Shin Lim's Flawless

Discussion in 'Product Questions and Reviews' started by praetoritevong, Sep 23, 2011.

  1. #21 magicflipper17134, Sep 25, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2011
    Hey Alex,

    I understand your frustration, however when I showed you and Chris Wiehl the move you both agreed that there was a move similar to that, but as a whole used different enough sleights to be original. Yes, the overall accomplishment of turning over two cards is evident, however there are tons of moves that accomplish that. All I was trying to achieve was to find a perfect, clean way to accomplish such an effect; and this was inspired through "By Forces Unseen" which I credited as my inspiration already. Again, I understand your frustration, and I have updated my effect and gave Aurthur Buckley his deserved credit. However, to emphasize again, though Arthur's move is similar in the overall achievement, Flawless was a creation completely independent of Card Control, and in no way did Arthurs move inspire the creation of Flawless. I hope this clears things up between you, me, and theory 11. Hope to talk to you soon.
    Shin Lim
     
  2. Just because you added Card Control and stated that By Forces Unseen was your inspiration, does not give you the authority to publish something that predates you. I guess its like me publishing Triumph and call it my own, and stating that the Two Card Reverse in Close Up Card Magic was my inspiration.

    Mr. Lim,
    It's still NOT your move/effect to publish and make money off of. You should do the right thing and remove it from The Wire. Otherwise you will quickly lose respect from many.




    Best,
    Trini Montes
     
  3. Hello trini,
    Lets clear things up: first off, the method in flawless is different compared to the move taught in card control. Yes, there is similarities in the overall concept of flipping over a double, but the sleights are different. If you would like an in depth look on the sleight taught in flawless, fee free to pm me. However, to accuse me of copying this move directly from the book and using someone else as an inspiration is ludicrous. First off, I would never do that. Secondly, the T11 team has a group of reviewers, one of them being Jason England who is a highly respected magician and historian. Any effect which is in any way unoriginal doesn't make it through the submissions. Again, just because flawless is similar to card control, doesn't mean they are identical in method. There are plenty of effects out there that accomplish the same idea but use different methods. This is one of them. Please, if you have any questions you can pm me I'll be more than happy to clear things up.

    Thanks, shin lim
     
  4. #24 praetoritevong, Sep 25, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2011
    Well, I wasn't quite expecting this sort of response... Some disjointed thoughts:

    On the move itself

    - Thanks to the people who gave references - the Leipzig book, Daryl's Encyclopedia, Buckley and also BFU.

    - Whilst Buckley's book is the only source mentioned that I have read, I checked and this is NOT where I found the source.

    - More importantly, I recall seeing in print a principle which matches more precisely the technique that Shin Lim appears to use.
    Let us simply say that there are two steps to the sleight, the insertion and the removal. There is a way to perform the insertion such that the usual shifting method of achieving the technique (as per the method on page 80 of Buckley's Card Control) is not required. The key to this technique can be seen in the video by the speed at which Shin Lim performs the insertion, and the precise manner in which it is done. This sets up the removal phase of the sleight. I hope that this explanation is vague enough to give no secrets away, but precise enough for those who understand/have the product to know what I am talking about. If I am incorrect in how I believe the move is done, or if anyone objects to the way this is phrased (particularly Mods, T11 and/or Shin Lim), please let me know.

    - I would also LOVE more than anything to tell you guys exactly where I found this, but I am afraid that I simply cannot recall, although I will continue to search. I believe it was only mentioned briefly, unfortunately.

    On Theory11 & The Wire

    - Lyle, thanks for chiming in on this. I look forward to hearing from one of the other T11 staff as mentioned.

    - I do not think that portrayals of T11 as a greedy magic company are correct, or warranted. They have right of reply, so let's give them the opportunity to react.

    - That said, I am in agreement with Alex Schaeffer's comment that "Theory11, you really need to do some deeper researching and ensure your standards of 'The Wire' are met if you truly wish to democratize creating and publishing magic. If all of these videos are being screened and I found something to credit in my modest library in 5 minutes, something is wrong here." Look, I know no-one is perfect. I would not expect anyone's knowledge to be perfect every time. However Lyle, the fact that many different members have posted here citing issues of originality seems to suggest that something did in fact "slip through the cracks", as you say. Indeed, the fact that Shin Lim has appeared in this thread to apologise and attempt to rectify the situation that this is the case. This is not an accusation on my part, nor have I ever made that accusation; but I did feel the need to point it out based on your reply. Aside from this one statement however, I am perfectly happy with your reply, and look forward to a further response from other T11 staff.

    - In general, T11: I have no doubt that Flawless went through the usual originality checks that all submissions go through to appear on The Wire - none at all. In addition, I have great respect for T11 artists, and Jason England in particular, a man who is clearly more skilled and knowledgeable than I. I hope you understand however that if a mentalist like me who has not performed card magic for around 3 years, and who has only been in magic in general for 5, sees this trick and instantly recognises a move that is not properly credited, then some questioning of the system is likely. This is not, at least on my part, an accusation or a criticism of Theory11's review process, merely an observation and a reason why some doubt has been cast. Take of this what you will - it is your prerogative to either change or not change your review system; this is simply my observation, that I don't think that the questions posed are entirely unreasonable. No disrespect is intended in this or any past or future post.

    On Shin Lim's reaction

    - Shin: I think it's absurd to say that "any effect which is in any way unoriginal doesn't make it through the submissions" as a defense. No-one is perfect, not even the highly knowledgeable and skilled Jason England. More importantly, it's certainly not a defense for omitting references that are clearly relevant. It doesn't matter whether they are identical or not. Crediting is crediting. Nor does it matter whether you created the move independently or not. Crediting is crediting. And nor am I accusing you of directly copying a move. But the fact remains that you failed to credit a move that was brought to your attention and which is clearly similar to yours. Again - crediting is crediting, and any magic release, whether it be on T11's The Wire, through some other magic company, or as an independent release, should be held up to the same ethical standards, which I submit in this case was not the case, whether through intent or sheer negligence.

    - I also think it absurd to justify your exclusion of Buckley because your creation was an independent creation and inspired by something else. If the first book I read on card magic contains the Hermann Pass, and from that sleight I independently create the Classic Pass, on your logic, I would be entitled to claim the latter as my own/not credit the Classic Pass, because it was created independently and inspired by another source entirely, which is of course ridiculous. Your argument, in other words, is flawed.

    A general thought

    - Something interesting to ponder is what should happen to those who fail to credit effects, sleights or presentations. With the addition of the Buckley reference, I would suggest that Flawless is likely credited to at least the lowest acceptable level for a magical product. So, what now? Should someone who fails to honour the history of the art face further repercussions from the community, even if the transgression has been corrected? It is evident that several members think that the product should be removed entirely. I won't ask for this punishment here - but I'm not sure that they're incorrect either. Is simply being forced to include references enough of a punishment?
     
  5. To say that "any effect which is in any way unoriginal doesn't make it through the submissions" is not correct, at least not in this case since this effect is not original in many ways. I cannot credit the pulling of card out (the second part of the effect) since I didn't learn it from any magic source, but I did see it performed before, which clearly means it's not original.
    The first part however, the insertion of the card into the deck, I learned from Daryl's Encyclopedia of Card Sleights. The only difference is that Daryl uses all 4 fingers to push the card in, and Shin Lim uses only the middle finger, which I don't think is much of a difference to claim originality. If it is, than I can publish every single card sleight on the Wire as original creation just by removing one finger or adding the other.
    Now I'm not flaming T11, The Wire nor Shin Lim, I'm just expressing my opinion and what I've seen and learned so far.
     
  6. Dude, understood but as a magician releasing effects it is your responsibility to do your research. Take a look at Giobbi's Card College, it's riddled with references. That's the way to do it. It wasn't like he—or any magician for that matter—wouldn't put a credit in there because it didn't directly inspire them. It's really to disseminate information. If I created a variation on Marc Desouza's "Shapeshifter"—which is actually based on Oscar Munoz's original color change—I would have to credit both of them. It doesn't matter than I only learned Marc's. Take a look at contemporary books in the bibliography/sources section. They're enormous. I realize in a world of DVD's and downloads that it might become more, let's say, less ideal to do proper research—but you need to.

    However, with tools like AskAlexander by Bill Kalush and The Conjuring Arts Library, this should be much easier:
    http://askalexander.org/login.cgi?p=%2F%3F

    Lastly, it's Arthur Buckley (sp) and the sleight is by John Brown Cook titled "The Transfer of a Card."

    Best,
    Alex
     
  7. Here's to hoping he does the right thing.

    Respect > Money

    Let's be honest, you'll definitely make more money on the Wire, if you haven't made enough already.
     
  8. Hmmm. I would just like to chime in here. If Shin was shown specifically in print where this move can be found and did not give the credits their due then that IS an issue. BUT if we look at alllllllll the sleights and routines in print and on video these days then I think its COMPLETELY reasonable for some things to "slip through the cracks" from time to time! There are MILLIONS of published effects and sleights dating back HUNDREDS of years and nobody is perfect as to be able to recognize them all. I understand everyone's frustration on this subject but lets at least TRY to give T11 and Mr. Lim the benefit of the doubt. T11 has been a great place for all of us and they do very well at correcting any problems as best they can! If this type of thing begins to emerge as a pattern, THEN we can all get upset, but as for now it seems this was (at least on T11's part) just a mistake. If Mr. Lim does however think that changing four fingers to one on a card insertion makes the move now entirely different then I would say that logic should be re-examined. Truth is, there HAVE been some shady people to work their way into magic and they have ripped off a lot of people. I DO NOT think Mr. Lim qualifies to be in those ranks. Perhaps the video should just get the updated crediting as shin has said he has already done or perhaps it needs to be removed all together as some of you have said. Either way, at the end of the day YOU have the power to decide if you purchase the video or not. If it remains up and that offends you, dont buy it. You can write bad reviews in the forums and let others know how you feel. In the end I think free market principals will make or break any business or professional. If they continue to engage in shady business practices then that information will spread like wild fire through the community and eventually nobody will continue to do business with said professional or company. As for now we should all just give T11 the benefit of the doubt because they have been a remarkable company since DAY 1!! As for Mr. Lim, the truth remains to be seen but please give him the chance to make things up if he did indeed mess up here. Mr. Lim...I for one would like to see you release an AMAZING and ORIGINAL effect on the wire FOR FREE to anyone with serious doubts of your integrity or to the entire community. I know the term "amazing and original effect" is a broad spectrum but I know, at least for me, it would show humility and the desire to make things up to your customers. Either way, I wont be offended if you dont! I hope we can all move past this and let the past patterns of honesty and integrity and the future actions yet to be seen, light the way in our decisions about Shin Lim and the integrity of T11 and The Wire.
     
  9. Guys,

    Since my name has been brought up on a few occasions here I felt as though I should respond. I don’t speak for Theory11, but Jonathan Bayme and I are in almost daily contact regarding all of these submissions, and especially Shin Lim’s recent submission, Flawless.

    Here’s one man’s take on Flawless. Your mileage may vary.

    The overall concept is clearly not original. It not only predates Shin Lim, it predates his grandfather (and mine too for that matter).

    Rich23 was the first to mention the Leipzig book as a reference for the concept of removing two cards as one from the rear of the deck (where one card is on top and the other in the middle). Although rich23 is correct in saying that the move isn’t specifically credited to Leipzig as creator, it’s clear he was using the move in his act. Since Leipzig died in 1939, and Buckley’s Card Control wasn’t published until 1946, I would submit that Leipzig should clearly be given precedence over John Brown Cook’s “The Transfer of a Card.”

    But, even without the Leipzig reference, the Cook move is enough to establish the concept in print long before Shin Lim.

    In my opinion, Shin should credit Leipzig and Cook, as well as any specific modern inspirations that he had, such as Earick’s By Forces Unseen.

    I can’t speak for Shin Lim’s leaving out the Cook credit supplied to him by Guile, but I can tell you that the move got by me completely. That’s right – I made a mistake. Although I don’t keep accurate records in this regard, it’s entirely possible this wasn’t the first time in my life I’ve made a mistake.

    With regard to the specifics of my mistake, I was familiar with methods of doing double turnovers where one card is on top and the other in the middle from the side of the deck, but I didn’t remember seeing one that took place from the rear short end of the deck.

    When I saw the demonstration and instructional videos in the preview stages, I thought the move looked familiar, probably due to having read both Buckley and Ganson’s books over the years, but I couldn’t find any specifics. To be fair, it felt like a modern move to me at the time (for reasons I can’t fully explain), and I concentrated my search primarily in books published in the last 40 years. I didn’t find anything that jumped out at me.

    So what did I do? I told J.B. “It looks fine to me. I can’t find anything on it.” I knew that if I were wrong, the community would correct us. That’s how all crediting works. You do the best you can with what you know and you rely on others to step in and fill in the gaps for you.

    In alphabetical order, here’s a list of just a few guys that have made crediting mistakes: Ackerman, Buckley, Cervon, England, Giobbi, Hugard, Jennings, Kaufman, Lorayne, Marlo, Maven, Minch, Ortiz, Swain, Tamariz, and Vernon. Some of the mistakes were egregious and others were innocent oversights and the result of incomplete knowledge. The important thing isn’t that you do or do not make a mistake where credits are involved; the important thing is how you acknowledge and handle your mistake.

    With that in mind, let me address a few of the comments made by different members here.

    Guile stated, “If all of these videos are being screened and I found something to credit in my modest library in 5 minutes, something is wrong here.”

    Guile, is that the way the world works in your view? You found it in five minutes therefore there must be something “wrong” here? Did it occur to you that assuming two people have the reference in question and that neither of them has a head start based on prior knowledge, that the person with the smaller library has a much better chance of locating the proper credit than the person with the larger library?

    Since I didn’t recognize the move right away, there was nothing to lead me to Buckley, or Ganson, or any other specific title right away. I based my searches on my gut feeling that the move was a modern one. That gut feeling turned out to be wrong, but I resent your implication that there’s something “wrong” with the way this was researched by me and the other members of our team.

    Toby wrote: “I think that this product also slipped by because now Shin Lim i very popular on T11 and other web sights, so they let this effect slide because they know they will make a lot of money off of it. Business...”

    Toby, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Until a week ago I’d never heard of Shin Lim, and J.B. basically gave me final approval authority over this video. Your statement has transcended ignorance and crossed over to insult. I don’t take those lightly. Apologize or STFU. Your choice.

    LBarnes wrote: “This isn't a new move. Regardless of Shin Lims popularity, he should not have released it without permission, if he was going to go ahead and release it anyway, he should have at least given credit where credit is due. So ethically wrong.”

    You are correct that this isn’t a new move (conceptually). I fail to see how Shin Lim could have received permission from either Leipzig or Cook. Please let me know if I’m missing something there. As for releasing it with credit to those two parties (at a minimum), I agree. That doesn’t mean I agree with the overstated and melodramatic “So ethically wrong”, but to each his own.

    Chriswiehl wrote: “i do somewhat agree with toby tho.
Since t11 saw the move, and it looks great on film, and shin is a name on the wire, they will sell it to get money. and wont care about researching the move. and even after we posted all these comments here, t11 has yet to reply and has even posted it up on their twitter.”

    Chris, you’re in the same boat as Toby. Whether you intended to do so or not, you’ve insulted me by insinuating that I’ll purposefully let a move get to The Wire regardless of whether or not I believe it belongs there. You wanna know how much money I get for giving a thumbs up instead of a thumbs down to these submissions? I get exactly zero dollars and zero cents. That’s right. I have absolutely no financial stake in any of these products. I get compensated for the time I spend looking for credits and giving advice to J.B. I don’t get any more money for a “thumbs up” than for a “thumbs down.” I have no incentive to let something slide and many reasons, primarily ethical integrity, to not let something slide. Your options are the same as Toby’s.

    One last thing: my computer still shows “1 Day Ago” on praetoritevong’s original post. Please specify how much faster you’ll need replies before continuing as a member here at T11. Perhaps we can fast track some of our future replies just for you.

    Trini wrote: “Just because you added Card Control and stated that By Forces Unseen was your inspiration, does not give you the authority to publish something that predates you. I guess its like me publishing Triumph and call it my own, and stating that the Two Card Reverse in Close Up Card Magic was my inspiration. 

Mr. Lim, 
It's still NOT your move/effect to publish and make money off of. You should do the right thing and remove it from The Wire. Otherwise you will quickly lose respect from many.”

    Trini, give me a break. I didn’t invent the top-card cover pass, the bottom deal, the second deal, the push-through shuffle or any number of other moves I’ve taught on 1-on-1’s and in lectures and lecture notes. Am I committing some egregious magical theft by doing so? Marlo didn’t invent the concept of the Ace assembly. Was he lacking “the authority to publish” his variations?

    You don’t need “permission” to teach a move that is approaching 100 years old in the next decade. If you disagree, I’ll let you and LBarnes provide all of us with the method for obtaining said permission. The same goes for teaching an effect or a concept. If it’s 100 years old, we can safely say it’s public domain as far as teaching it goes. Claiming an old move as your own is a serious issue; teaching one is not.

    The fact is, this isn’t a “permission” issue. It’s a crediting issue. Shin Lim shouldn’t claim the move as his own, but there’s nothing wrong with teaching it as long as he acknowledges the men who came before him, namely Leipzig and Cook. That would be true even if Shin hadn’t added anything to the move at all. The fact that he’s combined the tapping insertion method with the removal strengthens his case for originality. Combination is a form of originality. It’s not the strongest form by any means, and I don’t think Shin’s move is a terrific example of an original combination of two previous ideas, but as far as I know it’s not been done before. That may change as more information comes to light.

    Although it’s up to him, I actually think Shin should go a step further than just adding credits and actually alter the name of his product in some manner to reflect it’s older origins. It’s okay to keep the title Flawless as his combined insertion and removal combo, but I would suggest adding a subtitle to reflect the concept’s older origins. Something like, “Flawless: An Approach to a Classic” along with the appropriate Leipzig/Cook credits would go a long way to relieving almost everyone’s gripes about this move.

    Continued next post due to length.
     
  10. Continued from previous post.

    This next section is a general comment to everyone here and is not directed to anyone in particular.

    You have no idea what is involved in researching these things. How many of you were present for the three hour phone conversation I had with Derek DelGaudio regarding a recent submission? Derek had seen something that was available on The Wire and called me about it. He and I spent hours on the phone discussing the move, looking through a dozen old books, and searching on both Ask Alexander and Denis Behr’s terrific book index. And this was for a move that was already available on the Wire. Derek and another magician had some questions about a move that they thought could be infringing on the work of a friend.

    As it turns out, the move was almost 50 years old and while the originator hadn’t been credited, the “friend” (who is alive and well) wasn’t being infringed upon at all. The originator of the move has been dead for 30 years but he’s going to get his credit, because I’m going to see to it! This is the way these things work. The initial credit had slipped past me, but upon it being brought to my attention the “wheels of magical justice” began to turn.

    We’re in the process of fixing that wrong as I type, just as we’re in the process of fixing the issues with “Flawless” as I type.

    For any of you that have posted here that still think we’re not doing all we can when we can, I look forward to your perfect DVD, your perfect set of lecture notes, your perfect 1-on-1, or your perfect submission to The Wire. And God help you if I find a crediting error.

    Jason
     
  11. Hey Jason, thanks for addressing this thread directly and for your verbose response. When I said something is "wrong" here, what I mean to say is that because Theory11 has launched a democratized media platform for magicians I think they have a tremendous responsibility in making sure this works for our art. If this model is to work, perhaps there should be a longer turn around time for releasing effects after submission. That's what makes the Theory11 brand great. I know you guys do your due diligence on your produced product in-house because they're your products.

    I just want to make sure the platform doesn't harm your brand idea, or have people who submit cut corners because you guys don't produce them. My main issue was that Shin was informed of the Buckley reference and blatantly ignored it, which is clearly not your fault. I just feel while going forward, this experience may be something to keep in mind.

    I sincerely appreciate your knowledge of our craft, and the reason I got Card Control in the first place was because of your recommendation. You've gotten me interested in more books than I would have otherwise and I hate for you to think differently. I respect who and what has come before me, and I know you do too and that's all my posts were about.

    As magicians, we've come a long way from the back rooms of Vernon's era. We've lost some of that underground nature, that secrecy—because of the internet. And that's fine, because more people can be exposed to magic as I was in middle school, but let's not lose ourselves along the way.

    Best,
    Alex Schaeffer
     
  12. Guile,

    Read and understood. I appreciate your clarifying your stance.

    Incidentally, I agree with you about Shim's leaving Buckley out after being told of the reference. That's inexplicable to me, but perhaps Shim felt that since Buckley didn't provide inspiration that it wasn't a proper source?

    If that was his reasoning, I think that's completely wrong (as do others by their comments in this thread), but I'll leave it to Shim to reply there.

    Jason
     
  13. Sorry to intrude (and I know I am going to get flamed and possibly even "hated" after this) but I do have one thing to say.

    While I do agree that Toby may have taken a view on this that was not correct, I don't necessarily see the reason for you to put "STFU"...unless that meant something along the lines of "Small Tigers Feed Udders" or something of that sort.

    I understand that you took it as a personal insult but I sincerely doubt that that was what Toby was trying to accomplish. I understand that I may have no room to talk in this matter but I do wish you would have left out the letters (and their respective words) "STFU" off of your message.

    Again, not trying to offend you here either.
     
  14. Dear Mr. England,

    I guess I struck a nerve there with you. My comment was based off of everyone else from T11 team (including Mr. Lim) that EVERY product goes through strict examination and background check before it get's released. And that wasn't the case with this one, as you said yourself. The reason for my comment was that I actually believed them. So if they are right, and every effect goes through strict examination, than why this one got through.
    Now I know that you can make mistakes, and that the statement from before is not entirely true.
    I had a great respect for you until this post. I actually bought ALL your 1-on-1 videos, but I don't know how I feel about that anymore. When I started reading this reply of yours I actually stood corrected and was about to apologize for my post, but after your "STFU", I will not.
    You are a professional, and a VERY known magician, I don't think you should make these kinds of comments (that actually look like they were written by 14 year olds). I still don't believe that Jason England, one of my role models, would tell me on a public forum to "STFU". Not good...

    EDIT: This post was made before I've seen S.G's reply. And he is right, it was not personal towards anyone, but towards the claim that the wire was flawless (not in those exact words, but along those lines).
     
  15. Thanks for the reply.
    the main reason i was upset was the fact that guile showed the page to shin and then almost less than a week later the effect is out and on the page. its not that t11 was totally responseble. I am sorry for making the mistake of blaming t11 or even slightly directing it to the reviewing team. I know you are not the only person doing the research. I just know that people like nice looking productions of this move. I agree the move is good looking and the demo is very well done which in business terms will sell. if shin filmed it with a flip cam on a hand held at one angle it may not look as nice. It was a mistake of me to say something like that, but im thinking business. it looks great, it should sell great. my main complaint was the fact that buckley was left out after it was clearly pointed out and just his inspiration was mentioned.
    I am sorry if i offended you or the rest of the t11 team. I am glad that you all work hard on getting submissions through the best you can. I can understand the crazy amount of work put into this project and all the real terrible submissions you need to shift through and all the research. Im sorry for offending anyone. I just hope something can change to give credit where much credit is due.
     
  16. Ha. Wow, Go Mr. England!! Yeah just for the record I was trying to defend you a little there so please don't add me to you sh*t list too! Ha. Great to see you personally address the situation! Thank you and everyone at T11 for keeping up with exactly this type of customer and community involvement! In a world of "please press 1 for service, 2 for sales, etc." it is great to see this kind of hands on involvement. Sorry its not on better terms but thank you all at T11 for the responces in these matters and the services you provide.
     
  17. A couple of things to clarify here everyone. It was hinted at in several posts that Shin Lim was a part of the theory11 team. Wire Artists are no more a part of the theory11 team than eBay sellers are a part of the eBay team. The Wire is a service that Shin is using. Make sure that you recognize this fact.

    Next, in regard to the language being shown. I don't think anyone realized how serious of an accusation was made previous to Jason's post. I don't know Jason personally, only by reputation and through indirect dealings with him here. I do know, however, that accusing the approval team (and thereby Jason, as a source involved in it) of unethically pushing a trick through simply because it would make money is a direct shot at Jason's professional reputation. That is the kind of comment that gets civil people into nasty fist fights. Thankfully, we are communicating in a medium that prevents that, but the point still stands. I don't know that the acronym for an offensive phrase is justified, and I won't attempt to justify it. I am sure that Jason would apologize if he knew he offended someone.

    Lastly, to address the comment by Toby

    Sorry, but I am not sure how anyone missed this one. Nobody said that that this trick got through without the "strict examination and background check before it actually gets released." In fact, Jason's rather large post confirmed the exact opposite. This made it through hours of evaluation before being passed through. When it came down to it, he simply said that the only issue was that of crediting the original creators of the idea everything was based off of.

    Now you all have a bit more insight into how this all works. I am sad to see that there were feathers ruffled, but that is what happens sometimes when things get carried away by a little bit of emotion.

    Please keep all future discussion fact based and civil.

    L
     
  18. Just to be clear here. i havnt taken a shot at jasons rep. i understand everyone is human and no matter how hard we work things happen. Jason is a scholar and i am in no way saying other wize. things slip thru. What i said about putting it thru for money is wrong. but as stated the main reason for this whole thread is respect. im sorry if i offended any of the t11 team in anyway.
     
  19. Toby, (and S.G.)

    You didn't "strike a nerve" or "get under my skin" or anything like that. Quite simply, you pissed me off. To clarify, you insulted me and the rest of the people who look at these things by stating, not implying or insinuating, but by stating that we "let it slide" because we knew it would make money.

    Maybe that wasn't your intention, but there is absolutely no other way to interpret that sentence when you're on the receiving end of it. Can either of you honestly look at that sentence again, imagine that it was directed at you after you made a simple mistake and not get offended?

    Flawless getting approved without credit to Leipzig and others was a mistake. I overlooked the proper credit. I should have looked in Buckley, period. (The Leipzig reference I might have never found.) It wasn't a "business" decision like you said.

    But unless I'm missing something, you are not a T11 insider, you don't know how much effort any of us (much less all of us) put into researching these submissions, and you have absolutely zero information about the day-to-day decisions that are made at the highest levels of this company. Therefore I find it strange that you would comment about our "business" decisions in any manner.

    What I wrote to you wasn't professional, or typical of my writing. It was a reflex to an insult pure and simple. I'm not proud of it, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it either.

    If you stand by what you wrote (intentionally or not), then I stand by what I wrote and we're done. If you wish to patch things up then you can extend the first apology the same way you extended the first swing.

    You have an opportunity here to do the right thing: You can man up and admit that you had/have no idea how these things are handled in house and that you're sorry for stating that T11 looked the other way just to make a buck.

    Or, you can continue to sulk because one of your role models called you out for talking out your ass.

    I'll meet you halfway, but you need to take the first step.

    Your move.

    Jason
     
  20. .....Damn. I've been watching this pan out. I knew that one of T11 members was not going to like being insulted like that.
     

Share This Page

Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results