We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magic names and the media » » Paul Mckenna exposes! (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
Banachek
View Profile
V.I.P.
Houston
1164 Posts

Profile of Banachek
Funny thing this exposure. The other night I was watching David Blaine on The Howard Stern show. Howard told Blaine that he had met a young lady who was so amazed by Blaine and how Blaine was able to tell her things about herself that there was no way he could have know, David must be psychic. David told Howard that "No" he was not psychic, just a "card magician", rather than leave it there though, David went into a complete explanation of cold reading and gave the lines he uses on unsuspecting Strippers, word for word. Exposing?
In thoughts and Friendship
Banachek
Campus Performer of the Year two years in a row
Year 2000 Campus Novelty Act
PEA Creativity Award Recipient
http://www.banachek.com
TheRealDeal
View Profile
New user
7 Posts

Profile of TheRealDeal
Quote:
On 2004-05-23 17:18, John Clarkson wrote:
it is a tenet of Anglo-American justice that we'd prefer to set 10 guilty men free than hang one innocent person. You may dispute the soundness of that approach, but I think I'll stick with it for the time being.

I don't dispute the soundness of that approach. It isn't even relevant to this discussion. I'm simply talking about acknowledging the fact that, while reasonable people might disagree about exposure in some instances, there are also some instances where it is very clear cut. The incident that sparked this thread, for example. It was a boorish, childish, and offensive act. Why can't we simply call it such instead of bogging down on when exposure is or isn't acceptible?

Quote:
Since I deal on a daily basis with issues that could deprive someone of life and liberty, I simply cannot muster a whole lot of righteous indignation over the exposure of the Balducci Levitation; I don't have enough energy left for that.

Nobody's asking for a lot. A small amount would be just fine.

Quote:
best I can do is to state my belief that, if we all strive for the ideal of preserving our secrets as we understand that term, magic will not perish as a result of the occasional transgression.

Obviously we don't all strive for that ideal. If we did there would be no "Masked Magician" or "Secrets of the Psychics Revealed," and Paul McKenna would keep his trap shut.

Why does the condemnation of bad behavior have to hinge on such dire consequences? There are many forms of bad behavior that have no immediate ill effects, but which have an long-term corrosive impact. There are others which are simply wrong by nature. If somebody tells a racist joke in my presence, I'll speak up, even if nobody else is around to hear it. If somebody throws a small piece of trash on the ground, I'll speak up, even though the fate of the planet obviously won't be altered by that one tiny piece. If somebody belittles my profession by blabbing a secret to the wrong ears I'll speak up there as well.


Quote:
I myself adhere to fairly traditional standards about the exposure of magic. I also recognize that reasonable people may differ.

Specifically adressing Paul McKenna's exposure, how may reasonable people differ?

Quote:
I accordance with your statement that "it doesn't have to be as absolute as some would have us believe," when I look at the list of people who have been accused of exposure, I conclude that one man's magical spy is another man's Professor.

:nose:

Actually, that's your statement. My statement was that sometimes things are pretty clear. To argue that exposure is sometimes a murky issue is fine to a degree, but if you never take a stand, if you draw the line nowhere at all, after a while it begins to look more like a smokescreen than an argument.
kinesis
View Profile
Inner circle
Scotland, surrounded by
2701 Posts

Profile of kinesis
As far as I see it McKenna shot himself in the foot. The guy's a hypnotist and yet he had to get Blaine drunk. Doesn't say much for his hypnotic powers. Smile
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein






FACEBOOK
medains
View Profile
New user
6 Posts

Profile of medains
I agree with kinesis.

Exposure of methods is going to happen, if you make a fuss about it then you will just get more people finding out...

What McKenna did wrong was presenting his relationship with Blaine (getting him drunk) - doesn't paint a rosey picture on either of them.
TheRealDeal
View Profile
New user
7 Posts

Profile of TheRealDeal
Quote:
On 2004-05-24 07:26, medains wrote:
I agree with kinesis.

Exposure of methods is going to happen, if you make a fuss about it then you will just get more people finding out...




How is criticizing it on the MagicCafe going to get more people finding out?

Quote:
What McKenna did wrong was presenting his relationship with Blaine (getting him drunk) - doesn't paint a rosey picture on either of them.





Is that the only thing he did wrong?
John Clarkson
View Profile
Special user
Santa Barbara, CA
749 Posts

Profile of John Clarkson
On 2004-05-24 02:11, TheRealDeal wrote (referring to my earlier post):
Quote:
...I don't dispute the soundness of that approach. It (a tenet of Anglo-American justice) isn't even relevant to this discussion.
The tenet of justice is relevant. We've not examined all the evidence nor heard McKenna's side of the story, yet some, apparently, are willing to hang him.

Quote:
...It (McKenna's conduct) was a boorish, childish, and offensive act. Why can't we simply call it such instead of bogging down on when exposure is or isn't acceptible
One could call it that. In fact, one did.

Quote:
...Nobody's asking for a lot (of righteous indignation). A small amount would be just fine.
I've stated that I myself would not reveal the Balducci Levitation. Because keeping my own house in order is a full-time job, I'm unable (or unwilling) to summon the sanctimony it requires to presume to live other people's lives for them.

Quote:
...Why does the condemnation of bad behavior have to hinge on such dire consequences? ....If somebody tells a racist joke in my presence, I'll speak up, even if nobody else is around to hear it.
On this, we agree. My protest to the joke-teller is a statement that I don't find racism (or sexism or homophobia) funny. I refrain from telling him whether he should continue to tell the joke. And, I doubt that I'd go (under most circumstances) to an Internet forum to complain about the joke.

Quote:
If somebody belittles my profession by blabbing a secret to the wrong ears I'll speak up there as well.
Have you spoken with McKenna about this?

Quote:
Specifically adressing Paul McKenna's exposure, how may reasonable people differ?
Difficult to say until we hear McKenna's side of the argument. Some reasonable people may think that exposing the Balducci Revelation on radio is about as effective as holding a beauty pageant on the radio.

Quote:
To argue that exposure is sometimes a murky issue is fine to a degree, but if you never take a stand, if you draw the line nowhere at all, after a while it begins to look more like a smokescreen than an argument.
And, that, RealDeal, is precisely the attitude I object to. You have concluded that it is clear, and, therefore, if others are unwilling to conclude the same, their position is merely a smokescreen. My goodness, what have you imagined I am trying to hide with a smokescreen? No, never mind, I really don't care.

I'll stick with my original propositions: (1) I would not reveal the Balducci Levitation. (2) Reasonable people can differ about the boundaries of acceptable exposure. (3) I do not know what McKenna may have been thinking or what his motivation may have been. (4) I am not convinced that, at least in this case, punitive measures such as boycotts and shunning would be appropriate. (5) I have no reserve of righteous indignation to draw upon for something as relatively trivial as the possible exposure of the Balducci Levitation--or the 21-Card Trick-- by radio.

You may disagree with me without my calling into question whether you are hiding some some grievous defect. As I say, I've got neither the time nor the inclination to continue with this. I am, however, looking forward to reading your posts in other threads.

:nose:

Quote:
On 2004-05-24 01:36, Banachek wrote:... David went into a complete explanation of cold reading and gave the lines he uses on unsuspecting Strippers, word for word. Exposing?
Steve, you've pointed to probably one of the most difficult areas when it comes to exposure. What do you think about what you heard Blaine say?

:nose:
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
John, I'm going back to my real name on this one since this is not the sort of discussion that should proceed under anonymity.


Quote:
The tenet of justice is relevant. We've not examined all the evidence nor heard McKenna's side of the story, yet some, apparently, are willing to hang him.


No, bringing it up is a straw man fallacy, since at no time did I call it into question. Implying that I am trying to "hang him" is useless hyperbole, considering that I merely called the behavior as reported boorish and offensive. I called for no boycots, no sanctions whatsoever.


Quote:
...It (McKenna's conduct) was a boorish, childish, and offensive act. Why can't we simply call it such instead of bogging down on when exposure is or isn't acceptible
One could call it that. In fact, one did.
[/quote]

And yet when I did, you responded with the suggestion that taking offense was tantamount to McCarthyism. That's just ridiculous.



quote]I've stated that I myself would not reveal the Balducci Levitation. Because keeping my own house in order is a full-time job, I'm unable (or unwilling) to summon the sanctimony it requires to presume to live other people's lives for them.
[/quote]

If you can't see the irony in this, you're not looking. This thread was started with the reporting of an unfortunate incident and a series of comments by people to the effect that they thought it was tacky, unwarranted, and belittling. These people were quickly told they were over-reacting, and you brought up the specter of McCarthyism, equating even a very mild criticism of a specific incident of exposure with a very dark period in American history. It is not the criticism of McKenna that is sanctimonious in this case. The sanctimony lies in your presumption to know what we should find offensive and what is an appropriate response. All I'm asking for is the right to say, "The behavior as reported offends me. I don't think it is morally right," without the demagogic insinuation that speaking my mind is equivalent to McCarthyism.


Quote:
If somebody belittles my profession by blabbing a secret to the wrong ears I'll speak up there as well.
Have you spoken with McKenna about this?
[/quote]

That is a very good suggestion, and I will try that next.


Quote:
Specifically adressing Paul McKenna's exposure, how may reasonable people differ?
Difficult to say until we hear McKenna's side of the argument. Some reasonable people may think that exposing the Balducci Revelation on radio is about as effective as holding a beauty pageant on the radio.

[/quote]
Hypothesize. What sort of situations might make it acceptible? Permission from Blaine? Protection of the masses? Ineffectuality of the exposure? I'll grant that we don't have all the information, but this is an imperfect world, and this is only a discussion forum; nobody is REALLY on trial. Based on the information we have, it appears that none of the above apply. If you disagree, then lets get to details.


Quote:
To argue that exposure is sometimes a murky issue is fine to a degree, but if you never take a stand, if you draw the line nowhere at all, after a while it begins to look more like a smokescreen than an argument.
And, that, RealDeal, is precisely the attitude I object to. You have concluded that it is clear, and, therefore, if others are unwilling to conclude the same, their position is merely a smokescreen. My goodness, what have you imagined I am trying to hide with a smokescreen? No, never mind, I really don't care.
[/quote]

You misconstrue me. I am stating the fact that, given what I know, it appears clear to me. I am trying to draw you, or others, into a discussion of this particular incident, without having to move into the realm of the abstract. What I imagine is that you're trying to avoid specific discussion of a specific incident, while at the same time implying(or sometimes overtly stating) that those who do object to a specific incident of exposure are sanctimonious for doing so. Apparently you imagine that I'm opposed to a standard tenet of American Jurisprudence. If we're wrong about each other, I'd say we're probably about even.

[/quote]
You may disagree with me without my calling into question whether you are hiding some some grievous defect.
[/quote]

Ah, but there's the rub! That is precisely what you did when you brought up McCarthyism, and when you suggested, wrongly, that I opposed certain specific legal principles. All I did was maintain that some of the "greats" you listed, particularly Dunninger, really did engage in behavior worthy of approbation, and you took it on an offensive and dishonest tangent.

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

Profile of John Clarkson
Quote:
On 2004-05-24 11:49, christopher carter wrote:
John, I'm going back to my real name on this one since this is not the sort of discussion that should proceed under anonymity.
Thank you, Chris. I am not sure what circumstances would justify the discussion start under the veil of anonymity.


Quote:
...No, bringing it up (the tenet of justice) is a straw man fallacy, since at no time did I call it into question.
Actually, you said it was irrelevant. It isn't. "Hanging" merely furthered the metaphor. No, you have not advocated capital punishment. You have merely appeared anonymously in an Internet forum and called the guy "boorish, childish, offensive." You later reveal that you have not talked with McKenna himself. That sounds like a verdict before all the evidence is in.

Quote:
I called for no boycots, no sanctions whatsoever.
To your credit, you did not. Not everything in my posts was directed to you, Chris.

Quote:
...you responded with the suggestion that taking offense was tantamount to McCarthyism. That's just ridiculous.
No, Chris, I suggested that the rampant emotionalism, the lack of rationality, and the tendency that arises to find guilt by association when this topic arises is tantamount to McCarthyism. I was not referring to you or your post. See below.

Quote:
If you can't see the irony in this (sanctimony), you're not looking. ..., and you brought up the specter of McCarthyism, equating even a very mild criticism of a specific incident of exposure with a very dark period in American history ... (a)demagogic insinuation that speaking my mind is equivalent to McCarthyism.
I did not equate your speaking your mind to McCarthyism. You seem to base most of your response on this assertion, Chris. It simply didn't happen. My reference to McCarthyism was in the context of my immediately preceding comment that some people condemn Banachek because he is friends with Randi, who has, some claim, exposed. I myself have received horridly hateful e-mail from a noted mentalist using language to indicate that he would rejoice in the news of my death...because, if you can believe it, I defended a person's right to have differing opinions about exposure (while making it clear that I did not share that person's view of exposure). That, I maintain, is McCarthyism. It has nothing to do with you.

Quote:
That is a very good suggestion (speaking directly with McKenna), and I will try that next.
It would be interesting to know his response. If you feel you can share it, I'd be eager to hear it.

Quote:
I am trying to draw you, or others, into a discussion of this particular incident, without having to move into the realm of the abstract.
Yes, that is exactly what I intend to do. If I have a problem with an individual, I'll take it up directly with him, not by general discussion about him on the Magic Café (and certainly not under the protection of a quickly-registered moniker to insure anonymity.) I am, however, willing to discuss the abstracts. Chris, you and I have done that in the past, by e-mail, and I thought it had been a productive exchange.

:nose:
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)
shrink
View Profile
Inner circle
2609 Posts

Profile of shrink
This exposure thing always ends up more complicated than it should be. Its really simple you are for or against or on the fence. Everything else is just hot air.


I am against. However I am also realistic. Emotional detachment is the best policy. Whats the point of getting upset about something you can not do much about. Just accept part of magic is exposure. And certain people will sell out for a very small price.

Ive never been a fan of Paul Mckenna I think he is a very fortunate man. His days as a radio 1 DJ set him up and put the contacts on a plate for him. I think he is a very average performer who got lucky.
kaytracy
View Profile
Inner circle
Central California
1793 Posts

Profile of kaytracy
Just to throw this into the mix, there are a large number of folks who DO have a brain, and may not have computers to google things. They also rather enjoy seeing magic and illusions. Revealing it does them no favors. My Mother does not have a computer, but still enjoys seeing magic, and not just the odd bits I do for her! I do the worlds worst linking rings, but I manage to never give the secret, my mother loves it. Does she know it is a trick? Of course, but she does not care, or want to know "How it is done". she likes the effect.

I might suggest that some of you who think exposure does no harm consider talking to a larger segment if your audiences. Maybe its just me, but most of the folks I perform for would rather enjoy the effect, than the secret. True, I get the usual "How did you do that?!" and I always respond with a smile and the standard, "It's Magic." To any who press me, I tell them when they show me some magic, I will then work with them.
For someone who says they had to get someone drunk to get a secret out of a person, well, might be because I am female, but that is basically "Date Rape", even if it was only mind sex to get what he wanted, and not a physical act. Bad Karma, Bad Manners, and Very Bad Ethics. Not anyone I would ever consider seeing perform, or lecture, Thanks for the heads up.
Kay and Tory
www.Bizarremagick.com
christopher carter
View Profile
Special user
660 Posts

Profile of christopher carter
John, there are quite a lot of reasons a working professional would want to avoid direct name recognition on a magic forum. Unfortunately, it is clear to me that the downsides outweigh the upsides. It was an experiment that just didn't work out to my satisfaction.

It should be understood that any conclusions about anybody's behavior are provisional. Most people on these boards can understand that, I believe. If it is more to your liking, I will reprhase: If the reports are accurate, then McKenna's actions are/were boorish and offensive. Since I have heard substantially similar reports from several independent witnesses now, I believe that the reports probably are accurate. I don't mind being shown wrong, but as I have said it is an imperfect world and we can't avoid making judgements, even if provisional. Again, if they are accurate, I can see no reasonable justification for them. Certainly they appear to violate those conditions that you and I agreed upon as to what constitutes "acceptible exposure." That you don't acknowlege this, even as a thought experiment, baffles me.

The issue of jurisprudence IS a straw man. First, my argument is clearly moral and ethical, not legal. Second, my argument was related to a specific statment you made: (paraphrase) 'many great magicians/mentalists have been accused of exposure.' While this was not specifically an argument, you acted as if several conclusions came from it. First, you acted as if their greatness nullified any bad behavior they might have committed. Second, you acted as if being accused of exposure was sufficient to cause inclusion in an exclusive club; ie. 'you're in good company.' Neither of these conclusions follow from the premise. Stature in the field is not an excuse for bad behavior when it has happened, and because sometimes people go to extremes, it does not follow that all who have been accused of exposure have not been guilty of exposure. While there is some room for disagreement, practically one does have to draw the line in the sand somewhere. Further, all justifications for exposure are not equally valid. By failing to ever take a stand on what constitues unacceptible exposure, and by bringing up the McCarthy metaphor, you create the impression of deep disdain for those who would draw the line anywhere.

Your lecture about the gravity of you job is shockingly disrespectful, and well beyond sanctimonious. It's just plain pompous! So you deal with life and death issues every day!? Therefore issues of exposure are trivial to you. Obviously I'm glad I'm not in your shoes. As an argument, this is just an effort to marginalize the arguments of those who don't find exposure so trivial. It shows no compassion whatsoever for those who do earn their living from performance, and no respect for the legacy and hertitage given to us by the creators of the exposed effect. Just because a particular exposure isn't meaningful to you doesn't mean it isn't meaningful to others whose opinions you SHOULD respect.

--Chris
appletruth
View Profile
New user
81 Posts

Profile of appletruth
Quote:
Big difference Appletruth. On TV, radio and such it is shoved in the faces of the masses whether they want it or not.-Banachek

Oh really! I do not know about the masses but I for one FEEL I can consent or reject to a great extant what I view, listen, or read on the TV, radio, and newspaper simply by channel flipping, turning the OFF or ON button, closing my eyes, covering my ears, walking away, and putting down the paper. What about you, do you FEEL you have some control over what you watch, what you listen too and what you read? How and why do the masses have the TV and radio shoved in their faces whether they want it or not?
Quote:
A magic book one has to take the time and energy to search what one is looking for. Then one has to take the time to read it. This is all an investment.-Banachek

Does it not take an investment of ones time and energy in searching and watching/listening to the TV or radio?
Quote:
TV really can't be equated that way, TV/newspapers are all a part of everyday life, reading a magic book is not. Buying a magic book is not. Very, very different animals.-Banachek

TV/newspapers are not a necessity for life therefore not necessarily an aspect of ones everyday life.
Quote:
To equate the two, in my opinion is just playing semantics and really seems to be arguing for the sake of arguments sake. A waste of time in my opinion.-Banachek

A waste of time if one is not open to the idea of changing there opinions, then yes, I would agree such a discussion is perhaps a waste of time. I’m not arguing for the sake of argument. I’m arguing for understanding. You have not giving sufficient reasons why not to equate the two. Your statements, rather then discerning a difference between them, gather support for equating them.
Quote:
Appletruth, are you saying that there should be no magic books or are you saying exposure is okay? If you are equating magic books on the same level of exposure then you must be making a clear statement of one or the other!-Banachek

What makes you believe I expressed a belief in any of these statements? I am just questioning and asserting that the criteria you applied to differentiate exposure from non-exposure expresses them as being the same. Either this is the case or you need to expand or clarify for me to understand.

Regards,
Appletruth
salsa_dancer
View Profile
Inner circle
1935 Posts

Profile of salsa_dancer
Quote:
On 2004-05-24 19:17, appletruth wrote:
Quote:
Big difference Appletruth. On TV, radio and such it is shoved in the faces of the masses whether they want it or not.-Banachek

Oh really! I do not know about the masses but I for one FEEL I can consent or reject to a great extant what I view, listen, or read on the TV, radio, and newspaper simply by channel flipping, turning the OFF or ON button, closing my eyes, covering my ears, walking away, and putting down the paper. What about you, do you FEEL you have some control over what you watch, what you listen too and what you read? How and why do the masses have the TV and radio shoved in their faces whether they want it or not?



I think what Banachek stated here is that it more likely that someone will stumble across the information in a more wide spread media than a book that is available in a magic store.... You yourself stated that you channel hop, so it is right to assume that others may do this and land on the show that exposes something?

What is worse is that you probably know this, which means you are prolonging the argument for the sake of the argument, not the cause..
John Clarkson
View Profile
Special user
Santa Barbara, CA
749 Posts

Profile of John Clarkson
Quote:
On 2004-05-24 18:33, christopher carter wrote:
... Second, my argument was related to a specific statement you made: (paraphrase) 'many great magicians/mentalists have been accused of exposure.' While this was not specifically an argument, you acted as if several conclusions came from it. First, you acted as if their greatness nullified any bad behavior they might have committed. Second, you acted as if being accused of exposure was sufficient to cause inclusion in an exclusive club; ie. 'you're in good company.' Neither of these conclusions follow from the premise.
You paraphrase my statement, posit (inaccurately), what my conclusions were, then you attack them. Goodness! Talk about strawmen arguments! My statement was that if we shun and boycott everyone whom anyone has ever accused of exposure, we would miss out on some greats of magic. That's the extent of it. The rest of your argument here, addresses your inaccurate projections about what I meant. I'll, therefore, not respond.

Quote:
Your lecture about the gravity of you job is shockingly disrespectful, and well beyond sanctimonious. It's just plain pompous! So you deal with life and death issues every day!?
You and I clearly have a different definition of "lecture." I stated that in light of the issues I deal with on a daily basis, it was hard for me to must much emotion over the revelation of the Balducci Levitation. If that seems pompous, Chris, so be it.

Quote:
...It (John's position) shows no compassion whatsoever for those who do earn their living from performance, and no respect for the legacy and hertitage given to us by the creators of the exposed effect.
Thank you, Chris. I was pretty sure that those are not my feelings and thoughts, but I'll defer to your psychic ability here...

Quote:
Just because a particular exposure isn't meaningful to you doesn't mean it isn't meaningful to others whose opinions you SHOULD respect.
The only thing I haven't respected, Chris, is the anonymous attacks on an individual. I have nothing but respect for the fact that exposure makes you feel bad. You can, therefor, respect the fact that it doesn't mean I am pompous if my emotional threshold is not the same as yours. I have stated that I would not have revealed the Levitation. I can add that I wish the McKenna didn't (if it turns out that he did.) I draw the line, I guess, at calling the man names in a public forum.
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)
appletruth
View Profile
New user
81 Posts

Profile of appletruth
Quote:
I think what Banachek stated here is that it more likely that someone will stumble across the information in a more wide spread media than a book that is available in a magic store.... You yourself stated that you channel hop, so it is right to assume that others may do this and land on the show that exposes something?-salsa_dancer

So what I think you are telling me is the burden of unwanted exposure rests on the receiver rather then the giver. Exposure is defined by the quantity of people who receive the information and not by the criteria set by the giver for those who should be allowed to receive it... do I have this right? If not, what is it that you're trying to say?
Quote:
What is worse is that you probably know this, which means you are prolonging the argument for the sake of the argument, not the cause..-salsa_dancer

What is worse, salsa_dancer, is you seemed to have carelessly danced through my last post.
Banachek
View Profile
V.I.P.
Houston
1164 Posts

Profile of Banachek
Appletruth, this is getting silly. You are arguing for the sack of argument.

Surely you are smart enough to know that one can be watching a show they like and all of a sudden, something comes on that they did not expect, too late to change the TV.

Media is a part of almost all people's life in the US, I never said they were a necessity, never. Just that they are part of every day life. Surely you know that too.

And yes it takes time to find the program you may want to watch, however, what is on that program, like the McKenna statements are unexpected, surely you also know that. You seem very smart. Seems this was the problem with the Janet Jackson fiasco on the superbowl. Kids were watching, not enough time to change the set and they all saw some unexepected booby.

Surely you also know it takes very litte effort to pick up the remote and switch on the TV to your favorite show. Very little effort at all. I don't have to turn the computer on and order it since I get cable (yes I have to pay the bill and yes I had to subscribe but heck even you know that was not to get the McKenna statements unlike a magic book you would have to be specifically going out of your way to purchase for specific information)

YOu ask how I came to the conclusion of your expressed belief in two statmens. What makes me believe you either must believe one of those statments or are just playing a game is your own statement in rebuttle of mine stating there is a difference between TV exposures and magic books, you seem to think there is no difference therefore you have to be stating that either exposure is okay or two that that magic books are wrong. If the exposure is equal in each case (as you stated) it has to be one or the other. To put it nother way in case you still do not understand, if magic books and tv exposure equal the same as you suggest, then if if exposure is wrong, magic books are wrong. If magic books are okay then exposure is okay. Your rules Appletruth, not mine. I personally think there is a dfiference, from your words you either do not think there is or are arguing for the sake of arguing. Here is your quote below:

Quote: "These books and videos cost money just as one needs to purchase TVs, radios, antennas, satellites and cable channels. Money segregates only those who have money from those who do not. The means of delivering information you deemed not being exposure seems to parallel the unwanted exposure that can be found on TV and radio."

Again, that was in reference to my Magic books and TV being two different animals.

I'm tiring of this actually, it is silly. I did not want to get into an argument on this, just wanted to calm things down on both sides. I felt we should be concerened about exposures and work on stopping them in a positive civil way and not get fantatical about it. Seems that message has been lost.
In thoughts and Friendship
Banachek
Campus Performer of the Year two years in a row
Year 2000 Campus Novelty Act
PEA Creativity Award Recipient
http://www.banachek.com
salsa_dancer
View Profile
Inner circle
1935 Posts

Profile of salsa_dancer
Quote:
On 2004-05-24 20:58, appletruth wrote:
Quote:
I think what Banachek stated here is that it more likely that someone will stumble across the information in a more wide spread media than a book that is available in a magic store.... You yourself stated that you channel hop, so it is right to assume that others may do this and land on the show that exposes something?-salsa_dancer

So what I think you are telling me is the burden of unwanted exposure rests on the receiver rather then the giver. Exposure is defined by the quantity of people who receive the information and not by the criteria set by the giver for those who should be allowed to receive it... do I have this right? If not, what is it that you're trying to say?


No, I am saying the burden lies with the giver.. The media in which a person puts out information is the discussion here. Information given for study to further someone in the art of magic is not exposure. A TV show called Mentalists / Magicians 'Exposed' is, and has been put into this format for an explicit purpose...


Quote:
What is worse is that you probably know this, which means you are prolonging the argument for the sake of the argument, not the cause..-salsa_dancer

Quote:
What is worse, salsa_dancer, is you seemed to have carelessly danced through my last post.


I didn't dance through anything, you stated you were arguing for understanding... I just fail to see how one can 'argue' to understand. By its very nature it cannot happen.. now if you are 'questioning' to understand then that is a different matter entirely... Smile

It is hard to have a discussion using this medium as tonal inflections cannot be expressed and words can be taken to mean different things, and of course you have the language barriers that transcends the Internet...

I don't want to be drawn into philisophical discussions, I am here to further my learning so I will kindly bow out of the conversation. Thank You.. Smile
christopher carter
View Profile
Special user
660 Posts

Profile of christopher carter
On 2004-05-24 20:26, John Clarkson wrote:
Quote:
You paraphrase my statement, posit (inaccurately), what my conclusions were, then you attack them. Goodness! Talk about strawmen arguments! My statement was that if we shun and boycott everyone whom anyone has ever accused of exposure, we would miss out on some greats of magic. That's the extent of it. The rest of your argument here, addresses your inaccurate projections about what I meant. I'll, therefore, not respond.


Fair enough, but you are taking this somewhat out of context. My paraphrasing and discussion above is primarily an attempt to relate the history of this exchange without having to transcribe entire posts. I can accept that I mistook some or even all of your meaning, and to that end I won't attempt to defend my errors. Nonetheless, when I wrote "To borrow your metaphor, why should condemning McCarthyism require excusing actual spies?" I was making a legitimate point. Your response, "Moreover, it is a tenet of Anglo American justice that we prefer to set 10 guilty men free than hang one innocent person. You may dispute the soundness of that approach, but I think I'll stick with it for the time being" does not address the point I was making and does attribute to me a claim that I most explicitly did not make. I have pointed this out to you multiple times and you have yet to acknowlege it.


Quote:
Just because a particular exposure isn't meaningful to you doesn't mean it isn't meaningful to others whose opinions you SHOULD respect.
The only thing I haven't respected, Chris, is the anonymous attacks on an individual. I have nothing but respect for the fact that exposure makes you feel bad. You can, therefor, respect the fact that it doesn't mean I am pompous if my emotional threshold is not the same as yours.[/quote]

Perhaps we would both do well to re-examine the tenor of our rhetoric. Your comments re: the gravity of your job did indeed appear to be directed toward those who are bothered by the exposure in question, as if to say "your issues are trivial compared to mine." They still do look that way to me, but I'll gladly accept that they aren't meant that way. Most of my harshness was, I believe, precipitated by my reaction to that. I guess I don't understand how you can't muster some pique on behalf of those who are injured by such exposure. To frame it as an issue of differing thresholds is not something I can easily comprehend. Obviously there is an emotional component to all this that keeps me from seeing it with cool detachment.

You are right, of course, that I should not have posted my criticism of McKenna anonymously. I could see that, and took steps to rectify it. My criticism stands, but at least it's now under my own name.

--Chris
7th_Son
View Profile
Elite user
Australia
437 Posts

Profile of 7th_Son
Quote:
On 2004-05-22 00:13, Darko Dojin wrote:
Besides, everybody knows about the Balducci and Blaine's use of it so the harm done is pretty minimal.


Not true. Every *magician* knows about Balducci and Blaine, but most muggles have no idea.
"Here's to our wives and girlfriends...may they never meet!" - Groucho Marx
John Clarkson
View Profile
Special user
Santa Barbara, CA
749 Posts

Profile of John Clarkson
Quote:
On 2004-05-24 23:09, christopher carter wrote:
... Nonetheless, when I wrote "To borrow your metaphor, why should condemning McCarthyism require excusing actual spies?" I was making a legitimate point. Your response, "Moreover, it is a tenet of Anglo American justice that we prefer to set 10 guilty men free than hang one innocent person. You may dispute the soundness of that approach, but I think I'll stick with it for the time being" does not address the point I was making and does attribute to me a claim that I most explicitly did not make. I have pointed this out to you multiple times and you have yet to acknowlege it.
Sorry you feel I did not acknowledge your point. I thought I had. My meaning was that, as in Anglo-American law, I am willing to let 10 guilty men go free (parallel: ignore ten exposers) if by doing so we insure fair treatment of the innocent or somehow strengthen another, more important, principle. McCarthyism, in my view, ignored that principle and was willing to hang any number of innocent people to "get" the one guilty party. Thwarting a system of McCarthyism may very well mean "excusing" (or ignoring) the single guilty party. I can live with that. As I said, Chris, you may dispute the soundness of the traditional Anglo-American common law approach (and I wouldn't think it unreasonable for you to do so); in fact, there are times I wonder about it myself. I will, however, adhere to the principle until I can figure out something better.

Quote:
Perhaps we would both do well to re-examine the tenor of our rhetoric. Your comments re: the gravity of your job did indeed appear to be directed toward those who are bothered by the exposure in question, as if to say "your issues are trivial compared to mine."
I can see how you might have taken it that way, but that is not what I meant. I meant what I said: after dealing with the problems that some of my clients face, at the end of the day, I really simply do not have the energy to muster much emotion for the exposure of the Balducci Levitation. Let me try to put it in context: Yesterday, a client came in to see me unexpectedly. We had talked about a month before. He has AIDS and has some money, but there are no people in his life. He is a really nice, gentle guy, but he is completely alone. He wanted me to help him do some good with his money after he dies. Yesterday, he came in and looked terrible. He told me we needed to work faster because he has also developed a type of cancer and he has decided not to treat it, since treatment will only prolong his life for a short time, if at all, and the treatment itself is very uncomfortable. Now, it's not that I am so important, Chris, but, honestly, after days like yesterday, I just don't feel much when I log onto the Magic Café and read that someone has tipped the 21-Card Trick or the Balducci Levitation on the radio. Intellectually I make a judgment (which I have expressed here: I would not have revealed it and I wish it had not been revealed.) But, emotionally not much happens. Maybe if I dealt with other things in my life, my emotional priorities would be different. However, I do deal with those issues and I simply cannot feel apologetic for not feeling much emotion over this particular exposure.

My guess, Chris, especially after our past private e-mails, is that we agree with respect to principles and definitions here. Where we seem to differ is with respect to emotional response, and, perhaps, as to what course of action one should take in the face of another person's exposure.

I am still open to discussing the abstracts, the principles. I am not, however, willing to discuss a particular individual, especially if he is not present to defend himself. I can't speak for others, but I would gain more by clarifying concepts and ideas than by discussing personalities. My goal would be to insure that I walk the line, rather than to decide whether someone else is taking the same path.

So, here's an abstract perhaps we could beat to death: from what does the duty not to reveal a secret of magic emanate? Is there something inherently unethical about exposure, or is exposure unethical only because we have promised not to reveal secrets? In other words, is the sin the exposure itself, or the breach of some promise not to expose?

:nose:
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)
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magic names and the media » » Paul Mckenna exposes! (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 0.48 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