Wowza. You completely miss the point in every single post I make, I'm not sure how else to word it. We both agreed cardistry is an acceptable reference and is not incorrect but very outdated. Aside a handful of people who use it for the sake of argument, the term "cardistry" is almost never used as a PRIMARY term to describe magic - they use magic (much more commonly and including everyone you mentioned). Let me say again, they are not wrong, they either don't want to give credit where it's due or have absolutely no idea what happened in the last decade.
Make a new thread if you want to discuss another term (flourishing, XCM, card manipulation, etc.) and I will be very happy to clear everything up for you.
I gave credit where it is due. I changed my original opinion because it's more logical, and it acknowledges the people who pushed cardistry as a non-magical art. But I also like to acknowledge to creators of the word, and give them credit.
You keep telling me to make a new thread if I want to discuss flourishing. I could tell you to do the same as you keep bringing up the term 'magic'. My point about the poll results was completely relevant and does not need a different thread.
In the beginning I did say that cardistry was incorrectly used. But again, I changed my opinion. The only reason we're still debating is because I still think that cardistry can be correctly applied to card magic. It's only MOSTLY outdated. There are still several well-known people who view the term as a magical term. Some of these people are aware of what has happened in the past decade, they just choose to use the word in the context that they learned it, because it just seems right to them. Eventually, it will probably become completely outdated and nobody of any significance will use it to refer to card magic. The way I see it, if it existed in dictionary, you would find the definition referring to card magic towards the bottom. Because it's rarely used, it's listed after the modern definition. Nevertheless, it's still a listed definition, until absolutely no one uses it anymore and it passes from the 'alternate definitions' section, to the 'origins' section.
I'm not sure how I missed the point on your last post. I'll address one thing in particular. Earlier, you stated, "there 2 publications and approximately 4 people in this world that refer to cardistry as a primary reference to magic, including yourself - have a good day." I viewed that as a sarcastic remark, while you claimed it to be largely accurate. I presented you with proof about why the statement is inaccurate. How did I miss the point there?
