud for the collection money
BUT for the false priest to stand there and 'disclaim' that he wasn't a real priest
And tell me that it was all tricks and that I was a fool for believing any of it. Because he was going to show me how it was all done. That would be upsetting.
Surely the aim of a Psychic Entertainer is to mystify and entertain, even amuse?
To me (imVERYho) disclaimers smell (pun intended Smile) of a 'smart=ass' attitude to, probably, 99% of the audience
Anybody is welcome to correct my thinking on this Smile
Tony Razzano
View Profile
Inner circle
South River, NJ
1583 Posts

Profile of Tony Razzano
Ok, John,

I guess you win. No one's logic is valid but yours and anyone who disagrees with you is either illogical or attacking you.

And, as usual, you will have the last word, I am sure.

Best regards,
Tony Razzano
Best regards,
<BR>Tony Razzano, Past President, PEA
Winner of the PEA"s Bascom Jones and Bob Haines Awards
Greg Owen
View Profile
Special user
623 Posts

Profile of Greg Owen
What IS exposure? What should and should not be exposed?

To say NOTHING should be exposed, without further explanation, really ties one's hands. What about the classic sucker effects? What about three card monty where the crip is "exposed"?

My metal bending routine starts out with a rubber pencil - and I "expose" it. I never expect to get in trouble with the Fraternity over this, but IS it exposure? What about a fork that is broken in two and taped together? I "expose" this as well...

...of course, its a lead-in to "the real work" - at least as the "real work" is defined in 2003. Maybe 30 years ago the rubber pencil was THE thing and gaffed silverware (if anyone was even doing the effect 30 years ago) was the only known way to do it.

Hum...

- Greg Owen
Author of The Alpha Stack ebook - the balanced memorized stack
gobeatty@yahoo.com
John Clarkson
View Profile
Special user
Santa Barbara, CA
749 Posts

Profile of John Clarkson
Quote:
On 2003-10-20 07:49, Trinity wrote:
Ok, John,

I guess you win. No one's logic is valid but yours and anyone who disagrees with you is either illogical or attacking you.
Tony, I guess you missed the part of my post in which I said, "Now, if you'd actually like to discuss the concepts of what constitutes a secret method of legitimate entertainers, and where we should draw the line about revealing information, I'd be happy to listen. We may agree more than you might suppose."

So far, however, you have presented no logic or argument. You have not addressed even one of the issues I raised. You have merely announced a policy that depends on as-yet-undefined terms and made a few rather insulting personal comments.

I have not adopted the attitude that no one's argument but mine is valid, nor have I claimed that anyone who disagrees with me is attacking me. I do think though, that putting words in someone else's mouth, as you do here, is an unworthy tactic. And I do think that referring to Ian Rowland as a Judas or a Benedict Arnold (admittedly not your words) is name-calling and an attack. Can you explain how it is not?

In fact, I invited you to present your views. It is insufficient to maintain a policy of ZERO tolerance concerning exposure unless you can define exposure. I invited you to discuss your views of what constitutes a secret method employed (exclusively?) by legitimate entertainers. I invited you to discuss the circumstances under which it might be acceptable to reveal information. I would also invite you to discuss a further issue (probably meaningless until the first two are discussed): what is the appropriate response to someone who has violated your ZERO tolerance policy? I also invite you to discuss any other topic that might better explain this "ZERO tolerance" policy, since I don't pretend to be able to anticipate all the issues.

I further invite you stop the personal comments about me, or anyone else. I am interested in the ideas, not the personalities. I also invite you to let me speak for myself and not tell me what I think or put words in my mouth.

Quote:
And, as usual, you will have the last word, I am sure.
Hmmm, yet another ad hominem remark instead of a lucid argument. It's hard to lend much credence to your position, Tony, if you persist in these personal snipes. So, yes, I suppose I will have the last word, unless you start to discuss the issues without the personal comments.

Smile

Quote:
On 2003-10-20 06:13, teejay wrote:
Hi John
I'll try to address them for you
I'M RC and if I didn't find out, I wouldn't be bothered.
If I didn't find out till later, I would understand it. I would say that it was the work of a lunatic or a fraud for the collection money
BUT for the false priest to stand there and 'disclaim' that he wasn't a real priest
And tell me that it was all tricks and that I was a fool for believing any of it. Because he was going to show me how it was all done. That would be upsetting.
Surely the aim of a Psychic Entertainer is to mystify and entertain, even amuse?
To me (imVERYho) disclaimers smell (pun intended Smile) of a 'smart=ass' attitude to, probably, 99% of the audience
Anybody is welcome to correct my thinking on this Smile
Thanks, teejay. I think you may have mixed two concepts, though. I was discussing merely disclaimer, not exposure. In the hypothetical, the phony priest doesn't expose anything. The issue is whether you see a parallel between his performing a Mass and manipulating sincere believers and a mentalist who offers no disclaimer (no issue of exposure) manipulating the beliefs of sincere believers. It is true that, in both cases, if the performer doesn't get caught, the audience will never know they were manipulated. The issue of disrepect of beliefs, though, I think, is not dependent on being caught. What do you think?

These disclaimers concerning "Masses" do happen occasionally. In fact, certain cults perform "Black Masses" conducted by someone who is not a priest. There is, in those cases, a prior disclaimer. The audience in attendance knows it is a Black Mass. No one is made to feel foolish.

I agree that a disclaimer could come across as condescending. So can the very performance of magic or mentalism. I think the art may be in finding a way to do it without patronizing the audience.

Now, to raise the exposure issue! Do you think it would be wrong for someone to inform the congregation that the "priest" is not one?

Smile
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener

"There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay."
—Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank)
bibi
View Profile
New user
Tel Aviv
16 Posts

Profile of bibi
Where is Ian?
Can you tell us why they hate you?

Bibi
(I was the prime minister)
christopher carter
View Profile
Special user
660 Posts

Profile of christopher carter
John,

I hope I'm not butting in on a conversation here. I think the priest analogy ignores the extremely important issue of performance context. The performance of the vast majority of mentalism takes place in clearly 'theatrical' locations. If your hypothetical mock mass were to take place in a theater, or nightclub, I would expect most reasonable people to understand it as a piece of performance art. I would not require anybody to disclaim being a priest, and think it rather odd if the actor did so.

Still, lets assume that some audience members might be inclined to believe him a real priest in spite of the context. Should the performer be required to disclaim to protect those few? I think the answer would have to depend on the effect that the disclaimer would have on the experience of the rest of the audience. Here is where the analogy becomes an awkward comparison at best. You have not specified what the purpose of this false mass is with regards to the audience experience, but most mentalists, I think, would say that they want their audience to experience the show as if it were real, or at least if it might be. Disclaiming here holds a real possibility of destroying the desired effect.

I'm sorry, but without providing context or purpose, I don't find your analogy very helpful.

--Chris
John Clarkson
View Profile
Special user
Santa Barbara, CA
749 Posts

Profile of John Clarkson
Chris, you're not butting in at all. I welcome your comments, in fact.

Yeah, I like the idea of context being an important factor. In fact, the context, at least as you set it out, is or may be the disclaimer. Clearly, when a mentalist performs at The Magic Castle, the context is so clear that it seems an explicit disclaimer may be redundant. On the other hand, I am not sure about performances that merely happen in a theater, a rented hall, a television studio, or a private home. I'll need to think more about that.

I don't think that the intent of the phony priest is relevant. If it is not not crystal clear by context or explicit disclaimer that the mock Mass is merely performance art-- even if the false priest wants to entertain, or edify, or make the experience seem "real," he will nonetheless be disrespecting Catholics who believe that only an ordained priest has the power to consecrate communion wafers. In this respect, I think the analogy holds.

In any event, it seems that we both feel that some sort of disclaimer (by context or by words) is the better path.

Thanks for your comments, Chris.

Smile
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener

"There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay."
—Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank)
christopher carter
View Profile
Special user
660 Posts

Profile of christopher carter
Quote:

In any event, it seems that we both feel that some sort of disclaimer (by context or by words) is the better path.



Just to clarify, I only know what is the better path for me. For the most part I have little interest in deciding what is the best approach for others. I am convinced that mentalism is not magic, even if we do use methods derived from magicians. In historical fact, though, the core tools in our tool box came from charletans and mountebanks, not from 'legitimate entertainers.' In my opinion, Mentalism bears more similarity in its aesthetic nature to the storytellers of old who spun fantastic tales which they insisted were true--ghost stories or tales of the exploits of ancient heros--than it does to a modern notion of theater. Its closest contemporary cognate, I think, is professional wrestling.

--Chris
bevbevvybev
View Profile
Inner circle
UK
2586 Posts

Profile of bevbevvybev
How about some questions which involve the people who actually made and commissioned the show?

What was the working title of the show? Were the people hired in to talk about the subject matter told half-truths about how much would be revealed, and perhaps even lied to about the exact angle of the show? Will the people involved ever work with that TV production company again? What was THEIR experience with the whole thing? Whose idea was the whole thing? Who wish they'd never got involved?

TV is a BUSINESS to make MONEY. You should see how other types of so called 'documentary' making hook celebrities in to something they think is going to be good for them, and see the horror when it goes out on air, the production company and slimebag producers chuckling to themselves. These people have no heart for anyone, it's their job in fact not to have one.

Just because someone we've all heard of appears in a ****py TV show doesn't mean that it was their idea or even knew how it was going to turn out. And when the production company tells the director 'it's not interesting enough' its no surprise that people get pooped on from a very great height just to make sure the program can be sold.

From fifteen years in TV I have seen worse things than those rubbish psychic programs, things that do REAL harm in the name of saving face and director/producer ego.

Making a program involves a lot of people. I would like to know the facts about all this as much as the rest of you.

Or not. Perhaps I'll have a cup of tea instead and read my own leaves. But I'll do that in a way that wasn't in that program.

P.S. Ian why isn't The Square in your restaurant list
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Secrets of Psychics Revealed » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.41 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