The Magic Caf
[ 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
View Profile
New user
81 Posts

Profile of appletruth
…does this make a difference? -salsa_dancer

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 you may misunderstand me here. The point I am making here is out of the choices offered, including DVD's, she went with the one that she happened to stumble across on the television, the easy option... -salsa_dancer

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.”
In the example I stated, 'I' was the exposer for offering the chance to look in the books. -salsa_dancer

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.
I have asked her why she watched the show on TV and she said 'because it was the only thing on worth watching' there was no desire to learn the secrets and without that show being made she never would have... -salsa_dancer

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?

View Profile
Inner circle
1935 Posts

Profile of salsa_dancer

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.


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

Profile of John Clarkson
On 2004-05-26 12:21, Dai wrote:
I think intent is a huge factor.
Some people try to pooh-pooh the impact of the Valentino /Howard Becker types of crass exposing by saying that they are really not much different than , say, the Mark Wilson Course in Magic, or Bobo's MCM being widely available in Barnes & Noble or other popular bookstore chains. However, for me the intent and the attitude of the authors of an instructional book vs. the "hey look how it's done" attitude of the exposers changes everything.
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.

On 2004-05-26 12:32, christopher carter wrote:
...While I very much agree that it our first priority is our own behavior, I still believe that our obligations to the secrets we hold in trust also requires us to police the actions of others (hopefully wisely and cautiously.)
On 2004-05-26 16:27, DaveS wrote:
... Just that, IMO, without the sort of standards John is proposing for discussion and some semblance of "due process" (not sure what that would be in the mentalism community) the business of "policing" exposers is a slippery slope.
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 ( Smile ), 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...

John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)

"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

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

View Profile
Special user
636 Posts

Profile of Bambaladam
On 2004-05-26 11:28, dg wrote:
Just a quick question, throughout the history of magic has exposure been such a problem? or is it the case that the information is easier to come by these days?

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


On 2004-05-26 16:27, DaveS wrote:
On 2004-05-26 12:32, christopher carter wrote:
...I still believe that our obligations to the secrets we hold in trust also requires us to police the actions of others (hopefully wisely and cautiously.)

As a resident of the US East Coast, I had hoped to attend one of Ian Rowland's lectures during his planned tour this Spring. Then I learned from his web-site that:
"The vocal minority of people who hold the sincere, passionate and yet misguided view that 'Ian is a magic exposer' contacted some of the magic traders and organisations who were participating (e.g. hosting or sponsoring a lecture) and made various threats. So people pulled out, so the tour wasn't viable any more, so it's been cancelled."

It's not my intention to re-open a can of worms here, nor am I suggesting that this is the sort of "policing" action you have in mind or that you would use "wisdom and caution" to describe the actions of a few who would take it upon themselves to act as police, prosecutor and jury on matters of "exposure." Just that, IMO, without the sort of standards John is proposing for discussion and some semblance of "due process" (not sure what that would be in the mentalism community) the business of "policing" exposers is a slippery slope.

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?

The Magic Cafe Forum Index Magic names and the media Paul Mckenna exposes! (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.17 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