What is this trick called?

[Brad Henderson]

Draven,

I can't let this go because you continually miss the critical elements of the argument (confusing claasic/hack with rare, discovered). Perhaps it is my fault for being unclear. But I care about the future of magic and I would hate for someone to pass their actions on what has been built on a foundation of miscommunication/misinterpretation.

Also you, like our friend steerpike, suffer from an idealism that assumes that the world works according to the way you want it to work. It doesn't, and in many statements your inexperience shows.

Finally, you assume that when I give an example I speak of a single specific instance. These issues are much bigger and the concepts I speak of represent larger trends to which you may have yet to be exposed.

I would like to first go on record to say that I've NEVER needed two posts back to back to respond to a single person. Congratulations Brad. You're a first. I feel like I either need an aspirin now, or a stiff rum and coke, without the coke.


I think most of the working magic force would disagree. I can't recall how many cards across, ambitious cards, strait jackets, box illusions, or "botched" comedy magic acts I've seen take the stage at the Magic Castle, and that's suppose to be one of the highest places to perform night club wise.

While I love the castle and perform there often, your opinion of it is baselessly innaccurate. The castle is a private club for magicians that caters to magicians. It is not indicitive of any other professional venue anywhere else in the world. Many of the acts there cannot and do not work in the real world (or at least not to any real degree of success). Of course you see stock material there. This isn't about stock material by the way - see, again you miss the point. The magic castle has a ton of time to feel and magicians like triumph variations. Lay people don't care.

also, you clearly have never been part of the discussions regarding the philosophies behind booking the castle. The various bookers over the year do know that some of the acts are hack, and they try to pick acts to avoid multiple performers doing the same tricks. (This does not always work.).

If your position were correct, it wouldn't matter if two acts each did sraightjackets on the same night. If their routines were different, it shouldn't matter.

But it does.

Which is why its considered to be a problem and to be avoided.

Talk to lovick about it. He has very strong and well founded opinions on this, honed in the real world of the theater and not magic shows for magicians.

Or talk to Max. He had very clear opinions about these issues. Or talk to Armstrong or some of the other members of the boards. I think you have a misunderstanding of what a lot of the people making decisions are thinking and drawing conclusions about the world from this fundamentally inncorrect misperception.

So that's one douche booker, for one cruise line. You get them. Just like you get diva magicians who are convinced that their crap doesn't stink. Getting booked in magic is a marketing and sales game. And sales Brad is about numbers. My only reply to this booker is "next".

The booker in the story is indicitive of the attitude many people in show biz have regarding magicians.

Audiences generalize. That's why when they see a bad magician they think 'magic doesn't work for our group' but a bad singer is just one bad singer.

Say next all you want. You'll be saying next a lot.


Your experiences may have yet to expose you to these attitudes, but that doesn't mean they aren't commonly held. You may not want to believe me, but I've been around this block a lot longer than you have. Was I happy with this revelation? No. But I'm not going to stick my fingers in my ears and yell na na na na.

Stick around another decade. Then get back to me.

And yes, sales can be about numbers, if all you are is a commodity. Nothing wrong with pumping out low dollar shows and making it up in volume.

But I don't think were selling widgets here. And while there are many hack and copyist acts who do a lot of shows - they often do them just once. Stand on a corner screaming loud enough, long enough and people will pay just to shut you up. Doesn't mean your an artist, a good craftsman, or doing any good for the perception of magic.

But again, this misses the point. If -I- want to try to set myself apart as different, should we encourage people to jeopardize my efforts WHEN THERE IS NO REASON IN THE WORLD THEY _NEED_ TO BE DOING ANY OF MY UNIQUE MATERIAL (ORIGINAL OR DISCOVERED). There's enough already out there. Why do you have to take what I'd discovered?

I don't think anyone should not perform a strait jacket JUST because someone else did it first. That's assinine. Buy your jacket, perform it, and grow with it as you find a way to alter, change, or create your own presentation and character.

If I perform a strait jacket escape as is. An escape, am I original? No. I'm not. But I'm not pulling ducks out of the jacket, That belongs to Andrew Goldenhersh, Nor am I escaping it while balancing on a surf board balanced on top of a cylinder drum. That belongs to Farrell Dillan. As I've performed it, I've evolved it into the video you see in the misc section where I do a trust fall with the spectator with them blind folded. Which I am very glad to say I've never seen done by anyone else. Now I'm in position to make a claim (after doing some research to validate) that this is MY personal handling of the classic escape.

If some one see's me do a strait jacket and adds one to their show. Great. More power to them. I don't care. But if they start doing trust falls, then I of course would be pissed. If they started to produce ducks, then Andrew would be upset, and if they started to escape balanced on a surf board then I'm sure Farrell would have something to say to them. I am not wrong for my opinion as you were quick to make note in a previous post. It is after all just an opinion.

None of this has anything to do with anything, other than you sharing your process.

The straight jacket is a classic and something people will discover in there most rudimentary research. No one is saying you can't do a classic.

My point regards obscure material unearthed by a performer NOT in the magic mainstream.

Having said that there ARE two issues with the jacket. 1) it is so overdone that, while a classic, it is also hack. Bookers feel this way. The reason they feel this way happened to underscore my point which is most people assume that changing a line here and there, or combining lines from a dozen other performers makes them original, unique, or commercially 'different'. We may think so, they don't. (Ala your copperfield/angel analogy). To bookers straight jackets escapes are interchangeable. You may want to believe yours isn't, but that the naivity and passion of your relative youth and experience.

The second point the jacket makes is that performers canabalizing other peoples choices leads people to think of what was once a showstopping headlining act as 'just another guy who went to a magic shop.'

Can a talented person work to try to overcome this.

Of course.

But WHY are we encouraging a community to make choices which force those who did the work in the first place to work even harder? Why do you insist on punishing the people that set the trends. Why can't we encourage people to make choices that sets them apart from others? Is reading a book really so much of an investment we can't do it? Are we so lazy we have to take the work of others and screw them in return?

Here's the problem, draven, you have more experience than many on these boards, but a lot of the advice you have given in various threads belies an immature understanding of some of the bigger issues and realities with which one contends. I appreciate that you want to help. And I wish there was a nicer way to say it, but your advice suggests your experiences are far more limited than you might be aware.

 

[Brad Henderson]

Not really. He still found my source now didn't he? So I served as a source of inspiration? Props. Again, I feel like a broken records, If I change the presentation or other wise make the effect unique to my character, or person, and provided that my act is indeed unique, AND he's not coping ME then what right do I have to care? I don't. I'm protective of the effects that I create, the style that I perform, and the uniqueness of my presentations. I can care less how many people perform the Human Blockhead, save for if we're on the same bill. If you and me are both doing the Human Blockhead AND we're both working the same stage on the same night, then obviously one of us must yield. But that's just a bridge that must be crossed as it comes up.

the block head is a classic. I am NOT talking about classics or hack material. Again you fail to grasp that.

I am talking about non-mainstream ideas sought and discovered which actually DO set someone apart.

Why should anyone be allowed to take ANY of that.

Even if you change the words or the funny hat, its still creating a copy. Shouldn't the performer who did the work get a say in the matter? Is everyones act fair game for you? How is the copying of ANY element of a performers work fair to the performer or good for magic?

Brad if everyone on this world shared your same narrow minded concept for magic presentation then we'd all live in a little box, only coming out once in a while to perform ONLY at our own shows, and never do any research that wouldn't require self study. It doesn't work like that. Inspiration doesn't only work like that. We're social animals, we live in a social world, and thanks to the internet that world's getting very very small. To a lesser point if everyone shared you're point of view, we'd have a HELL of a lot fewer magic performers out there in the world. Professional, amateur, and hobbyist alike. Or is that your point? Are you trying to suggest that you think that our fraternity is over populated?

How is what I'm suggesting limiting magic? Using other peoples acts as the source of your work creates a world where everyone is doing the same five tricks - or variations there of. THAT is a little box!

There is so much magic published that its a shame we see the same tired ideas over and over again

But that's not my point

The real shame is that even when someone tried to do something different - something rare - that you actively support people's attempt to dilute it through replication and shove them into the box with everyone else.

Why can't we let people who are doing different things keep them for themself?

Are we that jealous, that lazy, that entitled?!?

No, it just means that they are trying to relate my show to something they already know to start up conversation and relate me to previous experiences. Criss Angel is just one of the most marketed and known names of a magician to a layman. If some layman came up to me and told me that my act reminded them of Doc Eason, or Derek DelGadio THEN I'd have reason to worry.

Are you wilfully trying to misconstrue my words. I never suggested the blanket comparison. I am talking about when people say - I saw criss angel do that on tv'. If that's true - or even if they THINK its true - then that means your work is putting magic into that tiny box where everything is the same.

Do we really want to do that?

Why don't you talk to delgaudio about this? Ask him what he thought of the two most recent magicians who coopted part of ricky's act - even though they changed it a little.

 

[Brad Henderson]

(Continued From Above...)


The reality of it is that it CAN be. 20 years ago Brad you may have been able to get away with that, but we live in a new world. The information age. People aren't idiots (for the most part). If they want to know something bad enough they just go to Google. ta-dah. No mystery anymore. If we want to survive as an art form, fraternity, and even culture we MUST adapt and change with the times. You removed a good worker from your act JUST because some other guy did it on TV? 1) Either you're running stock material and shame on you for that, or 2) you're being overly pretentious about something that maybe isn't THAT big of a deal. Sure I can understand not performing it for a bit, but if I am correct, and you make it sound so, never performing it again is extreme. Hell-ah extreme to just make a point. No one actually believes we have magical powers. It is a commodity. Your job is to entertain them. From the time you take the stage to the time you leave it your job is to entertain. If you can get them to suspend their belief in reality for those few moments then good for you. You earned a paycheck. But it's absurd to try and control what they think or do after they leave your show. If you did that poor of a job entertaining Joe Schmo, and he REALLY wants to figure out what trick you did, regardless if it be for personal enlightenment or if he wants to add it to his act, you're foolish to think that anything will stop him. The ONLY way to prevent that is to only perform 100% original work that you created, and then NEVER release your work to the public. IF you really don't want magic to be such a commodity then you, and everyone else you know shouldn't be releasing magic to be purchased. The minute you put a product out on that open market, your now contributing to the very problem you protest against.

Again, missed point.

This has nothing to do with people doing tricks someone has released. If I put it out and you see me do it, its yours.

This has NOTHING to do with laypeople figuring out tricks. It has to do with the perception that all magicians do the same things.

I'm not talking about healed and sealeds. I'm talking about material that clearly most magicians have never heard of. The kind of stuff you DON'T find on the internet.

I had one of those. It wasn't a hundred years old. The creator released it and sold a few dozen. I performed it every show. I never saw or hard of another magician doing it.

The 'other guy' as you call him was copperfield. When he was the only game in town, everyone who liked magic (you know, the people likely to hire me) would watch his show.and they did.

Now when they see me do this trick whose trick do they think it is?

Be realistic.

Sure I could have kept it in the act, but it takes away from his performance as it suggests this 'thing' is something anyone can buy and do. While true, how is that good for magic? How is that good for me trying to create a demand for my own work apart from being an interchangeble magic boy with all the others out there?

If that's what you want to be, then you are right, it doesn't matter.

But because you don't care doesn't mean I shouldn't either.

Likewise, keeping the trick in the act would be bad for me as I would always be seen as the guy doing HIS trick.

Is that a powerful position for any artist or performer in which to place him or herself?

In the long run, it was easier to dump the trick.

Now, do I need to dump it forever? Ethically, no. Copperfield even released his handling.

But artistically it would be advisable to wait until such a time that it has been forgotten in the public eye (which is now) and there is little risk he would do it again

But ultimately I've moved on.

But shouldn't that be my choice, not yours?

If someone seeks out this material, why are you supporting the 'community's right' to
I'm willing to bet he doesn't do anything that I can't find in Expert at the Card Table, Tarbell, or anything put out by Vernon.


And it wasn't even his! By your own logic he should be damned to the 9th pit of hell for doing Sam the Bellhop on TV. He didn't change the patter at all, he didn't even invent the trick. All he did was add a bunch of expert cuts, and false shuffles into it, which jazzed up the presentation. Until that time Sam the Bellhop was only an overlooked throw away party gag.

[\QUOTE]

Again, missed point

Nothing wrong with doing a published effect. Hell, THAT'S WHAT IM ADVOCATING!!!!!!

Read that again please

Bill found the trick and had the vision to see its merit when no one else did. (Or he saw frank and asked permission - either is fine).

The issues isn't with bill choosing to do a published trick! Read that again. No circles of hell.

The issue is with everyone watching bill work (before he gave permission through publication) and rationalizing their theft by saying 'well, its in print'.

So what, you didnt know it even existed until bill - who found it, took it, and made it his unique selling point - showed it to you.

You are taking bill's work. You didn't do ANYTHING!

In this post, draven, you manage to take my point and flip its meaning 180 degrees. You missed the point completley. I will restate;

You can do any trick in the world that you find on your own - published or self invented.

If you see a magician do a trick that he sells, then you have permission to do it.

The problem comes when you see a magician perform something 'new'to you and then decide to take ANY PART of it without permission. The trick, the presentation, the effect - any of it. It doesn't matter if the trick is in print. You didn't find it. You didn't have the artistic vision. If you see someone else perform something seemingly UNIQUE (not hack, not classic) and you want to do it, then you should ask them.

It doesn't matter of the trick is a hundred years old.

Allow me to paraphrase jason england:

Indiana Jones tracks down a treasure. He fights the bats. The bugs, the natives. He gets into the cave and retrieves the idol.

He retrieves it, outruns the big rock, and walks into the jungle. He found something no one even knew existed. He didn't forge it. He found it.

Then, out of the jingle appears a 'pirate' who holds him at gunpoint and takes the gold from him.

Its theft.

The idol wasn't forged by indy, but he did the work to find it.

The pirate just followed in his footsteps, stepped over the defused traps and stole the product of someones vision and labor.

That's what youre advocating, draven. Who cares what work the trailblazers/researchers endured in order to find the treasure. If you want it, you feel its ok to take it.

I find this offensive and untenable. (Please see jason's original write up). He said it much better. (And before you say what I know your going to say, referencing someone's philosphical thoughts are not the same as taking their trick, discovered or otherwise )

Sam is a published effect. 2. You buy it, you can perform it. 3. Should you perform it on TV? No. Not unless you completely reinvent the trick, as you pointed out. It's been done. Then again, how many people is the TV angle going to apply to anyways? Really? 4. If it gets the guy booked, props. 5. Does that mean that Doc Eason is wrong for doing Sam? I happen to like his performance better than Malones. [\QUOTE]

And again, miss the point. Doc did not do sam because he saw bill do it first. He knew bill and other story decks for years. Why? Because he reads.

Do any trick in the world you want. Just make sure its the product of your own work or vision or research and not someone elses

6. At the end of the day Bill the "copyist" is probably not ever going to work in any capacity that is going to interfere with your work, your area, or your bookings. Bill is probably never going to work main stream and be in front of other magicians all that much. So at the end of the day, it's probably going to work out well for him, and you'll never notice either.
[\QUOTE]

Actually bill and I do work for the same types of events and even the same clients. We've even done shows together.

if all you aspire to is working for a niche market in your local town then ultimately you may never run into anyone who can compare you to bill, but that's a lousy excuse for an artistic choice so devoid of any value or merit, no?

But ultimately, shouldn't bill have a say. Its his discovery. Should he be allowed to show it wherever he wants. Should we encourage others to 'burn the lot' before he even arrives?

 

[Brad Henderson]

No. I haven't just made your point. I wouldn't change anything regardless of known presence of other magicians in my act. I wouldn't suffer my real audience (the laymen) that injustice. I just know of a magician, whose name escapes me at the minute, who is a rabid advocate of that belief. I don't agree with it, and regard him with as much attention as I do with left or right wing extremist. Which is needless to say, avoidance as if he had the plague.
[\QUOTE]

This may be your lack of experience showing again. MANY magicians worry about this issue and the fact you even know about it from one person proves that magicians DO care about the material they present the the uniqueness there of. Your awareness of the issue proves my point, not your choices per se. (The world is bigger than you are mr draven. You and steer are similar in this regard).

You are saying with your position that because you don't care, they shouldn't.

Arrogance of the highest order.

Your saying with your position that the desires of the copyist should outweigh that of the researcher.

How very very sad.

Nope. I guess NFL teams should ask the other teams if they can review video footage of previous performances. Or perhaps actors should ask other actors if they can watch their performances of a certain character when studying for a part? How about comedians who watch other comedians to better understand their own style, timing, and delivery? Oh I'm sure we should then also burn every American Idol contestant at the stake because they're obviously not singing their own original work. While I'm there, why not also condemn every music artist who watches others perform to better refine their own technique?

[\QUOTE]missed point again

I DONT CARE THAT PEOPLE USE NON ORIGNAL MATERIAL. I am adcovating that!!!

I am also not talking about studying other performers in order to improve performance skills. In fact, that's the ONLY THING you should take from another performer.

Steal the way max gives instructions so clearly. Copy the slavish attention to consistency of action demonstrated in the work of bob white. Figure out how to build and hold the energy of the room the way williamson or malone manage it. Study the perfectionism of copperfield and add it to your act tomorrow.

Just don't take their tricks.

Ever talk to a comic about people stealing lines or premises? They don't like it. Trust me

But ultimately songs and jokes are not magic. We expect people to sing the same songs.we don't think less of a singer for doing songs we've heard before. After you spend more time in the biz, you'll learn that the attitude of the bookers I related is the norm.
And guess what, if a singer doesn't want you to sing their song, professionally, you can't. Or at least you have to pay for it. That's the equivalent of asking permission.

Why can't we do that for magic?

Because people covet. Because they have a sense of entitlement. They don't care about the art or those that did the work or research, all they care about is their own selfish needs and reward.

If you look at other magicians as a competing team and your goal is to make the sale then it makes sense to copy them. It makes sense to be as similar as possible. It makes sense to force them into the box where you are.

Dude seriously. You're an elitist. We are sorely at an impasse here. I'm not going to convince you to change your ways just as much as you're not going t get me to budge. We both believe we have the moral high ground. As I've already stated 100 times by now. UNLESS THE DUDE IS COPYING YOUR BLOODY WORK LINE FOR FREAKING LINE, WORD FOR WORD, STYLE FOR STYLE, BEAT FOR BEAT AND PATTER FOR PATTER THAT IS UNIQUE TO YOU BECAUSE YOU CREATED IT THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER! (see I can type in all caps to.)

Feel proud that you inspired the next generation to maybe consider trying something they may not have considered before and be done with it. Protect only what intellectual property is your to protect, and leave others alone.


Yes, we can both agree to that. HOWEVER, I go further to say that it doesn't mean just because person A is doing an Ambitious Card Routine, that person B shouldn't. Person B just needs to find his own voice and make sure his routine isn't Person A's.

Again, you have missed my point many times. (And here again, not about classics!!!)

But to this last claim - why should I be your inspiration? Shouldn't I get to decide that, not you?


Be a pirate. Wait for the indiana jones of our art to trek into the jungle, take the risk, do the work. Follow them. And when they don't think you are watching, take the treasures they uncovered.

That's what you're advocating

You just can't see beyond your own self focused idealism to realize it.

P.s. Typed in all thumbs on blackberry. Will name my carpal tunnel after you!

 

[William Draven]

I agree that we've disagreed.

There. Problem solved. when i get back to a computer ill put in a more thought out reply.

im not going to attempt it on my little verizon envy.

 

[Brad Henderson]

We can't agreto disagree when. Have yet to agree we are looking at the same issue. That is the biggest problem we face now. Not talking about hack stock or classic. Talking about obscure and discovered being taken by poachers.

And you shared that you have never gone through the jungle. Your act is standard material (with your personaility overlayed). Until you have decided that uniqueness is important, until you have put in the investment of time and money, until you have had someone come along and simply take your treasure from you, you can't really know what it feels like I'm guessing.

Some day you might, then we can talk.

In the meantime, try not to assume because you don't think it would bother you that it wouldn't or shouldn't bother someone else. That's myopic and ego centric.

If people want to try to do unique material (invented or discovered) then we should encrouahe that, yes or no?

Is it right to support people intentionally trying to dilute their uniqueness?

Again, not talking about linking rings and acr. Talking about rare ideas mined from history. If someone finds one, why can't we let them keep it? There are nore out there - like on the next page of the book they found it in!!!!!

 

[worldwideme]

I agree that we've disagreed.

There. Problem solved. when i get back to a computer ill put in a more thought out reply.

im not going to attempt it on my little verizon envy.

Brad he was just saying that he wasnt going to reply full out to your points at this point, he typed that message from a cell phone, and wants to wait till he has a computer to flesh out his thoughts.

 

[Brad Henderson]

I understood that. (And respect that - sore thumbs here). However I wanted to clarify the importance of first insuring we are talking about the same conditions (which clearly we weren't) before moving on to any disagreements on those conditions.

 

[S.G]

Just wondering, why does everything that Brad says need to be countered? Couldn't we have just ignored his initial post and just kept going?

-G

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Because he made good points and I like to discuss things. Having your point of view and your beliefs questioned is a good thing. It either reinforces your thoughts with valid examination, or lets you know that you are wrong.

 

[Randy]

Whats silly about this topic is it went from a guy asking about a Mentalism effect AND getting the answer to it.

To Brad and William arguing over their different opinions. It's just kind of sad that this is pretty common place here.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Yes, it went from a lame, easily researched question that didn't need to be asked, to an interesting discussion about the various ethical models in operation in the world of magic.

Darn.

 

[Luis Vega]

Yes, it went from a lame, easily researched question that didn't need to be asked, to an interesting discussion about the various ethical models in operation in the world of magic.

Darn.

I think the same...

it`s an epic thread!!!

 

[Brad Henderson]

Thanks guys.

To me this is an important topic and worthy of constant re-examination. I think the reason it becomes heated is because of the implications if one or another position became prevalent. How would it affect the way we think about our material and in how we find material. Would it make it harder or easier more ir less fun to be a 'magician' if looking to others acts for our tricks was held in disdain. And for some it reminds them of the feelings they've had when they've had the fruits of their research, thought and investment wrenched from them by a lazy copyist and then defended by those alledging to be artists.

 

[William Draven]

And for some it reminds them of the feelings they've had when they've had the fruits of their research, thought and investment wrenched from them by a lazy copyist and then defended by those alledging to be artists.

Brad, you take one more pop shot sucker punch at me like this again and we will be through with our "discussion" once and for all, and there will be no coming back to it. We can disagree. We can debate, and we can be civil about it. But the one thing I will not stand for is being slapped in my face like this.

Do I make myself perfectly clear?

I will patiently await your direct reply before I go any further responding to your other posts in this thread.

 

[RickEverhart]

Guys...I don't mind the discussion and varying opinions, but lets tone it down or I'll have to close the thread. Debates are fine but no jabs back and forth at each other.

 

[Brad Henderson]

Draven,

Your problem, again, is in assuming that everything is about you.

I was - and I have been throughout this entire thread (until now)- speaking to the larger issues and not the specifics of any one trick or idea (in spite of the way you have continually interpreted it.)

I am not, in that post, talking about YOU. I do not know that you indeed allege to be an artist. I do not need to know anything about you. This debate is not about you. It is about ideas. Your ideas and how you defend them determine their merit to me. Stop making this about YOU and YOUR PROCESS and what would bother YOU as if it were the same for everyone.

The world is bigger than your experience has led you to believe. (Yes, that is about you but germane to the point.)

I chose the term because 'artist' is a buzz word in Theory 11. The models here are 'artists.' That would imply that we all are striving for that as our goal - and many people here clearly have embraced that term as a moniker for what they do.

It is the community I am speaking of. A community of people who claim to aspire to artistry. A community in which many would and do support your view - which to me promotes the antithesis of art. (You are not alone in your view, Draven. You do a good job of promoting their common defenses and ideals. That is why it is important to me to discuss this, to clarify what I am speaking of, and express clearly the results of that path and those that work contrary to the promotion of artistry.

And that is the basis of the debate we are having. Which of our positions better serves the goal of artistry in magic?

Draven's - the one in which those striving for uniqueness - and using their brains to research hidden treasures to that end- run the risk of having those ideas taken from them simply because they were at one time "in print." Thereby forcing all performers inside the same little box of people who are all doing basically the same things - but with different jokes and hats.

Or mine, which suggests that people should look to their own taste and artistic vision for their ideas. Whether that vision is used to develop truly original works, or to seek out diamonds in the rough, that had been tossed away, lost and forgotten for years.

His suggests filtering your vision through the vision of another.

Mine requires discrimination yet by its nature drives people to different paths.

His encourages sameness. It's only a matter of degree.

Mine fosters the unique, the different, the magical.

Which one is better for "art."

You protesth too much, my friend.

Nothing is about you.

Ultimately, I'm not even interested in changing your mind. My concern is for those people who haven't made up their mind and are considering these issues in their own work.

Relax.

And I am sincerely sorry that phrase upset you. That was not my intent.

Brad