I don't completely understand it...

[MagicLemonBird]

Word of advice. Don't try to play armchair psychologist when someone who actually studies psychology is in the room. Especially not when you're just trying to get out of a rhetorical corner you painted yourself into.

But a child is not looked at the outside but the inside. For an example there can be a 7 year old girl that is very mature. She is physically 7, but on the inside she is mature and acts like an adult, so I will refer to a child as who they are inside of themselves.

 

[tally-ho]

But a child is not looked at the outside but the inside. For an example there can be a 7 year old girl that is very mature. She is physically 7, but on the inside she is mature and acts like an adult, so I will refer to a child as who they are inside of themselves.

what does this have to do with the original question? I think it was about ellusionist, not the maturity of 7 year olds.

 

[Steerpike]

But a child is not looked at the outside but the inside. For an example there can be a 7 year old girl that is very mature. She is physically 7, but on the inside she is mature and acts like an adult, so I will refer to a child as who they are inside of themselves.

I hate it when people try to be deep and use pop-psychology.

 

[MagicLemonBird]

what does this have to do with the original question? I think it was about ellusionist, not the maturity of 7 year olds.

Well back in visualartists response, go check there.

 

[MagicLemonBird]

I hate it when people try to be deep and use pop-psychology.

I am not trying to be deep!
I am just trying to point out something.

 

[James Smith]

But a child is not looked at the outside but the inside. For an example there can be a 7 year old girl that is very mature. She is physically 7, but on the inside she is mature and acts like an adult, so I will refer to a child as who they are inside of themselves.

I don't say this much but, Bull ****!

what does this have to do with the original question? I think it was about ellusionist, not the maturity of 7 year olds.

Yeah, we should really get back on topic.

 

[Steerpike]

I am not trying to be deep!
I am just trying to point out something.

It's pop-psychology, New Age crap that has nothing to do with anything. The only think it accomplishes is motivating me to continue killing my liver.

 

[tally-ho]

I am not trying to be deep!
I am just trying to point out something.

EDIT: steerpike beat me to it.

 

[MagicLemonBird]

It's pop-psychology, New Age crap that has nothing to do with anything. The only think it accomplishes is motivating me to continue killing my liver.

Don't call it that, don't think that everything is pop and fresh since I'm young. That would be wrong.
It's not psychology either.

 

[James Smith]

I just realized, we filled up five pages with this crap!

Edit: I just realized that you're reporting a posts. Whose is it?! Seriously man, we should just get back on topic about E and not about what real magic is. I feel like an idiot arguing aimlessly this whole time. Even if one of us did win the argument, what would it accomplish? There's nothing that's so cool about "owning" someone on an online magic forum. I say since we've all wasted so much time on this pointless argument, we should just go out and perform for someone. Let's get off of this stupid topic. We really don't need to devote nine pages to it.

 

[MagicLemonBird]

Exactly, that's why I think we should close this, it's never going to get back on topic.
That's I reported the thread, I think we should stop arguing. All of us. It's just, insane.

 

[James Smith]

Exactly, that's why I think we should close this, it's never going to get back on topic.
That's I reported the thread, I think we should stop arguing. All of us. It's just, insane.

Ok, but we're going to hold this over your head forever.

 

[MagicLemonBird]

Oh well, that's bad
Haha, none of the moderators are online so this will remain for some time.

 

[visualartist]

Oh well, that's bad
Haha, none of the moderators are online so this will remain for some time.

plenty of time to get this thread back on track.If people are still willing to discuss it. If not just let it die.

 

[James Smith]

plenty of time to get this thread back on track.If people are still willing to discuss it. If not just let it die.

Yes! Someone post something meaningful in this thread! I already put in my two cents a few pages back.

 

[MagicLemonBird]

I pmed the few of you who were in this debate.
I have different views but still many questions.
Check your message boxes.

 

[MagicLemonBird]

Hey moderators, I think we can pull this thread back so don't close it Sorry, for the trouble though whether zach or Sinful, or Dark Angel reading this.
THIS MARKS THE END OF THE DEBATE! (Don't post anything about the debate from now on! Here is the line. (3 lines for maximum security)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[ajp500]

Alot of this thread is about theory11 ellusionist and penguin...

What about sankey magic? I think thats a great company becaue of jay and the cost.

Any one agree?

 

[CardShark13]

Right now I'm thinking of getting either the loops DVDs or the Daniel Garcia project DVDs.

I would DEFINATLY recommend the Daniel Garcai Projects & Loops. Its a tough choice. If your into fun entertaing magic get the Garcia Projects or if you into PK & levitations I suggest loops...if you have enough money get them both! lol

 

[ballerO8]

It's good to see a lively heated discussion. I enjoyed reading the debates in this thread. For the most part I agreed with Davey and Steerpike's take on business and how silly it is to expect people to pull back on making their business grow. Anyway...good debate.

All this egg shell walking and sensitivity bs helps no one. We only grow when we get challenged. No one ever improved from being cuddled.

Carry on....