The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Did you hear the latest? » » Wayne Houchin in an accident? » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
563 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 13:37, TheMag1cian wrote:
They even had the balls to "mock the American magician who got injured".


"It was 2 hosts of a different TV program that aired 24 hours later that suggested I deserved the attack because of the black magic they assumed I practice."

Not the guy who set him on fire.
Danny Kazam
View Profile
Inner circle
1516 Posts

Profile of Danny Kazam
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 13:38, Marlin1894 wrote:
Quote:
All we're saying is that we've already passed judgement because the footage, regardless of how many edits, voices heard or not heard, etc, have passed through our retinas and to our visual cortex. We watched the footage and concluded that Wayne has been maliciously attacked, is injured and in the hospital (as Wayne and the media have already confirmed). You've concluded that you will not come to any conclusions until more evidence is presented. Just because the whole story hasn't come out and you noticed a few things shouldn't inhibit your judgement process. You saw his head on fire, you saw the red burns on the video, you're cognizant of his updates in social media and it seems its not enough for you. If you don't think Wayne is lying than you must stop saying you need the whole story before you can conclude anything because logically, that's saying you don't believe him. Its like saying "I believe you Wayne but I don't know if your telling the truth until I get the whole story. Very contradictory. I guess you just have to take a stance on one end or the other. Keep in mind that's its your freedom to not believe Wayne and come to no conclusion while awaiting more evidence... Do you believe Wayne and everything he's said (and the images on the video) or do you not believe him right now but may in the future when more details come. There's no in between here.


Tha's all well and good. I do believe Wayne. But if you think you coud take that video, and the story from one side, into any DA's office and get that guy brought up on attempted murder charges, much less get him convicted of attempted murder (which apparently is the "judgement" you have passed and the "conclusion" to which you have arrived) you are dead wrong.


Thank you for making that point. At least some are not trying to read things into my post that are not my intentions.
Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe.
TheMag1cian
View Profile
Inner circle
Ottawa, Ontario
1255 Posts

Profile of TheMag1cian
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 13:38, Marlin1894 wrote:
Quote:
All we're saying is that we've already passed judgement because the footage, regardless of how many edits, voices heard or not heard, etc, have passed through our retinas and to our visual cortex. We watched the footage and concluded that Wayne has been maliciously attacked, is injured and in the hospital (as Wayne and the media have already confirmed). You've concluded that you will not come to any conclusions until more evidence is presented. Just because the whole story hasn't come out and you noticed a few things shouldn't inhibit your judgement process. You saw his head on fire, you saw the red burns on the video, you're cognizant of his updates in social media and it seems its not enough for you. If you don't think Wayne is lying than you must stop saying you need the whole story before you can conclude anything because logically, that's saying you don't believe him. Its like saying "I believe you Wayne but I don't know if your telling the truth until I get the whole story. Very contradictory. I guess you just have to take a stance on one end or the other. Keep in mind that's its your freedom to not believe Wayne and come to no conclusion while awaiting more evidence... Do you believe Wayne and everything he's said (and the images on the video) or do you not believe him right now but may in the future when more details come. There's no in between here.


Tha's all well and good. I do believe Wayne. But if you think you coud take that video, and the story from one side, into any DA's office and get that guy brought up on attempted murder charges, much less get him convicted of attempted murder (which apparently is the "judgement" you have passed and the "conclusion" to which you have arrived) you are dead wrong.

Oh boy. Not quite sure what the confusion is here. I'm not at all assuming to know the law or what may come about in terms of charges/consequences. You're confusing a few variables here. I'm passing judgement on Houchin's subjective account of the event and my judgement is that he is telling the truth. Whether the law will do it's job and justice will be served is out of my hands and I would never pass judgement on this end of it. Yes, the host seemed to have manipulated the situation to avoid charges in a kind of a "Oops" fashion. I do believe Wayne and am judging that these events did occur in the manner that he described and that's where I am coming up with my conclusion. Also, scroll up and you'll see that Ive never judged nor concluded that the host would be charged with attempted murder or anything else indefinitely. This is way off base and your disentangling my words. So if what you're saying is "I believe Wayne, but this piece of trash may get away with it" then I would never disagree with that. But if you scroll up the discussion was about getting all the facts from the "edits" and the poster in question found the video fishy. But this whole "I know the law and this guy could never be charged" was never a discussion and to be honest is quite off base and not at all what we were discussing.
TheMag1cian
View Profile
Inner circle
Ottawa, Ontario
1255 Posts

Profile of TheMag1cian
Does anybody else see the inconsistencies of topics?
1. MY JUDGEMENT/CONCLUSION: I believe Wayne because this is not something he would lie about regardless of edits or whatever else.

2. "YOUR" JUDGEMENT/CONCLUSION: I believe Wayne but need more evidence as I didn't quite "buy" the video footage due to edits (no assumptions here) and also this host would never be charged for this in the eyes of the law. ..... (how can you say you believe him then follow it up with that?)

I really hope Wayne doesn't read this as he is going through a trying time right now. Do I know if and how the law will manage this host? If you scroll up to earlier posts I believe I actually agreed by saying that the host may not receive proper consequences. This further decreases the relevance and sense of your post.
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
563 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 14:31, TheMag1cian wrote:
Oh boy. Not quite sure what the confusion is here. I'm not at all assuming to know the law or what may come about in terms of charges/consequences. You're confusing a few variables here. I'm passing judgement on Houchin's subjective account of the event and my judgement is that he is telling the truth. Whether the law will do it's job and justice will be served is out of my hands and I would never pass judgement on this end of it. Yes, the host seemed to have manipulated the situation to avoid charges in a kind of a "Oops" fashion. I do believe Wayne and am judging that these events did occur in the manner that he described and that's where I am coming up with my conclusion.


What in the world are you talking about? The host manipulating the situation to avoid charges? Not even Wayne has claimed to know what the host was thinking or why he did what he did. There was no ""oops" fashion" or attempt to make it look like an accident. As Wayne said, and anyone can see, the guy put that stuff on his head on purpose. The only question is why he did it.

Quote:
So if what you're saying is "I believe Wayne, but this piece of trash may get away with it" then I would never disagree with that.


That is absolutely NOT what I'm saying. Without knowing what in the world the host was trying to do, how could I assume he is trying to "get away" with anything? The guy is probably in a lot of trouble but since I don't know what he was trying to do in the first place I have no idea how much trouble he is in, or how much trouble he should be in. Neither does Wayne or any of his people, which is why the statement says "Nobody from Curiosidades is pretending to know or understand the hosts intentions...The hosts intentions will play a role in the severity of his punishment - but that's for a court of law to determine & decide."
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
563 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 14:44, TheMag1cian wrote:

"YOUR" JUDGEMENT/CONCLUSION: I believe Wayne but need more evidence as I didn't quite "buy" the video footage due to edits (no assumptions here) and also this host would never be charged for this in the eyes of the law. ..... (how can you say you believe him then follow it up with that?)



Listen up and see if you can follow this. The only question is whether this was a malicious attack, as a lot of people were speculating, or if it was a stupid stunt on the part of the host gone awry. Or something else entirely. You don't know, I don't know, and Wayne doesn't know. That's all anyone here is saying. No one is denying anything Wayne said. No one said they didn't "buy" the video. OBVIOUSLY the host set fire to him. DUH! For that he needs to be punished in some way. That was never in question. And I don't care if Wayne does read this, No one on this thread EVER said they thought Wayne was not telling the truth. Let me repeat that. no one on this thread EVER said they thought Wayne was not telling the truth. He was defiantely set on fire and it's pretty obvious he wasn't in on it, wasn't ok with it, and never wanted to be involved in it. Nobody is denying that. No one is denying his version of what happened. I feel terrible for the guy. I hope he isn't too badly hurt and that he makes a full recovery soon.

Quote:
and also this host would never be charged for this in the eyes of the law. ..... (how can you say you believe him then follow it up with that?)


Never said that, never even intimated that.

Prior to Waynes statement people on this thread were making comments such as he "was intentionally set on fire by the host, Franklin Barazarte, along with Domingo Bautista, the host of another show who was appearing as well. It was indicated by Barazarte & Bautista that it was "divine justice" for the Voodoo and Witchcraft practices" and talking about religious crackpots and zealots. There was talk of attempted murder charges. Then I saw the video and I didn't see anything that indicated he was attacked by a religious crackpot for practicing witchcraft, or that it was "divine justice". Not that that wasn't the case. As has been stated about 100 times now, WE DON'T KNOW WHY HE DID IT.

Never did I say that he wouldn't be charged in the eyes of the law. What I said was that based on the video, and having only heard one side of the story (second hand), that I didn't know how anyone could say with any kind of certainty that this was a murder attempt. That's all.
TheMag1cian
View Profile
Inner circle
Ottawa, Ontario
1255 Posts

Profile of TheMag1cian
1. you said: "Not even Wayne has claimed to know what the host was thinking or why he did what he did"
Wayne said: "The attack was intentional. The host didn't trip and accidentally spill it on me ... If you take a loaded gun, point it at someones head & pull the trigger (expecting the gun to misfire) and it doesn't misfire - you are absolutely still responsible for shooting someone in the face - regardless of your intentions."

To clear up confusion: It Happened! ---> I believe him ---> If it was intentional on the hosts part hes probably aware that magic incorporates fire and thus could find a loophole in the law if this attack was premeditated, which I believe it was. They did not discuss this. You don't throw liquid fire on somebody and not know what your doing nor tell them about it. C'mon guys .. honestly, why are we still talking about this. Oh, and rewatch the video. You can see the host kind of trying make it look like he is hitting the fire to put it out while rubbing it in. Have you seen it? If not, rewatch and you'll see what I mean. Do we know the exact intentions of the host? YES we do! To burn his face! Do we know why? not as of yet but we are getting hints.

Also Marlin .. let me get this clear. Your claiming that you don't know what the host was trying to do? Well, he didn't "try" to burn Wayne, he "did" burn him intentionally So when you say:

"But if you think you coud take that video, and the story from one side, into any DA's office and get that guy brought up on attempted murder charges, much less get him convicted of attempted murder (which apparently is the "judgement" you have passed and the "conclusion" to which you have arrived) you are dead wrong" .. SO your stance is that "you have no idea what the host was trying to do" and that's it. Even after watching the host rub it in his face and all of Wayne's accounts. An act is an act. An act is something you discuss and rehearse. This was intentional and we all know what the host was trying to do .. he was trying to bloody well burn Wayne. This isn't the most complex of equations.
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
563 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 15:20, TheMag1cian wrote:
Do we know the exact intentions of the host? YES we do! To burn his face!

he "did" burn him intentionally

This was intentional and we all know what the host was trying to do .. he was trying to bloody well burn Wayne.


"Nobody from Curiosidades is pretending to know or understand the hosts intentions. What we do know is that he purposefully took a handful of flaming liquid & dropped it on me. The hosts intentions will play a role in the severity of his punishment - but that's for a court of law to determine & decide."

"Nobody from Curiosidades is pretending to know or understand the hosts intentions"

I'm not pretending to know or understand the hosts intentions. Nobody from Curiosidades is pretending to know or understand the hosts intentions. As far as I know the host hasn't made any attempt to explain his intentions. But who cares about all that? The "TheMag1cian" knows and understands the hosts intentions. And I guess that should be good enough for all of us then. Got it, thanks. See you in the mentalism section Mr. Mindreader.
TheMag1cian
View Profile
Inner circle
Ottawa, Ontario
1255 Posts

Profile of TheMag1cian
Really? You used "DUH"? and "see if you can follow me"? Now that we have showed our professional colors lets discuss:

Just to clear some things up that you said:

1. "No one said they didn't "buy" the video": DannyKazam wrote: "At this point it is very clear is that the video has been edited, as well as part of the audio. That's all I can judge right now". So I suppose this meant he "bought the video right?" Following me? All I'm saying is that if ppl are questioning the video what do you think that means? And yes, they are questioning the video so please refer to DannyKazams post. My point being is that people arnt even past the point of believing what they saw yet let alone why it happened. This is all Im saying and Im being fought hard on it. I think the confusion is "where" judgement is passed. For instance, my judgements have provided me the insight that he was burned maliciously (no I don't know why) and that I believe what I see on the video. The "Why's" will surface later I'm sure. I wont comment on any of the black magic/voodoo stuff as I guess nobody has evidence of that exceot for those other hosts mocking Houchins injury. My whole issue was regarding DannyKazam's post saying that he wouldnt pass judgements because the video "was clearly edited as well as part of the audio". Not "why" he did it or "the consequences". All I was saying was that if Danny was paranoid and didn't believe the video, does that mean he thought it was staged? Why wouldnt you believe the footage? I concluded that it meant he didn't believe Wayne's account of the footage .. well .. that is in essence what it means logically. Again .. you can't say "I believe Wayne but not the footage". Its fine to have all the facts but he can at least pass judgement that the footage is authentic and Waynes not "hiding" anything. Can anyone else here see that's all Im saying?

2.
TheMag1cian
View Profile
Inner circle
Ottawa, Ontario
1255 Posts

Profile of TheMag1cian
I wont even go to 2. as I don't believe you're even trying to understand my point. This is getting exhausting but Ill say it again .. "I don't know why he did it". Thus, I don't know his underlying motivation. I do however know his intentions. I really am attempting to dumb it down I promise. His intentions were to burn Wayne. Do you agree that we all know his intentions .. to burn him? Now we just have to find out why? If you really believe it takes a mind reader to know that his intentions were to "burn him" then Im speechless. All Ive been doing this whole time is vouching for the footage and saying it was intentional. I don't know why .. never claimed to. In the beginning I was under the impression it was the whole voodoo/black magic thing (very coincidental that other hosts were laughing saying he deserved it due to his black magic ways) but never ever said I knew that for a fact and still have no clue as to why.

So although TheMag1cian DOES in fact know the hosts intentions he does not nor has ever claimed to understand them.

I suppose it's the great mystic Marlin who must grab the old dictionary and look up the word "intention". All this confusion is a simple english class. He "intended" to burn Wayne ..thats all Im saying. I really cant get over the unrelenting confusion. You can fight that statement all you want but he did intend on burning him and there was no funny editing of the footage so we can and should pass judgement that this really happened. Why? Not even pretending to know like everyone else. So where exactly are we not understanding each other?
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
563 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 15:39, TheMag1cian wrote:
Really? You used "DUH"? and "see if you can follow me"? Now that we have showed our professional colors lets discuss:

Just to clear some things up that you said:

1. "No one said they didn't "buy" the video": DannyKazam wrote: "At this point it is very clear is that the video has been edited, as well as part of the audio. That's all I can judge right now". So I suppose this meant he "bought the video right?"


He thought the video looked edited so he declined to make any judgement based on it alone. And frankly, because of the fact it was shot on a camera phone, and there was so much confusion in the ensuing moments, it does look like it could have been edited. But that's neither here nor there.

I can't speak for Danny but the assumption that I made is that yes, he "bought" the video in the sense that Wayne definately was set afire, and that it was not something that Wayne expected or wanted to be involved in. But that based on the video alone he wasn't yet prepared to "buy" the fact that he was set on fire in a malicious attack based on religious zealotry or anything like that.

Do you see how someone could accept that this happened to Wayne without his knowledge and against his will, but still not necessarily accept the fact that it was a murder attempt, or an attack on Wayne because he practices witchcraft, or something of the sort? Because that's all I've been saying from the start myself. That's the judgment that I'm reserving until I hear the rest of the story. If we ever do.
TheMag1cian
View Profile
Inner circle
Ottawa, Ontario
1255 Posts

Profile of TheMag1cian
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 12:27, Danny Kazam wrote:
At this point it is very clear is that the video has been edited, as well as part of the audio. That's all I can judge right now.




If anybody wants to know what the catalyst was for all this hoohaa. It all began with this quote (above). Apparently this doesn't mean that he didn't believe, trust or buy the footage in the video .. I guess. I suppose I should join Marlin's stance and postulate that it means he believes and trusts the footage and that Im just crazy.
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
563 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 15:52, TheMag1cian wrote:
So although TheMag1cian DOES in fact know the hosts intentions he does not nor has ever claimed to understand them.

I suppose it's the great mystic Marlin who must grab the old dictionary and look up the word "intention". All this confusion is a simple english class. He "intended" to burn Wayne ..thats all Im saying.


You simply don't know that. I'm not saying this is what happened but for all I know someone said "here pour this on Waynes head. It will burn for a second but don't worry, it won't hurt him, it won't even singe his hair. It's just a magic trick. It'll be a cool thing to do for the TV show and Wayne will get a kick out of it." As Wayne said, the guy is not a magician, how would he know any better?

How do you know that didn't happen? Because it appears he was trying to rub it in his face and cause more damage? Maybe when he realized that the stuff WAS burning him he panicked, didn't know what to do, and out of reflex tried to rub it out?

I'm not saying that's what happened. It probably isn't what happened. What I want to know is how do YOU know that's not what happened?
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
What is all this bickering achieving? WH got set on fire, and there is bickering about this on the Café now?

Wow.
TheMag1cian
View Profile
Inner circle
Ottawa, Ontario
1255 Posts

Profile of TheMag1cian
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 16:03, Marlin1894 wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 15:39, TheMag1cian wrote:
Really? You used "DUH"? and "see if you can follow me"? Now that we have showed our professional colors lets discuss:

Just to clear some things up that you said:

1. "No one said they didn't "buy" the video": DannyKazam wrote: "At this point it is very clear is that the video has been edited, as well as part of the audio. That's all I can judge right now". So I suppose this meant he "bought the video right?"


He thought the video looked edited so he declined to make any judgement based on it alone. And frankly, because of the fact it was shot on a camera phone, and there was so much confusion in the ensuing moments, it does look like it could have been edited. But that's neither here nor there.

I can't speak for Danny but the assumption that I made is that yes, he "bought" the video in the sense that Wayne definately was set afire, and that it was not something that Wayne expected or wanted to be involved in. But that based on the video alone he wasn't yet prepared to "buy" the fact that he was set on fire in a malicious attack based on religious zealotry or anything like that.

Do you see how someone could accept that this happened to Wayne without his knowledge and against his will, but still not necessarily accept the fact that it was a murder attempt, or an attack on Wayne because he practices witchcraft, or something of the sort? Because that's all I've been saying from the start myself. That's the judgment that I'm reserving until I hear the rest of the story. If we ever do.

We can assume we know what he meant by his post all we want in the end. He questioned the video, not the hosts motivations behind his intent, so that's what I commented on. Also, the fact that, in your words, "he wasn't yet prepared to buy the fact that he was put on fire in a malicious attack based on religious zealotry or anything like that". Ive just concentrated on the words "intention" and "malicious". Yes it was intentional and malicious (it would be malicious for anyone to rub liquid fire in your face intentionally - regardless of the situation). In terms of religion - no clue. Nor have I ever said it was a murder attempt .. so not sure what that's about. Again, I don't know his motivations and have not claimed to once. Not quite sure why that keeps coming up?

Either way, I can see that much of what we are saying is exactly the same but different wording. So lets just see how it all unfolds.
TheMag1cian
View Profile
Inner circle
Ottawa, Ontario
1255 Posts

Profile of TheMag1cian
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 16:09, Marlin1894 wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 15:52, TheMag1cian wrote:
So although TheMag1cian DOES in fact know the hosts intentions he does not nor has ever claimed to understand them.

I suppose it's the great mystic Marlin who must grab the old dictionary and look up the word "intention". All this confusion is a simple english class. He "intended" to burn Wayne ..thats all Im saying.


You simply don't know that. I'm not saying this is what happened but for all I know someone said "here pour this on Waynes head. It will burn for a second but don't worry, it won't hurt him, it won't even singe his hair. It's just a magic trick. It'll be a cool thing to do for the TV show and Wayne will get a kick out of it." As Wayne said, the guy is not a magician, how would he know any better?

How do you know that didn't happen? Because it appears he was trying to rub it in his face and cause more damage? Maybe when he realized that the stuff WAS burning him he panicked, didn't know what to do, and out of reflex tried to rub it out?

I'm not saying that's what happened. It probably isn't what happened. What I want to know is how do YOU know that's not what happened?


I understand your point but its way out there. You hand a layman dangerous chemicals, no rehearsal, no discussion with the magician prior, no nothing. Would you feel better if I said it was intentional/malicious on "somebody's part" within that particular production? Someone knew what was going on here. Im sorry but I don't buy the "Ooops .. I burned his face off" theory while listening to other hosts who were probably acquaintances laughing, mocking and saying he deserved it afterwards. It was a malicious attack just as Wayne said. don't worry Wayne .. I believe your statements about it being intentional and malicious even if other members here don't. The chemical was there and somebody knew it's capabilities. This wasn't piece of flash paper you know? Somebody wanted Wayne to pay that day. Im not god .. I don't "KNOW" this so please stop with the schoolyard stuff. This is an open forum, this is my opinion and I guarantee others agree with me.
TheMag1cian
View Profile
Inner circle
Ottawa, Ontario
1255 Posts

Profile of TheMag1cian
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 16:16, tomsk192 wrote:
What is all this bickering achieving? Jesus, WH got set on fire, and there is bickering about this on the Café now?

Wow.


I agree. This needs to stop now! I was just trying to be in Waynes corner as the video is being scrutenized the same way magic demos are and I found it inappropriate. I felt we owed it to Wayne to just take his word for it and it got rather heated.
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
563 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 16:26, TheMag1cian wrote:

I don't "KNOW"


Bout time you admitted it. That wasn't so hard was it? I'll drop it now.

Quote:
This is an open forum, this is my opinion and I guarantee others agree with me.


I'm sure they do. Maybe even I do. But you know what they say "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts". I intend to wait for as many facts as we can hope for and I look foward to seeing Wayne come back and seeing this guy dealt with. I certainly agree there needs to be some sort of repercussions for this.
TheMag1cian
View Profile
Inner circle
Ottawa, Ontario
1255 Posts

Profile of TheMag1cian
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 16:26, TheMag1cian wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 16:09, Marlin1894 wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-11-30 15:52, TheMag1cian wrote:
So although TheMag1cian DOES in fact know the hosts intentions he does not nor has ever claimed to understand them.

I suppose it's the great mystic Marlin who must grab the old dictionary and look up the word "intention". All this confusion is a simple english class. He "intended" to burn Wayne ..thats all Im saying.


You simply don't know that. I'm not saying this is what happened but for all I know someone said "here pour this on Waynes head. It will burn for a second but don't worry, it won't hurt him, it won't even singe his hair. It's just a magic trick. It'll be a cool thing to do for the TV show and Wayne will get a kick out of it." As Wayne said, the guy is not a magician, how would he know any better?

How do you know that didn't happen? Because it appears he was trying to rub it in his face and cause more damage? Maybe when he realized that the stuff WAS burning him he panicked, didn't know what to do, and out of reflex tried to rub it out?

I'm not saying that's what happened. It probably isn't what happened. What I want to know is how do YOU know that's not what happened?


I understand your point but its way out there. You hand a layman dangerous chemicals, no rehearsal, no discussion with the magician prior, no nothing. Would you feel better if I said it was intentional/malicious on "somebody's part" within that particular production? Someone knew what was going on here. Im sorry but I don't buy the "Ooops .. I burned his face off" theory while listening to other hosts who were probably acquaintances laughing, mocking and saying he deserved it afterwards. It was a malicious attack just as Wayne said. don't worry Wayne .. I believe your statements about it being intentional and malicious even if other members here don't. The chemical was there and somebody knew it's capabilities. This wasn't piece of flash paper you know? Somebody wanted Wayne to pay that day. Im not god .. I don't "KNOW" this so please stop with the schoolyard stuff. This is an open forum, this is my opinion and I guarantee others agree with me.



What I meant to say is that I don't KNOW who .. Im not admitting anything. I KNOW it was intentional and malicious, just as Wayne has told us. I don't KNOW who was behind it or why they were behind it. You can create the illusion that you won a debate or I gave in or whatever it is that toots your horn, but I stand by what I say. And Ive been saying precisely the same things WH has been saying. It was intentional and malicious. We just have to get to the bottom of why? Sorry, you'll never get me on board with the "Hmm whats this strange chemical. Lets not tell WH about it then run it all in his face. Lets for sure not have a fire extinguisher nearby. Whoops, the non-magician is now rubbing liquid flames all in his face. Sorry .. I do know this is not the case. This is just plain logic. The story will unfold and you'll see Im right. We'll just wait until then I suppose.
TheMag1cian
View Profile
Inner circle
Ottawa, Ontario
1255 Posts

Profile of TheMag1cian
Although I am saying I know this as a fact (based on pure logic/common sense/facts thus far). If it makes you feel better treat it as a prediction. But it's not hard to "know" this guy did this on purpose or was instructed to do this. Either way, Im perfectly comfortable saying "I know" this wasnt just a crazy accident when I arrange everything Ive seen and heard. Im sure I wont hear from you when Im right and Im sure I will if by any chance Im wrong.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Did you hear the latest? » » Wayne Houchin in an accident? » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.36 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