On Jul 21, 2017, phedonbilek wrote:
There is nothing to back up I'm afraid Rolyan. Reza has an agenda. I stopped writing because he's gonna quote each sentence and analyze every single word's etymology.

I guess some people need, love confrontation. I don't. Be well Reza.

Phedon

On Jul 21, 2017, phedonbilek wrote:
Ok Reza. Point taken. I don't care about all this actually. I get you don't like it. I'm surprised with what Michael Murray told you as Proteus is his new go-to effect. Unless he's lying in my face. But... enough of this. Really.

Peace? 🙃 Like... agree to disagree? Something like that? 🙂

On Jul 21, 2017, MadisonH wrote:
The March Hare,

I can tell you for a fact Michael Murray has memorized it and is using it. I believe he is just using the basic one or the extended one. I'm not sure where you found your claim, but if so, maybe he meant he hasn't memorized his own 40-out variant (and I don't blame him because I'm using the one exactly as written in the book with much success.)

Madison

On Jul 21, 2017, tomd wrote:
Reza,

I appreciate your review.

Just don't see the point in making claims about how others (unknown to us) feel about the effect, if when asked to clarify you won't. If you don't want to "expose" who, don't mention it. It doesn't help anyone, and brings into question the authenticity of the claim in the first place.

But other then that, your review was food for thought.. I now have the book, and will read tomorrow, test, and review on here.

On Jul 21, 2017, The_March_Hare:

He said this at the beginning of his ebook:

"WORD OF CAUTION:
I have only been playing with this routine for a few weeks now, the thoughts contained within this booklet are simply my initial thoughts on this subject and should be treated as such.
I am by no means an expert on this routine and as such, I may develop these thoughts further. If this happens I will report back to you with my updated findings!"

It doesn't exactly sound like he is proficient in it and has tested it out a bunch of times before giving his endorsement does it?

On Jul 21, 2017, MadisonH wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 21, 2017, The_March_Hare:

He said this at the beginning of his ebook:

"WORD OF CAUTION:
I have only been playing with this routine for a few weeks now, the thoughts contained within this booklet are simply my initial thoughts on this subject and should be treated as such.
I am by no means an expert on this routine and as such, I may develop these thoughts further. If this happens I will report back to you with my updated findings!"

It doesn't exactly sound like he is proficient in it and has tested it out a bunch of times before giving his endorsement does it?

This proves you're simply a troll.

Michael is clearly saying he isn't finished with this and is still thinking and working on it.

Madison

On Jul 21, 2017, phedonbilek wrote:
I offered peace. You didn't even mention it. Completely ignored it in fact.

Thank you for making my point, "Reza" (loved the subtle way you introduced your "name". It would fool my niece). 20 posts mostly on this thread. And still: we fell for it 🤓

Whoever you are, you proved Marion's right as well. We all fed you. I won't anymore. Troll on... "Reza".

Phedon

On Jul 21, 2017, The_March_Hare wrote:
Do you honestly think that when he gave his endorsement, he had performed it in public a bunch of times and knew about how well it would hit or was he giving his opinion of the principles in the effect itself and how well he thought that it would work? And no this does not make someone a troll. Instead of simply labeling people things, why don't you engage their arguments?

On Jul 21, 2017, The_March_Hare wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 21, 2017, Rolyan wrote:
Reza (The March Hare) - can you please clarify something.

You have written that most of the 'big' names out there that are endorsing it have said that they have not spent much time performing it and they have said that they couldn't without staring at the book. That is a huge claim to make, and I haven't seen it anywhere, so can you back it up. Who are these big names you refer to and where have they said the things you say they've said. Without you providing that evidence, then many will question your motives.

As this thread has now been hi-jacked, I would advise anyone considering this as a purchase to contact the author direct, or any of the other Café members who say it works for them, and ask relevant questions in private. That will stop more public revelations and help them make their own mind up.

Read Michael Murray's PDF, he says himself that he is still working on it and is not at that point of feeling comfortable to perform it live. The other people I am not going to expose because that is not my intention. I only mention Michael Murray because he did not hide this fact and there is no harm in saying so. However the point of what I said was not to expose anyone for endorsing a product that they have not quite tested out that much. There are others who are my personal friends that endorsed the book and gave me their opinion without having actually put it to much use and again we can have a difference of opinion.

People can question my motives but what motives would I have? I have no competing product on the market, I am not pushing another product by a friend of mine that would compete with this so what motive do you think that I would have? I'm sorry but not everyone who writes a negative review has some secret hidden motive. I gave specific reasons why I didn't like the product and you can take it for what it is.

Furthermore, by saying "contact the creator and ask him", he has a direct motive to push his product. You cannot one minute say "I think that you Reza, with no connection to the creator have an alternative motive because you wrote a negative review" and then on the other side of your mouth talk about how people should take the creator at face value for what he says. I brought up many problems with his own advertising, such as claiming that it is 100% and then the next minute saying that it is only 90%. He admitted in his responses to me that his advertising was not honest when it said that it was easy and could be learned rather quickly.

In the book itself he says that he wrote it on one night and immediately tried it out on his wife and with people over the phone. Yet somehow when other people try it out under this same scenario, they haven't put the proper practice into it and are not honest. I actually spent more time learning this than I ever did with COG and yet COG immediately allowed for hits. COG was also minimal in procedure and felt more like mind reading. If this offends you, then that is not my problem because I stuck to the topic and gave an honest opinion. You don't agree with my opinion, fine but by diverting the conversation to me having an alternative motive, that is silly.

I literally said that I am a huge fan of most of the people who endorsed it. However we need to be able to scrutinize ideas and give our honest opinions. If every time someone gives their opinion about the product you attack the person and their character, you are only hindering an honest and open dialogue about whether or not this product is good or not. Like I said, if you like it and are getting tons of hits from it then fantastic. If you read the threads that pertain to COG, tons of people said that they absolutely hated it and couldn't get it to hit. I wasn't offended because it allowed me to buy more than one copy of it and be one of the only people consistently performing it. If this is a great product, the best mind reading tool ever invented, you should be happy that I will not be using it and don't like it. Instead you get all defensive about it and feel the need to defend it.

On Jul 21, 2017, Max Hazy wrote:
Enough information here to make an informed decision. I just purchased it from penguin. Let's see how it goes in portuguese.

Cheers

On Jul 21, 2017, MadisonH wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 21, 2017, The_March_Hare wrote:
Do you honestly think that when he gave his endorsement, he had performed it in public a bunch of times and knew about how well it would hit or was he giving his opinion of the principles in the effect itself and how well he thought that it would work? And no this does not make someone a troll. Instead of simply labeling people things, why don't you engage their arguments?

Yes. If you'd like to discuss further, please PM me so we don't dirty up the thread.

You're free to share you're review, it's highly encouraged! I knew everyone wouldn't like this the moment I read it. It takes a certain performance style and a boldness which not all performers have. I highly respect your review and opinions of this trick. What I don't respect is the character bashing you've done. Again, feel free to pm me if you'd like to chat further.

Have a great day!
Madison