Does this make a difference in my understanding of how you get to the belief that wanted exposures (books, videos/DVDs, etc) are different from unwanted exposures (TV, radio, etc)? I’m not sure if this is what you’re asking but if it is what you’re asking, my answer is unfortunately, no.

I think I’ve already given a response to this point earlier without receiving a clear response back from you. I’ll repost it incase it was overlooked.

“So are you telling me that unwanted exposure is measured by comparing the difficulty of engaging in one medium over another? If this is the case then all one needs to do is compare the difficulty of engaging in a magic book to something that is perceived more difficult to engage in to make the magic book an unwanted exposure. That, I think, would seem to be a funny way to define unwanted exposure.�

When you say, “‘I’ was the exposer�, do you mean that you now consider your action of offering your girlfriend access to information an undesirable act of exposing something you feel should be kept off limits to her? I’m confused with how you’re using the word exposer, such as an exposer that you consider okay or one that you consider not okay.

So she thought it was ‘worth watching’ but she had no desire to learn the secrets. If she did not desire to learn the secrets then what was the worth she saw in the show and why did she watch it? If the show is about exposing magic secrets and she decided to watch it, it seems obvious to me she had a desire to learn them. It’s hard to make sense of why people do the things they do without them having the desire to do them…don’t you think?

Regards,
Appletruth

Appletruth,

I am sorry, I am obviously struggling to communicate correctly and get my point across, I am sure it is my problem not yours.

Thanks for the discussion anyway.

Regards,

Richard

Dai, I take intent into consideration strongly, too. But, you know, it's an awfully difficult issue. Our legal system has struggled with concepts of "intent" since its inception. And, in spite of centuries of dealing with it, we've never settled on a single standard. Sometimes, we use a subjective test of intent: "what did this particular person actually mean to do?" Sometimes, we simply posit that subjective intent is not important, but that a person "intended" precisely what the foreseeable consequences of his/her actions were. For instance, if a person intentionally discharges a machine gun into a crowd of people, if someone in the crowd is killed, the shooter will be held responsible for the homicide even if throughout the time he was firing his thought was, "I sure hope no-one gets hit." Most of us would consider that fair. In essence, I think, the law has, in some circumstances (by necessity), copped out on the intent argument, deciding that sometimes the impact of behavior is so severe that we don't really care what the actor's intent was. Or, maybe it's just that we don't believe him when he says he didn't intend to hurt anyone. It is a balancing act between intent and one of the other factors I listed: likely impact. Of course, with exposure of magical secrets no one gets killed, but some professionals feel that their livelihood is endangered. So, once again, we see that "impact or likely impact" is, perhaps, a weightier factor than it might seem at first. It's a complicated calculus. That's why, although I apply fairly traditional, conservative standards to my own conduct, I am hesitant to condemn others.

Chris, although I'd not use the word "police" (I am a defense attorney, after all!), you and I probably agree in principle here. I think all of us share a responsibility to make sure we collectively examine the issue and become more aware of the consequences of our conduct. That's why discussions like these can be helpful.

To avoid that slippery slope, I take the following approach (although I am not suggesting it is the only proper approach): If I have concerns about a fellow magician's "loose lip," I mention it to him. I do it, when possible, directly to him. I remember when I used to smoke. All the haranguing in the world did not change my behavior. I was, however, affected by the quiet, persistent statements of friends who said, "I wish you didn't smoke. It makes me worry about your health and, as a special bonus, it makes you smell bad!" Just as important, I think, I began to see that my friends who didn't smoke seemed to be having more fun; they were able to be more active, and had more disposable income since they weren't wasting it on cigarettes. Without discussing specific individuals, you might want to check out the web site of someone who takes a lot of flak for things he said and did many moons ago. Note how often he refers to his friends in magic and mentalism. In fact, this individual has even stated that he would today do things differently because of the effect it would have on his friendships and the feelings of his friends. He did not mention his enemies or people who have attacked him. I think that is very telling.

And, lest I sound too sanctimonious ( ), on occasion, when I have mentioned my concern about another magician's approach to exposure, a discussion has ensued in which I've learned a thing or two and which has caused me to modify my judgment...

:nose:

John,

Basically, "what you said." I'm simply talking about the imperative to take action on one's principles.

--Chris

Exposure has been a terrible problem. Who believes in magic today?

/Bamba



Please, let's all remember we have only heard one side of this story, and that one was expressed in very vague terms and without responding to questions.

Who knows what really happened?

/Bamba