The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Ian Rowland Bashing... » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
enriqueenriquez
View Profile
Inner circle
New York
1287 Posts

Profile of enriqueenriquez
Quote:
On 2004-03-23 13:49, Quinn wrote:
That's beyond pathetic; it's pathological.


Quinn


Bravo!!!
saglaser
View Profile
Loyal user
Champaign, IL
248 Posts

Profile of saglaser
Quote:
On 2004-03-23 12:25, Blueboy wrote:
I bought my copy of The Royal Road to Card Magic from Waterstons bookstore on Princes Street Edinburgh, one of the biggest tourist attractions in Europe, anyone could - and still can - pick it up and leaf thru it, learning just about every move or deception you have FOR FREE!

Let me get this straight.. it's contents are secret?


Yup!

There's an old proverb in magic: "The best place to hide a magic secret is in a book."

Why? Because nobody reads magic books except other magicians and those who want to learn the craft. And most of those just skim looking for things they like. Which is why one of my friends consistently fries experienced magicians at his lectures doing an effect out of Tarbell 1!

There's a long-standing rule of thumb that delineates the difference between acceptable teaching and unacceptable exposure. It's that the person learning the secret must put forth effort to learn. That can be as little as going to the library, taking a magic book off the shelf and sitting down to read. It includes paying for a trick. It includes paying to see a lecture. It virtually always includes the supposition that the secret being learned is being taught in a way that will enable the learner to do the trick.

It does not include being able to have the secret handed over on a silver platter just by turning on the TV, or having it delivered in a way that merely tells "how its done" without emphasis on "how to perform it."

Make your own judgement from there.
Mr Amazing
View Profile
Special user
617 Posts

Profile of Mr Amazing
Ok, probably my last post in this thread:

Blueboy - true, there is sometimes a fuzzy border between what constitutes exposure and what doesn't. The TV clips in question are far from that border. (And you know it).

Nimrod - even Mr Rowlands exposure is not the end of the world. Far from it. It only cheapens our art a bit. Maybe you like that. I don't. I can see no reason why this would do "more harm to psychics than to performers" - and still, the bottom line is that it does harm performers.

Quinn - with your reasoning there is no problem to expose anything because everyone has heard of trap doors, mirrors, false counting, false shuffling, etc, etc. I do not agree that the techniques and principles exposed are unworkable, in fact, some are very, very, much used. Overall it teaches the spectators to look for methods when seeing a magician or mentalist, and this is the biggest problem.


Look, it's not so strange: Mr Rowland hasn't commited a crime in any legal sense. He has only broken the most fundamental rule in magic, and then lied about it and disappointed people. This cheapens and belittles our art, that's all. I guess how you feel about this reflects how much you care about our art and the joy and mystery we can create for our audiences.

I can't help but wonder what some (not all) of you guys do consider exposure? What does it take? IMO the clips speak for themselves; a guy publically showing some of the secret methods/principles we use to create our mysteries.


With magic and mentalism we have the potential to make people experience mysteries that they will cherish for the rest of their lives! ...but it can also be only an amusing gag.


/Matias
nimrod
View Profile
Special user
883 Posts

Profile of nimrod
Quote:
The only thing that DOES irritate me about the whole thing is the supposed rationalization. "Well, all he's doing is protecting the poor, unwashed masses from the evil and unscrupulous fraudulant psychic..." which is, in my estimation, a total load of CRAP.


the way I look at it, people who see the show will come up in the end of it with one conclusion: there are fake psychics. maybe not all of them, maybe only some, but there are. they will think twice before using a psychic service. maybe not all of them, maybe only some. they wouldn't care about the methods (as they always do) and won't make the connection to our art (as they always don't).
it will make them re-think their opinions and actions concerning psychics. maybe not all of them, maybe only some, but you can't dismiss those some.
so I think you should practice your estimation technique.

Nimrod , Israel
DaveS
View Profile
Veteran user
New York
329 Posts

Profile of DaveS
Right about now I'm really missing John Clarkson's wonderful posts cutting through the inflated rhetoric, vague terms and fuzzy logic. Hope he's ok. Has anyone heard from him? Smile
DaveS
We shall not cease from exploration/And the end of all our exploring/Will be to arrive where we started/And know the place for the first time. (TS Elliot)
Brash
View Profile
Regular user
149 Posts

Profile of Brash
Quote:
On 2004-03-23 13:49, Quinn wrote:

And for disseminating this information, a man had his top-notch work boycotted, his name slandered, and his life threatened? That's beyond pathetic; it's pathological.


Those of us that live in democracies have the right to boycott any business or individual we choose. Is it wrong of people to stick with their convictions?

Slander? Stating that he has exposed secrets? One of the methods he used on "Unmasked" was written up in Magick nearly 25 years ago. Sounds like exposure to me.

His life threatened? I don't know about that, but there will always be few crackpots in any group including "utterly-small-time semi-pro and current hobbyists"

And then you conclude your post as follows:

Quote:
So in the spirit of Magicians Helping Magicians Who Apparently Are In Desperate Need Of Help, I offer the following observation with all the towering authority of a former utterly-small-time semi-pro and current hobbyist: If you can't entertain and deceive an audience that's familiar with the concepts listed above, then I'm sorry, but you suck. You therefore have far more pressing issues to deal with than worrying about Ian Rowland's supposed transgressions -- like, for starters, learning how to entertain and deceive someone besides yourself.

Quinn


With all due respect Quinn, I think your post is the most offensive thing in this discussion. For the most part this has been a fairly civil discussion of whether or not Ian exposed. Your comments are the most inflammatory here. You should know better.

Personally I have never questioned that Ian is a "nice guy" and a "gentleman". That doesn't change the fact that in the opinion of myself and many others he did expose. The fact that he goes to great lengths to explain himself, however eloquently, does not change what he did. I believe he sincerely regrets what he did, but on his own website he still says he did not expose. Unfortunately that is not the conclusion many others have come to.

The Magic Café is home to many young aspiring performers. What message do we want to deliver to them? It used to be the magician's code was "never reveal secrets", now we have long lists of exceptions and justifications. Things just keep getting muddier, who knows where it will end.
Colin
View Profile
Inner circle
Las Vegas
1348 Posts

Profile of Colin
There are many people in this art form who come up with a lot of incredible ideas. Banachek, Richard Osterlind, Max Maven, Luke Jermay…to name a few. However what is also important to remember is that Ian Rowland is on that list. Ian Rowland is certainly an asset in this art and for that I am incredibly thankful.

The way I see what he has done is as follows. Imagine a friend of yours came in one day and said …

‘Oh I lost £500 on the street playing Three Card monte with this guy. He had a small book sitting beside him Saying Ultimate Three Card Monte by Michael Skinner, who’s he?’

Now right away I, as well as many others, would know that this person on the street has simply bought a packet trick and is using something simple and perhaps unrehearsed to cheat money out of someone. This is exactly what I feel of many people who go out and learn one system for cold reading and right away use it to palm/cold read.

I’m not at all saying the Michael Skinner effect is bad! as it is a very magical routine, however it should be used for entertainment reasons, not to scam money from people, this is how I feel about cold reading too. Use Ultimate Three Card Monte in your main set of magic and you will kill, the same way cold reading is used by many in their acts of mentalism.

To explain this more clearly, I will refer to Andy Nyman (hope he doesn’t mind!). On his DVD he talks about exactly this subject, and how claiming to be able to do this sort of thing is incredibly dangerous as it is toying with peoples perceptions of what is possible, and it is about knowing how far to morally take it. He says that he feels that peformers should atleast really think about this fact, and decide how far they want to take an audience. Should they then decide they want their audiences to believe they are truly psychic, and can talk to the dead…, fair enough, they have thought about it, and have master what they are going to do!

Now referring back to the above example about the Three Card Monte, should I have seen someone on the street do this with real cards, all the sleights, mastered it fully, the psychology and everything! well then perhaps they deserve to take peoples money as what they are doing is an art. However most of you, and most lay people will know that playing this game, there is a very high chance you will loose! You have been taught that. You have been taught to watch out so you don’t simply loose your money to the ‘scam’! NOW! Who is going to teach people about getting scammed in cheap cold reading antics…well thankfully there are people like Ian Rowland to protect some people out there. Even if he has promised not to do it again, I think we should respect he has given people a grounding of what to look out for.

Remember, he has only given a grounding. It is your job when you perform to show people (if you have decided to go the full hog and have people fully believe what you are doing is truly psychic) that you know more than these simple skills, more than the basics systems, so if you still choose to make them believe what you are doing is real and have researched it and learnt as much as you can about it, well then you will be so experienced your audiences will have no choice but to believe.

All he is trying to do is protect people from scams, not stopping them being entertained.
Check out Psych-Artist.com now for free essays and other resources.
Xia
View Profile
Loyal user
London, England
286 Posts

Profile of Xia
A few points:
Matias - I didn't so much agree with you, I pointed out a few holes in your argument, but I must say it was a well thought out one.

Quinn - Hip Hip Hurray!! Perfect, to the point, and RIGHT!

As far as John Clarkson, I recieved a personal email from him, he will be back in April. I can not currently tell you whether he supports my argument or not but believe me, I miss his input in this as much as anyone else.

Finally the important thing that has come out in this is 1. Life should not be threatened due to silly ethical arguments in the ENTERTAINMENT business, and this did happen. 2. the people who have now seen the clips have agreed that the whole Exposure thing was a bit over the top.
"They say time is money...i say time is precious"
"They say the whole is much more than the sum of its Parts...Thats why a man is much more than the sum of his Past!"
fluffythepinkrabbit
View Profile
New user
17 Posts

Profile of fluffythepinkrabbit
Hi Everyone!

This looks like a fun thread, can I play?

Ok, here we go (and yes, of course I am not really me, I'm wearing a mask):

Quote:
On 2004-03-22 13:26, enriqueenriquez wrote:
I don’t like fundamentalist.

If you don’t want to see Ian Rowland, Madonna or The Ringling Bros, just skip it. Don’t try to force me to follow your options and don’t think you can represent me or even “open my eyes”, doesn’t matter how “saint” you think is your “crusade”.

Self appointed prophets are as bad in magic as in politics or religion.


Now, there is really only one way to answer this.

Thus Spake the fluffy one:

I don’t like fundamentalistSSSSSSSSS.

If you don’t want to see John Edward, Uri Geller or Sylvia Browne, just skip it. Don’t try to force me to follow your options and don’t think you can represent me or even “open my eyes”, doesn’t matter how “saint” you think is your “crusade”.

Self appointed prophets are as bad in magic and science as they are in politics or r******n.

Ok, next (oh look, it's from the same guy...):

Quote:
On 2004-03-23 07:20, enriqueenriquez wrote:
My problem is not Ian Rowland, but the people who caused the cancelation of his lectures on the East Coast. Why they decided that I can’t attend???

IMHO a stranger who makes calls threatening to prevent a lecture or event is as dangerous as the stranger who calls to say that he put a bomb in my train is an individual who decided that dialog is not an option and his “cause” is beyond my rigth to choose. He is somebody that has decided that the intention justifies means.

I’m more worried about that kind of guy than about Ian Rowland. At least Rowland shows his face.


Now, of course, we must all bear in mind there is as much proof of these threats as there is of Uri Geller teleporting motorists in the early seventies. Someone said it happened. Run that through you sceptioptometer and sing along.

Quote:
On 2004-03-23 15:30, DaveS wrote:
Right about now I'm really missing John Clarkson's wonderful posts cutting through the inflated rhetoric, vague terms and fuzzy logic. Hope he's ok. Has anyone heard from him? Smile
DaveS


I just liked that one, it bears repeating for more reasons than I could ever say.

This next one is long.... Here we go:

Quote:
On 2004-03-23 15:49, Colin wrote:
There are many people in this art form who come up with a lot of incredible ideas. Banachek, Richard Osterlind, Max Maven, Luke Jermay…to name a few. However what is also important to remember is that Ian Rowland is on that list.


All I can recall is a c***-m*****g system he claims is not a m*****g system. I would say he has the odd good idea, but I would think perhaps it would be fair to call Osterlind and Maven idea-mongers on an ALTOGETHER different level.

Quote:
The way I see what he has done is as follows. Imagine a friend of yours came in one day and said …

‘Oh I lost £500 on the street playing Three Card monte with this guy. He had a small book sitting beside him Saying Ultimate Three Card Monte by Michael Skinner, who’s he?’


My point exactly. Who is Michael Skinner, and what does he have to with exposure, readings or mentalism?

Quote:
Now right away I, as well as many others, would know that this person on the street has simply bought a packet trick and is using something simple and perhaps unrehearsed to cheat money out of someone. This is exactly what I feel of many people who go out and learn one system for cold reading and right away use it to palm/cold read.


Let me offer you this solemn promise. If you go out unpracticed and "perhaps unrehearsed" with one system you just bought and use it right away to palm/cold read and then cheat people out of money (note the huge skip in the train of thought there), I will buy you a KitKat for each dollar you make after the first 500. Deal?

I had no idea that giving readings was the same thing as performing a fraudulent pseudo-gambling scam . The mind boggles gog and magog. I am agog.

[quote]I’m not at all saying the Michael Skinner effect is bad! as it is a very magical routine, however it should be used for entertainment reasons, not to scam money from people, this is how I feel about cold reading too. Use Ultimate Three Card Monte in your main set of magic and you will kill, the same way cold reading is used by many in their acts of mentalism.[quote]
Ok, cold reading is not a routine. It is a legend. It is a Holy Grail. It is a crutch supporting the notion that there is an easy explanation for everything. Someone just told you exactly what you were thinking, nothing written down, never met before? It was "cold reading"! Of course! I feel so much safer now! Or maybe it was "lukewarm reading". Gosh darn it to diggedidanglidoos, maybe it was "reading on the rocks with a squeeze of lemon". As long as someone authoritative can tell me there is nothing to see here I feel wonderful. Keep it coming!

Most of the "experts" on "cold reading" only perform readings to demonstrate the "evils" of "cold reading". They couldn't help a housewife face her dreary everyday existence for toffee. I doubt they could succesfully encourage a goldfish to swim. All they can do is try to tell other people where there faith is best placed. Surprisingly, most of them are short fat guys in playing card ties. Now if that isn't faith-inspiring I'd be diggledidarned if I knew...

Quote:
To explain this more clearly, I will refer to Andy Nyman (hope he doesn’t mind!).


I doubt he reads this forum. But why not refer to him, the context is suitable.

Quote:
On his DVD he talks about exactly this subject, and how claiming to be able to do this sort of thing is incredibly dangerous as it is toying with peoples perceptions of what is possible, and it is about knowing how far to morally take it.


Incredibly dangerous as in... what exactly? I haven't seen the dvd for o-so political reasons, maybe he elaborates. I wasn't aware expressing an opinion about what is possible that doesn't conform to Mr Nyman's was dangerous. I will have to burn a lot of my books it seems. Shame, here I was enjoying my existence. And my books. Especially the dirty bits in some of them. Oh yes.

Quote:
He says that he feels that peformers should atleast really think about this fact, and decide how far they want to take an audience. Should they then decide they want their audiences to believe they are truly psychic, and can talk to the dead…, fair enough, they have thought about it, and have master what they are going to do!


Wait, er... huh? Fair enough? I thought it was dangerous? What gives?

Quote:
Now referring back to the above example about the Three Card Monte, should I have seen someone on the street do this with real cards, all the sleights, mastered it fully, the psychology and everything! well then perhaps they deserve to take peoples money as what they are doing is an art.


The law in pretty much every nation on earth these last 2000 years or so would disagree, but hey, I like an underdog! Why not, cool! If you're good at it, taking people's money is ok! I can play with that metabelief-structure supramodel integer for a moment or two...

Quote:
However most of you, and most lay people will know that playing this game, there is a very high chance you will loose! You have been taught that. You have been taught to watch out so you don’t simply loose your money to the ‘scam’! NOW!


Unless of course people had exposed the secrets of the game and there wasn't enough money in it to merit all the practice if THE ONYL MOTIVE YOU HAD WAS MONEY, right? I'm starting to get it... I think...

Quote:
Who is going to teach people about getting scammed in cheap cold reading antics…well thankfully there are people like Ian Rowland to protect some people out there. Even if he has promised not to do it again, I think we should respect he has given people a grounding of what to look out for.


Yes, fear the dreaded coffee s****r of Van Praagh! Cower in fear before the might of the i******** t***** miracles of the gypsy fortunetelleresses... We are lucky to be protected by so noble a champion.

Where's the lady pal? 50 bucks a pop... so easy a kid could do it...

[quote]Remember, he has only given a grounding. It is your job when you perform to show people (if you have decided to go the full hog and have people fully believe what you are doing is truly psychic) that you know more than these simple skills, more than the basics systems, so if you still choose to make them believe what you are doing is real and have researched it and learnt as much as you can about it, well then you will be so experienced your audiences will have no choice but to believe.[quote]
What I am doing is real. Where do I turn for moral guidance? How shall I face the demons of doubt without such great examples to follow? Bear in mind there is a possibility I am completely sane. Bear in mind anyone who denies the reality of telepathy is flying in the face of thousands of scientific results obtained on every continent of this planet. Because an authority figure in a playing card tie says so. It is unscientific to deny telepathy anymore than one does deny string theory or even EPR. Einstein and his ideas require a massive leap of faith in your average everyday human, much moreso than does John Edward. I have never seen a black hole or felt time bend without chemical aid of great intensity, but hey, my mom did wear a scarf and she knew someone called Robert or Robin, it's an R. Bobby? That's the one.

Either way, whether I am real or not, I have a heckuva easier time doing my job without some guy trying to push me out of my job.

Quote:
All he is trying to do is protect people from scams, not stopping them being entertained.


I'm presuming there would have to be some financial incentive, no? If not, why does his book cost money?

Anyway, this has been great fun. I'm off to do the dishes now. Remember, we are all only here once, and maybe we should let people belief what flies for them rather than police thought, burn books and ban ideas.

I am certain being "psychic" is more fun for me than being full of hate is for a load of other people. And to anyone who says my post is hateful, lighten up. I may be a bit grouchy, but at least I'm funnier than that trick with the pea can.

/Papa Fluff

Oh, also, I feel this way.

One thing some exposers bemoan is the lack of impact their exposure has. It seems

"People believe what they want, even when presented with convincing evidence. There really is no sense trying to convince those whose minds are already made up one way or the other."

I find it very liberating to see this is true also of the inner adepts of the arts mystical.

Much love,

Fluffmaster Fluffpups
Colin
View Profile
Inner circle
Las Vegas
1348 Posts

Profile of Colin
[quote]Let me offer you this solemn promise. If you go out unpracticed and "perhaps unrehearsed" with one system you just bought and use it right away to palm/cold read and then cheat people out of money (note the huge skip in the train of thought there), I will buy you a KitKat for each dollar you make after the first 500. Deal?[quote]
I take it you didn’t see the show all about psychics a while back. It featured James Randi, etc…I forget the name sorry. In that show however, they took a regular guy and gave him a few hours to learn basic cold reading, then they got in a client. The client (a middle aged man) really bought into it all and thought it was the real thing. Until he found out this was an act he truly believed it to be the real deal.

I used the Three Card Monte example to the cold reading (magic and mentalism) as both can either be used as scams, or absolute miracles depending on how they are treated. I never said I agreed with it, however I meant that should someone loose money to someone playing this fully rehearsed game, then it is their own fault, and so should have expected to have lost…unfortunately!

I imagine he charges for the book as it does take time to write them up and money to get them published. I feel his book was more aimed at people looking to learn it. His TV exposure, as little as it was, I feel gives people enough of an idea of what to be careful of.

I’ll leave you to continue the dishes…

C.
Check out Psych-Artist.com now for free essays and other resources.
fluffythepinkrabbit
View Profile
New user
17 Posts

Profile of fluffythepinkrabbit
I'm sorry Colin. Randi's tv show about "cold reading" offers no more proof of anything than does John Edward's tv show about "crossing over".

If you think a couple of hours is all it takes to be a reader and charge money, go try it.

/cute'nfluffety
Colin
View Profile
Inner circle
Las Vegas
1348 Posts

Profile of Colin
It wasn't just Randi, and if someone can provide the name I recommend you try to see it.

I never said I could do it, I said it can be done, however I don't feel this is the the subject matter here.

Wither or not people have spent hours, weeks, months...If performers are SCAMMING people and not ENTERTAINING people, then I feel people should be aware of what to look out for to begin with. There is a big difference between both, and whilst I never plan to reveal anything to anyone other than people with a serious interest in this art like myself, I feel Mr Rowland done us a favour setting us apart from the people doing the scamming.

At the end of it, some people are going to work out for themselves what the cold readers are doing, and they will tell their friends (being proud of what they have worked out), so if we are connected with this method of scamming, we could be seriously tainted. The fact that we mix this with an entertainment value I feel gives us a safety net, and a more interested audience.

At the end of the day I am not trying to force my opinion on you, we are all entitled to our own. I can only share my present position and hope to convey why I feel this way.

C.
Check out Psych-Artist.com now for free essays and other resources.
mplegare
View Profile
Veteran user
Forest Grove, Oregon
310 Posts

Profile of mplegare
Quote:
On 2004-03-23 14:58, matias wrote:
Quinn - with your reasoning there is no problem to expose anything because everyone has heard of trap doors, mirrors, false counting, false shuffling, etc, etc. I do not agree that the techniques and principles exposed are unworkable, in fact, some are very, very, much used. Overall it teaches the spectators to look for methods when seeing a magician or mentalist, and this is the biggest problem.


Let's reread that last sentence again there, shall we?

Overall it teaches the spectators to look for methods when seeing a magician or mentalist, and this is the biggest problem.

Spectators... all spectators of magic or mentalism or "mental magic" look for methods to some degree or other.

Some of the most powerful mentalism I have seen was created through the use of a center tear, a peek, a switch, a shiner, or just one small, overlooked principle or "obvious" technique. The skill of the performer to distract attention from or to conceal the operation of this technique is what makes the effect powerful.

It is the ability of the performer to conceal the method which makes the performer a good magician. Plenty of magicians have said this in one form or the other over the years. Does exposure hurt? It hurts the lazy, the complacent, the smug, and the self-deluding.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

---
Tobias
tobiastheadequate.com
Matthew Legare aka Tobias the Adequate! - http://www.adequateblog.today.com - you know you want to.
Greg Owen
View Profile
Special user
623 Posts

Profile of Greg Owen
"Have you forgotten the very first thing we read in the magic box instructions? Never reveal the secret!"

Yes. And even as a kid buying my first magic trick, the hypocrisy of this statement stuck me. Surely the person who put it in a box for $2 finds the value in the secret to be in selling it!

To the Moderators: I feel that using this forum's PM facility to attempt to ruin a performer’s reputation is an act worthy of banning from the forum.

- Greg Owen - a professional performer who recognizes Mr. Roland as one
Author of The Alpha Stack ebook - the balanced memorized stack
gobeatty@yahoo.com
Thoughtreader
View Profile
Inner circle
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
1565 Posts

Profile of Thoughtreader
I really do not know why I am posting this but here goes:
EXPOSURE is EXPOSURE!!!
He exposed methods used by mentalists and magicians. He exposed thread work and he exposed cold reading. These are used by us ever day.

Now before you bring up the "he is saving people from fraud" all I can say is horse hockey. How many of you have actually sat down with a psychic and had a reading, a real psychic reading? Cold reading and impressing the client has NOTHING to do with the reading. A reader forms a relationship with the sitter. there is a connection they have and that is the focus. A good reader is there to help the client and not bilk them from money. Many times they just need someone to talk to about a problem they have. Cold reading doesn;t come into play. If these people went to see a counsellor, they are admitting they have a problem. If they see a shrink they may even be admitting they are crazy. This is not even to mention that not everyone has $200 an hour to pay those guys either. There are a lot of reasons people see psychics and it is NOT because they are merely gullable. Those people are just as gullable when they hire many poor magicians who should not be performing publicly and yet have the nerve to charge $150 for a show that looks as if it was purchased that say from a magic shop.

Ian is guilty of exposure. Period. End of story and if you don;t think that he is guilty, then fine, continue on your merry way. If you do think he is guilty, you too can continue on your way too. The fact is that Rowland belongs in the same camp as the Masked Magician. he exposed methodology that we use everyday. So did Mark Edward and he has been balck balled by every self respecting mentalist too.

PSIncerely Yours,
Paul Alberstat
AB Stagecraft
Canada's Leading Mentalist
http://www.mindguy.com
AB StageCraft
http://www.mindguy.com/store
Lord Of The Horses
View Profile
Inner circle
5410 Posts

Profile of Lord Of The Horses
Paul... well said! I agree.

It's strange how one week ago people wanted proofs... and were more than ready to believe that those video did not exist (without any other proof that thir own blind faith, by the way... a sort of paradox if you think about that!) and now that they saw the videos they HAVE TO ADMIT that they exist but... well, they are not real exposure... YEAHHH... SURE!

And for whom of you cited Randi or Penn & Teller almost as to defend the "little" Rowland did in comparison to those people... so what? Do you think two worngs make a right! Good! Then please continue to think that way! I, on the opposite, think that Randi and company (including Rowland) did much harm than good to Mentalism. Period.

And another contradiction I've noticed is that some of you always say that "exposing methods it's sort of good because force Mentalists to come up with new better method" in this thread... to defend Rowland... but in other threads, when someone asks for some methodology behind, for example, some Derren Brown's effect... the same people that here says that... answer in a very different way; with something like: "It's not right to deconstruct how Derren does his effect, you would not like that to be done to you, right?"

Well, then I could answer to them like they answer them in the same way: "Well, it's good to expose Derren Brown's workings so he will come up with better methods!" ...

Also, and I end up... for those who think that only armachair or amateur magicians are bothered by what Rowland and other expose in terms of secrets, while true professionals don't care... my question is, do you think PAUL ALBERSTAT is a professional or what?

And, for the record, one of the methods exposed by Rowland actually was a handling of an effect written by TED KARMILOVICH in MAGICK some years ago. Now... do you also consider KARMILOVICH an armachair amateur... or what?

Paolo
Then you'll rise right before my eyes, on wings that fill the sky, like a phoenix rising!
Bob Baker
View Profile
Inner circle
1105 Posts

Profile of Bob Baker
Jan, Paolo, Matias, Paul:

Bravi! But you all know you are wasting your time and expending creative energy that you could better use elsewhere. Don't torture yourselves. It ain't worth it.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

B
Mitchael
View Profile
New user
12 Posts

Profile of Mitchael
Welcome to the real world! - Morpheus

Im sure children will come along like myself and watch your performances and set out to discover your secrets. It is your task to keep them from figuring it out, and it is your task to keep the secret. Otherwise you are the exposer. You who confirm that the revealed techniques are the techniques are exposers also.

As Dad always says, "There is more than one way to skin a cat." Kinda gross but, an important concept. Getting the non-mentalist/non-magicians into a frame of mind that limits their perception of how something can be done is the misdirection you are looking for. Exposing one method, prepares those that do not set around 24/7 trying to think of other methods. Giving them one method to rest their mind on actually is even more deceptive than having absolutely no idea.

Case in point, the exposed Spoon Bend utilizing the g****d spoon, How much more effective is the performance of Banacheks Spoon/fork bend for a spectator that knows the exposed method. Where once they believed they had a firm grip on the fakeness of the spoon bend... suddenly here you are showing them their own spoon/fork bending openly right in front of their eyes. It is very close to what might be termed a conversion experience.

My new method.... in order to perform a miracle you must first make your audience sceptical, you must implant the only possible solution to what you are about to do, then show them something which according to their percieved truth is utterly impossible.

After all its not "Mission Difficult" its:

"Misson Impossible"

Peace,

Oh yeah, Ian thanks for the lecture notes and SOT. You are the most enjoyable writer of any of the books/manuscripts I have read.

You might have noticed, My new method is actually your method.... isn't it. Sorry didn't mean to take credit for it.... Smile
Lord Of The Horses
View Profile
Inner circle
5410 Posts

Profile of Lord Of The Horses
Isn't it surprising how many "new" (?) anonymous posters are appearing out of nowhere (that's real magic! Smile ) to say such non sense things as "we are the exposers and Rowland is actually a true benefactor for the magic community" ???

Paolo

So IF - and ONLY IF - WE are the exposers... then, LONG LIVE TO THE EXPOSERS!
Then you'll rise right before my eyes, on wings that fill the sky, like a phoenix rising!
bootweasel
View Profile
Regular user
124 Posts

Profile of bootweasel
Quote:
Have you ever heard of anyone who was taken advantage of by someone who, say, moved a cup with an IT loop?


I'd say pretty much everyone who bought Uri Geller's mind power kit would be a good place to start (if Uri is in fact a fraud, which I cannot prove).

Personally I think exposure shows are the wrong way to tackle the problem of con artists. Legislation forcing those who cannot scientifically prove their claims to use clear disclaimers might go some way towards better informing the public.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Ian Rowland Bashing... » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 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